I'll be discussing this article, and the protests in Egypt in general today.
Even as the protests in Egypt gains more and more popular support (as shown by the apparent support of the Egyptian Army), the question remains: what does this mean for the rest of the world? The United States in particular has helped prop up the Mubarak regime for the last 30 years, and the Obama administration is now in a particularly difficult position; do they continue supporting what has been a US (Policy) Friendly regime, or do they herald the popular movement as a legitimate and valid expression of discontent? So far, the response from the State department has been tepid, at best. This response is somewhat understandable, considering the realities of foreign policy and the global community. Responsible First World nations are expected to keep their promises to their allies and maintain good relationships with long-time partners, so it is perhaps no small wonder that there has been little official response aside from general wishes for a quick resolution and little bloodshed.
But Egyptians are not taking this as a sign of good faith. Instead, the USA's history in the area speaks louder than any monologic (to use a term from Arsenault and Cowen's "Three Layers of Public Diplomacy") statements the State department might make, short of explicit and tangible support for the protesters. According to the above article, the Egyptian citizens are outraged at the US for supporting Mubarak, with the plain evidence of such on each and every rubber bullet and tear gas canister that are launched at the crowds. If the United States wants to save some face in this situation, it will need to step up and not only take back control of its monologic statements (of which the casings sadly fall under), but it will need to create actual dialogue with the protesters - proving that it is listening to their desires and needs, and not just covering its own interests. While I'm sure that the State department is working to formulate policy when/if Mubarak is removed from power, it might behoove them to start supporting the popular movement now, before the opportunity for a new start is lost.
Great post, Geoff! I've been tossing some of these thoughts around in my own head, and I think you said it really well. So my question for the day is this: If dialogue and collaboration aren't really viable options, and monologue is limited by "the realities of foreign policy and the global community," making it difficult to take sides, what options remain?
ReplyDelete