Denial: Also a River in Egypt

According to George W. Bush, Egypt is making progress toward "greater political openness." That's, um, not true.

I'm not sure there's very much the US government can or should do, in practice, to push Egypt into becoming a democracy. And, certainly, I grasp the pragmatic need to get along with governments willing to get along with us. But I don't really understand why this need is pragmatically construed as the need to lie and pretend to believe that Hosni Mubarak is moving his country toward democracy when everyone knows that he's cracking down on the opposition and trying to install his son as the next pharaoh. The schizophrenia of American policy -- invading Iraq to spread the flame of democracy, and then spinning on Mubarak's behalf in Cairo; between demonizing Hugo Chavez as a totalitarian menace and then hanging out with Saudi officials at the president's vacation home -- is really absurd.

The idea that these tin pot dictators would somehow turn on us if we didn't kiss their assess doesn't hold much water. We need Saudi oil, and the Saudis need our money. We have interests that can be advanced through collaboration with the government of Egypt and the government of Egypt has interests that can be advanced through cooperation with our government. The pretense that every country we have a dispute with is run by the New Hitler while every country we opportunistically ally with is run by a Bold Reformer is incredibly dumb and something a grownup country ought to be able to move past.

Comments

If they did have elections in Egypt, would we like the results? I have no idea what the ideological views of the population may be.

Posted by Steve | January 17, 2008 5:50 PM

Not much we can do?! We can put some portion of their $20-30 billion in military bribe money into economic reform! That's what we can do!!

And that's what we should do! We shouldn't just fork over boatloads of cash. We should require some accountability and movement toward opening up their economic system so that their citizens aren't stuck in such a crummy situation with massive unemployment, and Mubarrak on one side and the Muslim Brotherhood on the other. It would be hugely beneficial to Egypt, hugely beneficial to the entire Middle East and Muslim world, hugely beneficial to the U.S. and the West, and come at basically no cost to us.

ACK! My hair spontaneously combusts when I read stuff like this, MY!

Posted by bob | January 17, 2008 5:50 PM

We have interests that can be advanced through collaboration with the government of Egypt and the government of Egypt has interests that can be advanced through cooperation with our government.

The problem, of course, is that the interest of "the government of Egypt" means, to a large extent, "what Mubarak wants". And if Mubarak wants his ego stroked, then what does Matthew propose to do? Ignore that interest?

Matthew has an awfully naive view of autocratic governments.

Posted by Al | January 17, 2008 5:57 PM

Yeah, it takes a rock-ribbed conservative to realize the importance of appeasement.

Posted by neil | January 17, 2008 5:58 PM

Yeah but a democratic Egypt would be FAR more antagonistic to Israel than Mubarak. And we couldn't conceivably have that, could we?

Posted by skyler | January 17, 2008 6:00 PM

The only political group in Egypt that hasn't been suborned by Mubarak is the Muslim Brotherhood. They're popular, in fact, for that reason.

If there were an election, MB would win, if not a full majority, then certainly enough votes to form a government.

Posted by Greg | January 17, 2008 6:02 PM

Relative to the situation in Egypt, Mr. Yglesias has evidently forgotten that the aid given to Egypt (and Israel) is a bribe that started with the peace agreement between the two countries in 1979 brokered by James Earl Carter. The purpose of the bribe is to induce the two countries to behave themselves and has nothing to do with what happens internally in either country.

Posted by SLC | January 17, 2008 6:03 PM

For his statement to be a lie, wouldn't Bush have to know what the truth is? Does anyone believe he does?

Posted by DHN | January 17, 2008 6:08 PM

yeah, mubarak's the same sort of dictator as saddam was, with the same sort of regional ambitions, etc. or not.

Posted by dj superflat | January 17, 2008 6:16 PM

For those who have trouble understanding what MattY is getting at -- not to name names, but this would be Al -- MattY is saying that he understands that we have to work with autocratic governments sometimes but would prefer that Bush not pee on our leg and tell us it's raining. It's an insult to our intelligence.

Posted by Tyro | January 17, 2008 6:22 PM

fine point, superflat. As long as someone's nicer than our wildest imaginings about Saddam, they should be our pal. Chavez and Ahmedinijad deserve a few billion dollars a year, too!

Posted by the human blob | January 17, 2008 6:24 PM

It also behooves us to note that the invasion of Iraq was, according to its advocates, supposed to result in a flowering of democracy throughout the middle east, particularly in places with authoritarian, but modern and potentially flexible, countries like Egypt.

How's that one working out?

Posted by Tyro | January 17, 2008 6:27 PM

Matthew has an awfully naive view of autocratic governments.

Sez the tighty-righty who didn't support half the things he now supports until George W. proposed them.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | January 17, 2008 8:25 PM

" The pretense that every country we have a dispute with is run by the New Hitler"

Personally, I'm holding out for Diet Cherry Vanilla Hitler.

Posted by Dan S. | January 17, 2008 9:05 PM

"Diet Cherry Vanilla Hitler."

That would be Hillary.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 17, 2008 10:15 PM

A small addition to a peripheral point: we also need the Saudis for help with Iraq and Iran. It's not just the oil, and we do need them more than they need us.

Posted by Napi | January 18, 2008 12:42 AM

MY - We need Saudi oil, and the Saudis need our money.

No they don't.

The USA could disappear tomorrow and the oil we now inport would get a little cheaper but all output would be purchased.

What the Saudis need us for, have since the 20s, is security. Sometimes in the past, our technology as well, but not lately. The Dutch, French, Chinese, Japanese, Mexico, the Brits. And even Venezuelans, NIgeria, and of course the Arabs themselved can do the same jobs as Americans if we ceased to exist.

Posted by chris ford | January 18, 2008 1:43 AM

We need the Saudis for help with Iran and Iraq more than they need us? For crying out loud. The whole reason we're supposedly in the Persian Gulf is to keep Iraq and Iran from threatening their neighbors! Now we need them to help us protect them more than they need us to protect them? I've heard of mission creep, but this is mission backflip.

Posted by brooksfoe | January 18, 2008 1:55 AM

You hit a central point about the U.S. that I think needs much more discussion, and I'm not hearing it: the idea of "a grown-up country." I think we clearly are *not*: in fact, our culture strikes me as hysterically infantile, and seeing the U.S. as a frantic toddler helps explain a great deal about our policies and our impossible politics (where anyone who actually explains our predicament clearly is doomed as a candidate: most recent example is Romney in Michigan versus McCain's very mild truisms, but Obama clearly realizes this also and has dialed up the empty rhetoric. I do the same with my 4 year old...)

I explain this to myself by noting that 200 years of American individualism was bound to lead to a hysterical fear of personal extinction, hence a flight to unreality, snake oil, and the promise of perfect safety and eternal life (thank you, Reverend Huckabee!) Does anyone have a better explanation for the Kabuki dance of our political candidates in both parties?

Posted by Kevin Egan | January 18, 2008 2:25 AM

"Relative to the situation in Egypt, Mr. Yglesias has evidently forgotten that the aid given to Egypt (and Israel) is a bribe that started with the peace agreement between the two countries in 1979 brokered by James Earl Carter. The purpose of the bribe is to induce the two countries to behave themselves and has nothing to do with what happens internally in either country.

I don't really see in what respect this post contradicts what Matt says. That America is - and should be - interested primarily in what Egypt does in areas which effect America's interets (Terrorism, curbing Iran's influence, etc) and not in reforming its system of government is, I think, Matt's point. He only says that America should not kid itself about what the Mubarak regime is really like and that its Goverment should not lie about that.

Posted by Patrick | January 18, 2008 6:20 AM

This "new realism" that Matt and parts of the Democratic party are peddling stinks, doesn't work, is misinformed and seems to be merely a Kissingerian reaction to Bush's idiotic foreign policy, rather than a well thought-out contemporary and humane position in its own right.

Posted by novakant | January 18, 2008 8:59 AM

Anyone else remember Jeanne Kirkpatrick calling Jonas Savimbi a great democrat. The sort of thing MY is on about has been a feature of American rhetoric for years and years. It isn't helpful internationally (who in the Middle East or more broadly the Mediterrean and Muslim worlds is confused about Mubarrak's Egypt), hence it largely has domestic purposes lining up the troops against the current evil.

Posted by djeri | January 18, 2008 9:05 AM

For his statement to be a lie, wouldn't Bush have to know what the truth is? Does anyone believe he does?

Yeah, sometimes it seems like Bush honestly believes what he says, he just has aides giving him misinformation because that's the only way to get a non-disastrous result from him. Like he actually believes what he says about his principles, so if he knew how bad things were he'd bomb Cairo or institute a draft to increase troop levels in Iraq. But then I remember how close he is to the House of Saud. No one could be that dumb.

Right?

Posted by Cyrus | January 18, 2008 9:08 AM

And here's a link to add some background to my little tirade

Posted by novakant | January 18, 2008 9:12 AM

But we've always been at war with Eastasia!

Posted by Jason | January 18, 2008 10:01 AM

Re dheri

One should also recall the late and unlamented Ms. Kirkpatricks' support of the Argentine dictatorship during the Falklands war.

Posted by SLC | January 18, 2008 10:19 AM

novakant: I'm not sure who you are supposed to be calling out here. Your link agrees with MattY's post, i.e. Egypt is neither shiny nor happy nor democratic. And I don't see many Egypt-apologists on the thread. What is it you are trying to say?

Posted by BrianA | January 18, 2008 10:57 AM

It also behooves us to note that the invasion of Iraq was, according to its advocates, supposed to result in a flowering of democracy throughout the middle east, particularly in places with authoritarian, but modern and potentially flexible, countries like Egypt.

How's that one working out?

Better than if Saddam was still in power. I love how these anti-war types who supposedly dislike autocracy long for the days when Saddam ran his country with an iron fist and registered 99% of the vote on a regular basis.

Posted by Peter K. | January 18, 2008 11:56 AM

Peter K., you're essentially confessing that the myriad of delusional claims that the pro-war boosters made pre-invasion didn't pan out. Had you not been part of the crowd advocating those very delusions, you'd be worth listening to. As it is, you're just scrambling for some excuse, any excuse to dismiss the fact that you cast your lot with a crowd that had no idea what they were talking about in 2002 and was proven entirely wrong.

People said, "invading iraq will cause a flowering of democracy all over the middle east." You were stupid enough to say, "wow! those guys know what they're talking about." I think it's time to reasses your ability to make judgments and, instead, start listening to the peole who were right in the first place. Because you're only digging yourself a bigger ditch.

Posted by Tyro | January 18, 2008 12:01 PM

Brian, what I'm trying to say is quite simple:

MY correctly criticizes both the situation in Egypt and the hypocrisy of the current administration, so that's wonderful.

Yet, he is either woefully misinformed or willfully ignorant when he says that there isn't anything that the US can or should do to push Egypt towards democratic transformation. Egypt is a US client state with a horrible human rights record and if one of their torturers is going out today to buy some new pliers to pull people's nails out with, it's US tax dollars subsidizing this purchase. So there is something the US could and should do, but MY and others seem to be saying that the current state of affairs is fine, as long as we're not being hypocritical about it - this is the same attitude displayed by the cynical 'realist' position of Kissinger et al condensed in the phrase: "He's a bastard, but he's our bastard."

Posted by novakant | January 18, 2008 12:31 PM

OK folks, time out for a woman who was born in Egypt, Jewish, and thrown out of Egypt for being same.
It behooves the US to support and cooperate with terrorist states. In this way, the US can continue its agenda of keeping people afraid and in their corner. ThE US is also extremely interested in oil. It doesn't really care about "democracy" as it pretends to, and prefers the status quo. This really suits everyone in the region.
Egypt flourished under the Europeans, when we lived there in the mid-late 20th century. It is now a rat hole. And islamization is making it worse than it ever could become; we help create this climate. Look around: Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran...I don't need to continue.
And yes, Bush doesn't have to lie. But he knows he's lying because the last time Condi was in Egypt, she was told to tone down the rhetoric.

You want to read about Egypt in its heydey? Go to my blog.
Aimee Kligman
Womens Lens

Posted by Aimee Kligman | January 18, 2008 1:45 PM

As others pointed out, the money we pay to Egypt is a bribe for good behavior wrt Israel. Paying that bribe doesn't mean we condone everything the regime does.

I guess what you want is for the US to use the money as leverage and lean on Mubarak to lighten up. Do you think the US gov't has that kind of moral credibility?

Posted by BrianA | January 18, 2008 2:47 PM

Paying that bribe doesn't mean we condone everything the regime does.

But the US is condoning and financially supporting Mubarak's cruel reign - how do you think this money is used. Furthermore the US is a partner in crime, as they have sent prisoners to Egypt to be tortured.

Do you think the US gov't has that kind of moral credibility?

Well no, because the US itself is a torture state and has rendered prisoners to Egypt to be tortured. But if we're talking about the next administration hopefully trying to regain moral credibility, MY's approach is not helpful at all, because all he says is: let's not be hypocritical. That sounds refreshing at first sight, but if it's not coupled with any actions designed to improve the humanitarian situation, it's also totally worthless.

Posted by novakant | January 18, 2008 4:50 PM