Ein Blog über Religion und Politik

Was Obama für Ägypten tun muss

Von 30. Januar 2011 um 17:27 Uhr

Marc Lynch (Experte für arabische Medien und die Muslimbrüder) bewertet in seinem Blog auf Foreign Policy die Ägypten- Politik der Obama-Regierung recht freundlich:

It’s crucial to understand that the United States is not the key driver of the Egyptian protest movement. They do not need or want American leadership — and they most certainly are not interested in “vindicating” Bush’s freedom agenda or the Iraq war, an idea which almost all would find somewhere between laughable, bewildering, and deeply offensive. Suspicion of American intentions runs deep, as does folk wisdom about decades of U.S. collaboration with Mubarak. They are not really parsing Hilary Clinton’s adjectives. Their protest has a dynamic and energy of its own, and while they certainly want Obama to take their side forcefully and unequivocally they don’t need it.

What they do need, if they think about it, is for Obama to help broker an endgame from the top down — to impose restraints on the Egyptian military’s use of violence to repress protests, to force it to get the internet and mobile phones back online, to convince the military and others within the regime’s inner circle to ease Mubarak out of power, and to try to ensure that whatever replaces Mubarak commits to a rapid and smooth transition to civilian, democratic rule. And that’s what the administration is doing. The administration’s public statements and private actions have to be understood as not only offering moral and rhetorical support to the protestors, or as throwing bones to the Washington echo chamber, but as working pragmatically to deliver a positive ending to a still extremely tense and fluid situation.

I completely understand why activists and those who desperately want the protestors to succeed would be frustrated — anything short of Obama gripping the podium and shouting “Down With Mubarak!” probably would have disappointed them. But that wasn’t going to happen, and shouldn’t have. If Obama had abandoned a major ally of the United States such as Hosni Mubarak without even making a phone call, it would have been irresponsible and would have sent a very dangerous message to every other U.S. ally. That doesn’t mean, as some would have it, that Obama has to stick with Mubarak over the long term — or even the weekend — but he simply had to make a show of trying to give a long-term ally one last chance to change.

The key to the administration’s emerging strategy is the public and private signal that this is Mubarak’s last chance, that the administration does not expect him to seize it, and that the U.S. has clear expectations of those who might succeed him. The key line in his remarks here is this:

“When President Mubarak addressed the Egyptian people tonight, he pledged a better democracy and greater economic opportunity. I just spoke to him after his speech and I told him he has a responsibility to give meaning to those words, to take concrete steps and actions that deliver on that promise.”

This is not the language of capitulation to Mubarak’s empty promises of reform. It’s a pretty sharp challenge to him to demonstrate serious change immediately, which in no way commits to backing Mubarak if he fails to do so. And comments made by various administration officials suggest that they don’t really expect him to be able to deliver. This blunt conditionality has to be understood in tandem with White House Spokseman Robert Gibbs’ carefully chosen words that U.S. economic and military aid to Egypt would now be reviewed — a direct, almost unprecedented form of pressure on Egypt for which many democracy activists have clamored for years to no avail.

It’s also crucial that the U.S. is signaling directly and clearly to the Egyptian military that the administration will not accept a massive, bloody escalation in repressive force. Secretary of State Clinton’s statement well-crafted message yesterday morning, reinforced by Gibbs and then Obama, was important: not just wringing their hands over the violence, as many seem to think, but sending a pretty clear and strong signal to the Egyptian army about American red lines. That might not be as morally satisfying as the more “full blooded” language which many would like to hear, but in the end it is likely to be crucial to brokering a decent endgame.

What happens next? I really don’t think that Mubarak’s gambit of dismissing the government is going to work. The protestors want to be rid of him, not of a faceless government of technocrats. His speech last night had an air of desperation, disconnect and delusion which will only feed the protests. Al-Jazeera has been filling up with prominent Egyptian figures disparaging Mubarak, and there’s a palpable sense of people positioning themselves for a new era. It isn’t over yet — Mubarak is likely calculating that if he can survive only a few more days, the protest fever will break and he can go back to the old status quo. It’s not like he had much legitimacy or popular support before these protests, and his regime has long been comfortable ruling without it. But the rush of events has a feel of finality to it. It’s hard to believe, and it’s far from certain even now, but as an accelerated Ben Ali script plays out it really is possible that Mubarak could be gone by tonight.

Vollkommen anderer Meinung ist Elliot Abrams in der Washington Post. Seine Schlußfolgerung: George W. Bush (für den er einmal als stellvertretender Sicherheitsberater gearbeitet hat) hatte Recht. Der Beweis sei in den Straßen Kairos zu besichtigen:

This has been the greatest failure of policy and imagination in the administration’s approach: Looking at the world map, it sees states and their rulers, but has forgotten the millions of people suffering under and beginning to rebel against those rulers. “Engagement” has not been the problem, but rather the administration’s insistence on engaging with regimes rather than with the people trying to survive under them.

If the Arab regimes learn the wrong lessons and turn once again to their police and their armies, the U.S. reaction becomes even more important. President Obama’s words of support for both the demonstrators and the government late Friday, after speaking with Mubarak, were too little, too late. He said Mubarak had called for “a better democracy” in Egypt, but Obama’s remarks did not clearly demand democracy or free elections there. We cannot deliver democracy to the Arab states, but we can make our principles and our policies clear. Now is the time to say that the peoples of the Middle East are not “beyond the reach of liberty” and that we will assist any peaceful effort to achieve it – and oppose and condemn efforts to suppress it.

Such a statement would not elevate our ideals at the expense of our interests. It turns out, as those demonstrators are telling us, that supporting freedom is the best policy of all.

Kategorien: Afghanistan, Außenpolitik, USA
Leser-Kommentare
  1. 1.

    http://www.politicolnews.com/pres-mubaraks-steals-40-billion/

    Wenn Mubarak zurücktritt, kann man seine Konten sperren.

    • 30. Januar 2011 um 17:48 Uhr
    • FreeSpeech
  2. 2.

    Die Obama-Administration hat sich gewiss im Fall Tunesien ziemlich klug verhalten. Unterstützung für den Diktator wäre dumm gewesen (siehe Sarkozy-Administration), “Nieder mit dem Diktator”-Rufe sollten auch nicht Sache ausländischer Regierungen sein, weil es eben diese Rufe aus dem einheimischen Volk nicht stärkt, sondern eher diskreditiert. Mal sehen, ob die Obama-Regierungen ihre Strategie in Ägypten genauso klug umsetzt. Der Fall it größer und komplizierter.

    So zu tun allerdings, als habe ausgerechnet die Bush-Administration “Down With Mubarak!” gerufen, ist keine Lüge, sondern ein schlechter Witz. “Down With King Fahd!” soll Bush wohl auch noch gerufen haben, oder wie?

    • 30. Januar 2011 um 18:15 Uhr
    • AM
  3. 3.

    Fortschritt, Demokratie, Modernisierung können und dürfen (auf Dauer) nicht von einer fremden (Groß-)Macht einem anderen Staat aufoktroyiert werden.

    Schon in der UN-Charta ist vom „Grundsatz der Gleichberechtigung und Selbstbestimmung der Völker“ die Rede. Und die beiden UN-Menschenrechtspakte von 1966 stellen gleich zu Beginn fest: „Alle Völker haben das Recht auf Selbstbestimmung. Kraft dieses Rechts entscheiden sie frei über ihren politischen Status und gestalten in Freiheit ihre wirtschaftliche, soziale und kulturelle Entwicklung.“

    Den USA und europäischen Ländern wird ja als (oft nicht unberechtigter) Vorwurf die (frühere) massive Einmischung in die Angelegenheiten anderer Staaten gemacht. Als Imperialismus und Neo-Kolonialismus gebrandmarlt.
    Es wäre also vom Internationalen Recht her unangebracht und nicht nur sehr unklug, massiv(st) in die Innenpolitik Ägyptens hinein einzuwirken.
    Frankreich unter Napoleon verwechselte ja schon, nicht ganz unabsichtlich, die Unterstützung und Ausbreitung von Demokratie und Menschenrechten gegenüber dem Feudalismus und absoluten Monarchien mit französischen Eroberungsfeldzügen.
    Wohl wird es meiner Vermutung nach völkerrechtlich vertretbar und angebracht sein, deutlich(st) auf die Einhaltung von Menschenrechten und Rechtsstaatlichkeit zu dringen,
    was ja auch seitens Deutschlands, Europas und seitens der USA erfolgt.

    Übrigens wurde auf diesen fundamentalen Sachverhalt dankenswerterweise schon des Öfteren treffend-lakonisch von FreeSpeech hingewiesen.

  4. 4.

    “4.

    (gelöscht, wie auch schon das Ursprungszitat des Trolls “fälscher”, JL)

    Noch ein Stimmungsmacher hier. Wo kommt ihr eigentlich her, aus dem unendlichen Gemüsegarten?
    Obama ist kein Superman eben auch nur ein Mensch. Den Job eines US-Praesidenten kann man eigentlich nur seinen Feinden wünschen…
    (Es sei den man ist net unzurechnungsfaehig, wie Bush)

    • 30. Januar 2011 um 19:49 Uhr
    • Mete
  5. 5.

    Den Job eines US-Praesidenten kann man eigentlich nur seinen Feinden wünschen
    Da scheint was dran zu sein: Im letzten Jahr hatte Obama noch schwarze Haare, bei der Anfang letzter Woche gehaltenen ‘State of the Union Speech 2011′ hatter er graue Haare.

  6. 7.

    Just for the record:

    ElBaradei brushed aside the concerns of the administration and many on Capitol Hill that an opening for the banned Muslim Brotherhood to take greater power in the country could result in an Islamist state. One of the Brotherhood’s former members, Ayman al-Zawahri, is al-Qaeda’s No. 2.

    “This is total bogus that the Muslim Brotherhood are religiously conservative,” he said. “They are no way extremists. They are no way using violence. They are not a majority of the Egyptian people. They will not be more than maybe 20 percent of the Egyptian people.

    “You have to include them like, you know, new evangelical, you know, groups in the U.S., like the orthodox Jews in Jerusalem,” ElBaradei said.

    He said the Islamists were “not at all” behind the uprising. He advocated that Mubarak leave immediately and that the army be negotiated with on a national unity government.

    “I does not mean that Egypt will be hostile to the U.S,” ElBaradei said. “This is — again, we traditionally in Egypt, in the Arab world, have always been friends with the U.S., friends with Europe, and I have no doubt that that will continue, but under the basis of a stability and not pseudo-stability, where you are oppressing people in the country.”

    • 30. Januar 2011 um 23:06 Uhr
    • PBUH
  7. Kommentar zum Thema

    (erforderlich)

    (wird nicht veröffentlicht) (erforderlich)

    (erforderlich)