In the wake of the recent protests against the Egyptian leader Mubarak, the dominant focus in the discourse over what position the U.S. should take is not surprisingly predictable: whatever suits our interests. Indeed, many pundits and commentators, as well as politicians, have spoken of the need to do what is best to protect our goals in the region. But for a country that prides itself on being a protector of liberty and freedom, why do we fail to notice the larger irony of such a stance: that perhaps the interests of the Egyptian people and their desires might not be the same as ours?
If we truly respected the sovereignty of the Egyptian people, wouldn't we respect whatever came of their movement? Or would we simply use it as an example to continue viewing the unfolding of world events as a plot against us, further separating our national identity from the context of a global one?
When the U.S. has meddled in affairs before, such as our instrumental role in the coup against the first democratically elected leader of Iran in 1953, we laid the groundwork for a brutal regime to take charge, setting the stage for the 1979 Iranian revolution that has led to the repressive reactionary regime existing today. When we set the stage for Saddam Hussein to become leader of Iraq to take on said Iranian regime, we set the groundwork for a repressive regime to contend with later. This is not to mention the other meddling we've perpetrated in Latin America and other areas abroad, along with the subsequent backlash it entailed.
A failure now to support the movement of a free Egypt would fly in the face of our dominant narrative that the U.S. is a force for democracy and freedom in the world. This does not necessarily mean direct intervention, but at times the humble and non-paternalistic approach of respecting the outcomes of world events. It was the power of Britain and the U.S., afraid of what outcomes the popular election in Iran would mean for its oil supplies that drove the coup of an elected leader. But surely many in the West would agree that our dependence on Middle Eastern oil has brought us much more international folly, which in most cases could have otherwise been avoided, than good.
Our country needs to rethink seriously its current approach to foreign policy that seems to lack context and understanding of its place in world events, and that does not view itself at the center of all things. It's time to revise our approach to foreign affairs and remove this antiquated, ethnocentric mindset that views the wants of the world as in line with ours, and if they aren't, then we ought to make it so. That isn't a country whose ideals line up with those of liberty and freedom. They line up more with hegemony and empire.
The wants and interests of a free Egypt, as it advances slowly (just as the West did) towards a more stable form of democracy, may not be the same interests as ours. It's time the United States, as well as much of the West, faced up to that and accepted it.
It is clear that the United States does not think of democracy as a high priority component of its foreign policy in the Middle East. As Malcolm X would have said "The chickens are coming home to roost." The United States is finding itself in a difficult situation which is the very result of its policies in Egypt. It decided to support a dictatorship in exchange for "stability." And history has taught us, no dictatorship lasts forever. Now, that the people of Egypt have had enough and are demanding real change, the US has no choice but to give the appearance of being on the side of democracy. The paranoia of the United Sates and the West in general, of the Muslim Brotherhood taking advantage of this situation is the result of Mubarak's persecution of the opposition. The reason why it seems like there's not a well established democratic opposition is precisely because of this. I read an article on the Huffington Post explaining how if dissidents gathered together at a cafe to express their displeasure with the regime, the government would just shut down the cafe but you can not shut down Mosques. They're greatly exaggerating the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood and making it out to be an extension of Al Qaeda when in fact Al Qaeda considers the Muslim Brotherhood "sell outs." As always, the United States only accepts democracy when and if it conforms to strategic and economic interests. "American Exceptionalism", what a fucking farce.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. "Democractic nations" or "hope for Democracy" in American rhetoric seems to be a thinly veiled way to discuss those who bend over (or who we think will bend over) to take the hegemonic cultural and environmental rape of the West (and in this case, the U.S.)
ReplyDeleteAnytime I hear some person rant on about American Exceptionalism, it taints that word 'American' for me more and more.