Egypt & The U.S.: The Faustian Pact

Egypt & The U.S.: The Faustian Pact
Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Germany
By Stefan Kornelius
Translated By Alex Wilkerson
31 January 2011
Edited by Michelle Harris

For too long, stability has been confused with stagnation: Washington bids farewell to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak— and also to the idea of being able to buy peace and influence with heads of state. The Western world must admit with shame that they have failed in Egypt.

The Cold War ended a good 20 years ago. Hosni Mubarak was already Egypt’s president for 10 years and a— if not the— central figure in the ploy for power and influence in the Middle East. The Cold War had not left much room for shades of gray; there was only black and white: my dictator or your dictator, my autocracy or your autocracy— in the struggle among the great blocs for influence and following there was only for or against. Mubarak dominated the play masterfully, particularly as he took over the key role in the ensuing act after the collapse of the old order: peace in the Middle East. Mubarak was a guarantee for stability, an anchor for the Arab world.

The self-liberation of the Tunisian and now the Egyptian citizens from their rulers and their decrepit systems now completes another infamous episode in satellite politics, which has in recent history caused harm far too often. The meager seesaw policy of Obama’s administration has shown this in the past few days. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called first for peace and levelheadedness, then fixed the White House in the abstract position that a people be allowed to voice their opinions and to demonstrate. Finally, ally Mubarak received clear admonition to silence his weapons and to allow peaceful transition into a new era. America has bid farewell to Mubarak.

The Obama administration must also take leave of the idea that they may purchase stability and permanent influence over heads of state. The notion of winning influence and political affection with $1.5 billion annually is all but washed up. Be it regimes in South America, or family clans such as the Marcos in the Philippines— in the end, the will of the people is stronger; no valve holds back the pressure in the boiler. No as-yet-comprehensible special interest policies can function if they disregard the archaic strengths of an oppressed people.

The satellite model is no American phenomenon. The U.S. is only particularly exposed because its arm extends exceedingly far. However, German foreign policy itself has trusted in Mubarak and accepted the deal that the leader offered: stability in the region and some hope for peace with Israel in return for keeping silent— holding one’s tongue on human rights, on political and societal modernization, on corruption and lack of transparency. The uprising in Egypt is not directed against the influence of foreign powers. That only plays a secondary role. The people in Cairo have their ruler set in their sights. The puppet state of the Mubarak regime is imprisoned by the old system and is now paying the price, even though the U.S. pressed Mubarak silently in recent months to open up the system and bestow freedoms.