(This is a Role Play Memo as a State Department Official)
Summary: President Obama should support democracy in Egypt because:
I. Legitimate and stable Egyptian regime is the best way to secure American interests in Egypt and in the greater Middle East. The tragedy of suppression of democracy, as it happened in Iran, must be avoided.
II. These uprisings offer a unique opportunity for democratization of Egypt. Losing this opportunity could have devastating effects on American interests in Egypt and the Middle East.
III. What we face in Egypt is a popular and legitimate uprising, stronger than it could be silenced, wider than it could be bought off, and with consequences that cannot be postponed at this stage.
IV. Popular demands for representation have united the people of Egypt irrespective of internal differences. Determination and a sense of achievement drive these demands. America must stand on the right side as Egypt moves towards democratization.
Recommendation: President Obama should stand behind the legitimate aspirations of the people of Egypt for democracy. “Change” must come: Egypt should not become Iran II.
Reasons:
I. United States is perceived to have sided with authoritarianism in the Middle East for years, by providing financial support to Arab regimes such as that of Egypt. (Stepan & Robertson, 42) We also know that the suppression of democracy in Iran in 1953 has had dreadful consequences. The United States must not repeat the same tragedy in Egypt. We must remember that Egypt does not begin and end with Mubarak. The results of these protests - which seem inevitable at this stage considering Mubarak’s inability to “buy-off” an entire nation - will have far greater legitimacy, and thus people’s support. This will, consequently, lead to the establishment of a more legitimate government than those formed after rigged elections such as that of 1995, where 94% of People’s Assembly seats went to Mubarak’s party. (Stepan & Robertson, 39) A decision to support legitimate regime change can better serve American interests in Egypt in particular, and in the Middle East in general.
II. For ages, Egypt has been under continued dictatorial rule of military leaders such as Muhammad Ali, Gemal Abdul Nasser and Hosni Mubarak. Considering the history of Middle East and the manner by which states were born in this region, as Fromkin explains, this might be Egypt’s first and unique most opportunity to achieve a regime change which is based on people’s choice, and not imposed by a colonizer, foreign subsidies, or oil rentierism. (Ross & Herb) Life does not offer opportunities in a row. United States must not lose this opportunity to support the people of Egypt in their struggle for democratization.
III. This movement cannot be contained in a controlled military shell anymore. It has grown beyond such boundaries both in terms of size and scope for action. Supporting Mubarak is not an option because it would simply mean postponing the task of addressing a challenge that exists and has surfaced enough that it cannot be denied any more. The uprising bears immense popular legitimacy and cannot be silenced, nor could its consequences be postponed. This is a challenging reality for the American leadership, which it must acknowledge and address right way.
IV. Egypt has changed. This change is evident in the current wave of protests, which has brought together the people of Egypt, irrespective of class, religious, gender or age differences. Contrary to Kuran’s judgment of Middle East, today’s Egypt no more sings along the lines of who did this to us. How do we make it right is the theme of their slogans. Lustick may have been right: foreign intervention contributed to lack of progress in the Middle East. But Egyptians have refused to look outside anymore; they are looking within. Therefore, the United States should not fall for the mistake of underestimating the Egypt of 2011, which is not the Egypt of 1798. Today, Egypt knows its “revolutionary slogan” very well. (Landes, 403) This is a serious process of change from inside that is determined to achieve its goal. Egypt may well be shifting its national perceptions of the notions of independence and representation. We better be on the right side of this shift once it happens.
Conclusion: In 2002 Bernard Lewis presented the people of the Middle East with two choices of continued hatred or “common creative endeavor.” It seems that some nations in the Middle East took this very seriously, Egypt being one of them. Egypt is proving to possess exactly what Belfour thought it does not: “traces of self-government.” These demonstrations are much more than mere “traces of self-government.” (Said, 32)
The United States also has two options. On one side is the awakened Egyptian population with aspirations for “self-government” and democracy. On the other is an outdated autocracy. On one side is future of Egypt earned by its own people through a “common creative endeavor.” On the other is 30 years of rule earned by corruption, despotism and suppression. This is history in the making. Let us be part of it, and let us be the right part.