Posted: 04/29/2008
EGYPT: BETWEEN THE DEVIL AND THE DEEP BLUE SEA
By Barry Rubin
Egyptian President Husni Mubarak is 80. After over a quarter-century in office he is ready for more. But how much longer will his rule—or regime—continue?
And under him, Egypt has not done so badly, or has it?
Well that depends. He has kept Egypt stable and out of war, no mean feat, and even delivered a bit of economic development, though recently there have been bread riots. But there has been no big improvement.
One is reminded of the old Egyptian joke where the president’s chauffer explains the difference among his last three bosses. Gamal Abdel Nasser (1952-1970) always turned left; Anwar al-Sadat (1970-1981) always turned right. Mubarak ordered: signal left, signal right, then park.
Has Egypt been parked for the last 27 years? In some respects, yes. Being parked is better than getting run down by a speeding auto, though not better than making steady progress. Rights have been limited and suppression periodic. Yet this falls well short of the police states ruling in Syria and, formerly, Iraq. Corruption is astronomical.
I can’t talk about the ambiguity of Mubarak’s regime without thinking of that great old Harold Arlen and Ted Koehler song, first recorded by Cab Calloway’s orchestra in 1931. It begins: “I don't want you, But I hate to lose you, You've got me in between the devil and the deep blue sea.”
For his own people, Israel, and the United States (or the West in general), Mubarak’s government is most unsatisfactory in very many ways. Egyptians face mismanagement and limits on freedom. Israel has a peace but a cold one. The United States and the West gets nominal cooperation from Cairo coupled with the government’s lavish use of anti-Americanism, radical Arab nationalism, and even Islamist rhetoric to keep the masses mobilized on its side.
Still, what’s the alternative: violent instability or a radical Islamist revolution? Or is there a realistic hope of something better, of a moderate democratic state? Here, good intentions or wishful thinking should never be given precedent over realistic appraisal.
In assessing a political situation, one should always remember politics is the art of the possible. Egypt is a country with “too many” people and not enough resources. There are no easy solutions.
“I ought to cross you off my list, But when you come knocking at my door,
Fate seems to give my heart a twist, And I come running back for more,” sang Calloway.
After all, that heart-twisting fate involves things like Hamas’s takeover, Iraq’s internal war, Hizballah’s aggression, and Iran’s expansionism plus nuclear weapons’ drive. We are used to thinking of Egypt as the most important of all Arab countries, and that’s still true relatively speaking though far less than a decade or two or three ago.
By the force of realpolitik, the foreigners conclude about Mubarak’s regime (Calloway again): “I should hate you, But I guess I love you, You've got me in between the devil and the deep blue sea.”
Thus, the West and Israel keep hoping. Maybe Egypt will restrain Hamas in the Gaza Strip and give vigorous backing to a serious peace process. Or possibly Cairo will lead a moderate Arab coalition against the forces of the Iran-Syria led HISH (Hamas-Iran-Syria-Hizballah alliance. A Muslim government official recently told me he calls them, the Addams family). After all, these actions are in Egypt’s own interests, aren’t they?
Egypt’s interests, though, are in playing both sides simultaneously to the greatest extent possible. An Egyptian diplomat actually told me not long ago that he had advised Israeli Arabs to pretend to be good citizens and demand to join the army so they could better subvert the country. State-owned Egyptian newspapers blame all the terrorism in Iraq on American conspiracies.
Meanwhile, though, the Muslim Brotherhood is going to top-quality tailors to design its sheep’s’ clothing so that it can better wolf down Egypt. Credulous, or ill-intentioned, Westerners are all-too-willing to accept that the country’s Islamist brothers are really moderates. It’s easy to do that, just ignore their program and everything they say in Arabic. Just because they don’t like the competition—al-Qaida or Iran—doesn’t make them moderates.
There is a decent, moderate, democratic-minded opposition. But it is far too weak and poorly organized. Even the main “reformist” group has now been taken over by the Brotherhood. Who would you bet on in a showdown? No contest.
So what comes next? Gamal Mubarak, the president’s 45-year-old son, who is deputy secretary-general of the ruling National Democratic Party? Perhaps some ex-general turned provincial governor or another official?
In social terms, the country is becoming increasingly “Islamic” according to the more restrictive standards demanded by Islamists. Does that mean a political swing as well? Not necessarily but the danger bears close watching. Egypt is famous for muddling through. That’s the most likely outcome but nobody should be too complacent in assuming that’s the way things have to be.
Professor Barry Rubin,
Director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloriacenter.org
Editor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal http://meria.idc.ac.il
Editor, Turkish Studies
Distributed by www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com
Read and post feedback
Disclaimer: Worldview Weekend, Christian Worldview Network and its columnists do not necessarily endorse or agree with every opinion expressed in every article posted on this site. We do however, encourage a healthy and friendly debate on the issues of our day. Whether you agree or disagree, we encourage you to post your feedback by using the feedback button.
373 Views
Printer Friendly Version |
E-mail this article to a friend |
Return to home
|
