In our Information Science class today, we played an information scenario game for the Egyptian situation. In our outcome, the Mubarek government steps down, leaves the country and interim rule by ElBaradei is established. Elections to be held at a future date. My team, representing the U.S. interests via Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, suggested to Mubarek that this was not the preferred outcome.
There were 9 parties; 3 information outlets (twitter, vodaphone, aljerrza), 3 potential governments ( Mubarek, ElBaradei, radical Islamists), 3 voices (Egyptian army, Egyptian young radical movement, US). We were given 10 pages of information sources constituting hundreds of tweets, news articles, photos, etc. from across the internet.
Comments
Jeff March: If the leadership of the country falls into the hands of the muslim brotherhood, then that's bad news for everybody.
Jeff Nason: I agree that Muslim Bro is NOT our friend, but what is the preferred outcome your team argued for?
Ed: Jeff Nason, we talked about 30 yr alliance with Egypt, all Egyptian military is outfitted with US weaponry, and most of all $1.5B in aid yearly to a country with $166B GDP. In our mind, while revolution may be preferred, we would rather deal with the devil we already know. As Jeff March notes, a vacuum potentially filled with a radical extremist group such as the Muslim Brotherhood, is not in the US interests. Maybe the Nobel Prize winner ElBaradei is the answer, but remember, we were assigned the role of Clinton.
Sorry the hand you were dealt contained a Joker...he is 82 & until recently had made no provision for succession or alternate leadership after his demise. We never made it an issue until some form of democracy broke out. There is NO winning scenario for the US, just varying degrees of losing. I tend to prefer orderly transition with a requirement of democratic elections. We may not like what gets voted in, but it is better than what will happen if a complete revolt takes place or violent "containment" of the protest.
ReplyDeleteDo we truly believe the maxim in our Declaration of Independence, namely that God grants unalienable rights which include "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? If it true that it is God who grants these rights, who are we to oppose these rights for other nations?
ReplyDeleteThe problem with democracy -in all its genuine forms- is that it can quickly lead to nations which agree with the maxim, but hate our guts. Nevertheless, our 'prime directive' must be to champion liberty and the right of self determination. If we believe what we say, we take the risk, and deal with the consequences as they come.
The aftermath of WWII led to an abandonment of this ideal. Expediency has replaced it. Both political parties have supported a shameful list of thugs and despots. Its hard for others to believe we support human rights when we have readily supported folks like Idi Amin. He had a marvelous collection of human skin lampshades made from his political enemies.
Fickleness has consequences. In 1953, the people of Iran decided to do away with the Constitutional Monarchy and held democratic elections. Unfortunately for the US (and UK), the result was a parliament who decided to nationalize the oil industry. This was unacceptable, so Eisenhower had the CIA launch Operation Ajax. The spooks overthrew the government and hand-selected a two year puppet to run a military regime. After the two years passed, the Shaw resumed rule with enhanced powers that would make Hugo Chavez drool. The US directed the set up of a government to be a rubber-stamp to his rule. As a bonus, the CIA trained his secret police which he used with ruthless abandon.
The Persian people built a significant bitterness toward the West. It appears those crazy Iranians didn't like being tortured, and viewed the teacher as being virtually the same as the student. The bitterness made fertile ground for the Iranian Revolution. I submit that the US's headaches would have been far fewer had we worked with the new, democratically elected government.
Sadly we have become the laughingstock of the developing world. Our foreign policy is only as good as our checkbook. When the funds are cut (which they will have to be), our words will have no ears.
Mohammad ElBaradi is absolutely correct when he declared that "The US has no credibility". We must re-earn the credibility we had before 1945. This will take time and consistency.
In short, we should 'speak softly and carry a big stick'
Two excerpts from a NYT book review of Noam Chomsky's 'Failed States'. It's worth a read.
ReplyDelete---
At the book's center is the avowed American mission to spread democracy throughout the world. Chomsky concedes that, rhetorically at least, this has been the nation's goal since Woodrow Wilson, but he insists the words are utterly at odds with American deeds. In its many foreign interventions, Washington has acted to frustrate the will of the people, often by supporting those engaged in the most chilling violence. The United States has overthrown democratic governments in Iran, Chile, Guatemala "and a long list of others." Elsewhere it has paid lip service to procedural democracy while doing all it could to rig the outcome. There is, Chomsky says, a "rational consistency" to this inconsistency between words and actions. The record shows that the United States does indeed back democracy abroad — "if and only if it is consistent with strategic and economic interests."
...
Still, maybe it's sufficient for a prophet to tell the people they are in a wilderness; he shouldn't be expected to point the exact way out. Chomsky's ambitions, after all, are high enough. It's hard to imagine any American reading this book and not seeing his country in a new, and deeply troubling, light.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/books/review/25freedland.html
OK its going in my 'must read' list!
ReplyDelete