EUA tratam com pinças os acontecimentos no Egipto mas não se remetem ao silêncio sobre os factos
foto: Carolyn Kaster
Sublinhando a ideia de que ao falar sobre as coisas se permite a quem ouve ampliar o acto de pensar sobre elas, deixo dois artigos que, entretanto, foram publicados. O primeiro analisa o posicionamento político que os EUA virão a adoptar diante dos acontecimentos no Egipto, a partir das palavras de Obama. O segundo inventaria a leitura de uma série de especialistas ouvidos sobre o tema, no que se refere à atitude que os EUA devem tomar diante da agitação que se vive no Médio Oriente. Como fica bom de ver, ninguém que foi perguntado respondeu fazendo tabu do seu entendimento dos factos.
A incerteza que se vive no Egipto é razão de sobra para que o Mundo se acautele em reservas no modo como interpreta os acontecimentos no país. Ainda assim, constata-se que países vizinhos, Europa e grandes potências não se obrigam a um voto de silêncio similar àquele a que o Presidente da República de Portugal, Cavaco Silva, mais uma vez se remeteu. Entendem, como é absolutamente óbvio, que os factos não podem nem devem deixar ninguém indiferente e que é imperativo começar a construir um entendimento discursivo do que se passa entre os egípcios. Com mais ou menos reservas, maior ou menor neutralidade de simpatias e interesses, as vozes dos líderes mundiais têm vindo a público dizer o que pensam, o que querem pensar, ou, até mesmo, o que não sabem sequer que pensar.
Barack Obama era uma voz aguardada. Também ela já se fez ouvir. Foi breve, contida e evidente nas reservas. Seja como for, não se escudou em tabus. Daquilo que disse, preferiu omitir ou simplesmente adiar para depois, percebemos pelo menos alguma coisa. Em democracia e num quadro mundial global suponho ser, antes de mais, essa a ideia.
Resultou claro que o caos que se vive nas ruas do Egipto torna prematura uma tomada de posição e que os Estados Unidos não querem comprometer-se com ela. Não antes de se perceber se o governo de Mubarak sobrevive (e em que condições), ou se vai cair às mãos da revolução popular (e, nesse caso, no colo de quem). Obama tratou o assunto com pinças mas falou sobre os acontecimentos.
Para ver os vídeos:
- Barack Obama Video:Obama on Mubarak speech CBC.ca
- Barack Obama Video:Obama on Egypt: Orderly Transition Must Begin Now FOX News
- Barack Obama Video:Obama Ambiguous on Egypt's Future FOX News
[ACTUALIZADA]
Sublinhando a ideia de que ao falar sobre as coisas se permite a quem ouve ampliar o acto de pensar sobre elas, deixo dois artigos que, entretanto, foram publicados. O primeiro analisa o posicionamento político que os EUA virão a adoptar diante dos acontecimentos no Egipto, a partir das palavras de Obama. O segundo inventaria a leitura de uma série de especialistas ouvidos sobre o tema, no que se refere à atitude que os EUA devem tomar diante da agitação que se vive no Médio Oriente. Como fica bom de ver, ninguém que foi perguntado respondeu fazendo tabu do seu entendimento dos factos.
(...)
Obama tough – not too tough – with Egypt
por Bradley Klapper *
President Barack Obama tried the impossible: winning the hearts and minds of Egyptians furious with their autocratic ruler while assuring a vital ally that the United States has his back.
The four-minute speech Friday evening represented a careful balancing act for Obama. He had a lot to lose by choosing between protesters demanding that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak step down from a government violently clinging to its three-decade grip on the country.
"The United States will continue to stand up for the rights of the Egyptian people and work with their government in pursuit of a future that is more just, more free and more hopeful," the president said.
Yet he offered no ultimatum or specific demand, saying instead that Mubarak had a "responsibility to give meaning" to his pledges of better democracy and more economic opportunity.
The U.S. response is challenged by a massive mismatch in the perception and reality of its power. Despite spending billions in Egypt to establish a bulwark of American influence in the Middle East, the U.S. has little capacity to determine whether the 82-year-old Mubarak weathers the protests or is toppled, analysts and past administration officials say.
In his first television appearance since protests erupted three days ago, Mubarak said Friday he asked his Cabinet to resign. He said he would reconstitute it yet outlined no concrete democratic reform. He also defended the brutal crackdown on protesters, who've faced baton beatings, water cannons, rubber bullets and tear gas.
Speaking shortly after, Obama didn't endorse regime change. Nor did he say that Mubarak's announcement was insufficient. Instead, he said he personally told Mubarak to take "concrete steps" to expand rights.
Does that mean that Mubarak should step down after three decades in power? Should he announce that he won't run again for president? What about constitutional changes? Is it time to scrap emergency laws in place since 1981?
Administration officials would not say.
Obama's address was the most forceful of the day, but it stuck largely to the script already set by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and White House spokesman Robert Gibbs.
"What will eventually happen in Egypt is up to Egyptians," Clinton said, noting that the Egypt government could ease tensions by rapidly introducing democratic reform. "That moment needs to be seized, and we are hoping that it is."
"The legitimate grievances that have festered for quite some time in Egypt have to be addressed," Gibbs said. "And violence is not the response."
The reality is that the United States can do little to control or direct the anger in the Arab world unleashed two weeks ago when Tunisia chased its long-time ruler from power. Yet the U.S. can do severe harm to its own interests by coming out too forcefully for or against the uprising.
Washington's perceived ability to pick and choose governments is limited to a very few places. It does not wield that power in the Middle East, where Islamic parties completely opposed to the United States are often the most likely democratic alternatives.
"This is the most serious foreign policy crisis the administration has faced," said Aaron David Miller, who worked two decades at the State Department and is now a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center. "The paradox is, there is little if anything the administration can do."
That doesn't mean it won't try.
The White House said earlier Friday it would review the $1.5 billion in annual aid to Egypt, an unsubtle warning that it still has some pull with Cairo.
The State Department issued an unusual warning to Americans to avoid all but essential travel to Egypt at the height of the winter tourism season.
"The U.S. doesn't believe revolutions are the way to go," said Robert Danin, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a State Department specialist on the Middle East under President George W. Bush. "Revolutions are violent. They have unanticipated outcomes."
Still, rhetoric matters. After spending billions backing its few Arab friends, the U.S. has damaged credibility in the Arab world, leaving a narrow space for Washington policymakers.
Without a bold statement of solidarity, it's tough to see how the United States will gain the sympathy of Egyptian protesters fighting a security apparatus that has worked closely with American counterparts and may be using U.S. equipment to repress them.
Obama aimed high: "The people of Egypt have rights that are universal. That includes the right to peaceful assembly and association, the right to free speech and the ability to determine their own destiny. These are human rights and the United States will stand up for them everywhere."
But he tempered the bold idealism of a world of universal rights with a strong plea for peaceful protests. And he was clear that Mubarak's government still had some U.S. support. "We are committed to working with the Egyptian government and the Egyptian people," Obama said.
The need for balance is obvious. Completely alienating Mubarak would be a disaster for the U.S. if his government weathers the storm, possibly harming cooperation in the Mideast peace process or on counterterrorism.
Scott Carpenter, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said the United States will have more options once it becomes clear which side will prevail. "We cannot dictate anything," he said.
Others decried what they deemed a reactive approach to U.S. foreign policy.
"We don't side with the regime or the protesters when it matters," said Michael Rubin, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "By being so cautious and cynical, we end up not winning the hearts and minds of either side."
* Bradley Klapper covers foreign affairs for The Associated Press.
(...)
How should the U.S. respond to the protests in the Middle East?
Mhe Post asked experts what America should do about unrest in the Middle East. Below are responses from Steven Heydemann, Stephen J. Hadley, Aaron David Miller, Danielle Pletka, Hussein Agha, Robert Malley, Marina Ottaway, Andrew Albertson and Ed Husain.
STEVEN HEYDEMANN
Vice president at the U.S. Institute of Peace and special adviser to the Muslim World Initiative
Arab regimes are reeling from the aftershocks of events in Tunisia. Governments in Egypt and Yemen are the focus of mass protests expressing the anger that many Arab citizens feel toward their leaders. Surprises are possible, but it is most likely that the Egyptian and Yemeni regimes will survive these "days of rage."
After the truncheons have done their work, what are U.S. options? The administration has an extraordinary opportunity to reinvigorate support for democratic reform in the Arab world. For decades, supporters of reform have struggled to make a convincing case that Arab democracy is in America's interest. Fear of Islam and a strong preference for stability have long trumped arguments about the damage to U.S. interests of supporting authoritarian regimes. The recent uprisings demonstrate just how misguided these calculations have been. U.S. interests are poorly served by regimes that have lost the confidence of their people. Illegitimacy and instability are now linked; the connection provides compelling justification for a more assertive U.S. approach to political reform in the Arab world.
The United States can help the region's transition to democracy by acknowledging the depth of anger among Arab publics, making explicit the link between U.S. interests and the legitimacy of regimes, and communicating forcefully to our Arab allies that current governments will not overcome the crisis of legitimacy that is driving their citizens into the streets without fundamental political transformation - through processes that are themselves democratic, peaceful and inclusive. Such an approach does not require the isolation or abandonment of current regimes, but it would signal clearly that American interests and Arab democracy are now, finally, aligned.
STEPHEN J. HADLEY
National security adviser in the George W. Bush administration
Once the situation in Egypt got to a crisis point, America's options were limited. It did not have to be this way. Our government - and particularly then-President George W. Bush - urged the Egyptian government to encourage the growth of civil society and of non-Islamist political parties. Sadly, instead of fostering them, it oppressed them. The underground Islamist Muslim Brotherhood thus became the only alternative to the government party.
If Egypt descends into chaos, either a takeover by the army or a putsch by the Muslim Brotherhood is the most likely option. Neither will be a triumph of democracy nor give the Egyptian people the freedom they seek and deserve.
If President Mubarak survives the current violence, even he may conclude that neither he nor his son can win the Presidential elections this fall. If President Mubarak leaves the scene, a caretaker government under army tutelage is likely. Either way, the United States should not press for early elections. The Egyptian people need time so that civil society and non-Islamist political parties can emerge. Only in this way will the Egyptian people have real choices for a democratic future ¿ and avoid the Islamist state that they clearly do not want.
AARON DAVID MILLER
Public policy fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; former Arab-Israeli peace negotiator for the State Department
Mr. President,
You smartly steered clear of the ideological freedom agenda of your predecessor. And now, in one of history's crueler ironies, you're confronted with a home-grown freedom agenda in Tunisia and Egypt and maybe elsewhere, with impact over time that may be far greater than the politics of Iraq and Afghanistan.
If you're smart and lucky, you won't make an already complicated situation worse, and you might even do some good. Remember:
You can't control history. The Middle East is littered with the remains of great powers that thought they could impose their will on small tribes. The changes loosed in the Arab world are primarily driven by local factors, and they'll have to play themselves out.
Don't abandon your friends. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak may be an authoritarian, but since 1981 your predecessors and you have deemed him vital to American interests. Be careful what kind of signals you send until you have a much better sense of who or what will come after him. The worst outcome of Egyptian unrest would be a Mubarak who crushes the opposition and resents the United States because he believes that you wanted him on the next flight to Paris.
This will be a long movie. It's driven by deep-seated divisions in the Arab and Muslim world, first between the haves and have-nots over economic resources and second between those who can participate in governing their societies and those who cannot. You will need a strategy, but don't rush to come up with one; it will probably be wrong. For now, loudly proclaim the importance of American values such as respect for human rights, peaceful demonstrations, rule of law, good governance. But keep your distance until you have a much greater sense of where these changes are headed.
DANIELLE PLETKA
Vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute
There are three choices on foreign policy at any given time: to lead, to react or to be indifferent. When it comes to the question of human freedom, the Obama administration (and, before it, the Bush administration in its latter years) chose indifference. That is how we now find ourselves on the wrong side of history, watching the people of the Middle East as they stand against American-financed and -supported dictators. We have always had the chance to right our ways and to use our great moral, diplomatic and economic suasion to push for increased openness in the region, but other priorities - and the establishment's love affair with "stability" - have taken precedence.
Proponents of indifference (the proto-statesmen of the Foreign Service and their allies) like to posit a binary sort of choice between armed intervention in favor of democracy and the status quo, but that has never been the choice. Rather, we should be educating people about their rights, teaching consistently about the creation of political parties, working to free political prisoners and building the foundations of freedom. That, and not budgetary support and cash-transfer programs, is the proper role for American aid.
Some say that a freedom agenda only opens the door to Islamists; the truth is that our support for secular dictators does more for Islamists than democracy promotion ever did. We have an opportunity to right our ways and stand with the people of the Middle East - not forgetting Iran - in their quest for basic freedom. But it's going to take more than bland statements and White House hand-wringing. The president himself needs to stand up and unequivocally make clear America's position: in favor of the people over their oppressors. Suspend aid to the Egyptian government. Initiate an immediate review of all programs in the Middle East. Get the word out to our diplomats. Now.
HUSSEIN AGHA and ROBERT MALLEY
Agha is senior associate member of St. Antony's College, Oxford University; Malley is Middle East program director at the International Crisis Group and was special assistant to the president for Arab-Israeli affairs from 1998 to 2001
Decades of U.S. policy in the Middle East are coming back to haunt Washington. The United States backed Arab regimes that supported U.S. objectives irrespective of whether they legitimately represented popular aspirations. It propped up "moderate" rulers whose moderation consisted almost exclusively of cooperating with American policies. The more they aligned themselves with Washington, the more generous America's support and the greater the erosion of their domestic credibility. As a result, the United States now faces a battle it cannot win.
To continue supporting unpopular rulers would further alienate those who are most likely to assume power in the future. Openly siding with the street would strain ties with regimes that might survive the unrest and whose help the United States still needs; signal to America's remaining friends that its support is fickle; precipitate the rise of forces hostile to U.S. interests; and do little to persuade demonstrators who will see in America's midnight conversion hypocrisy and opportunism.
Washington can cut its losses and begin turning the page in its relations with the Arab world. That will have to wait. For now, it means assuming a low profile and resisting the temptation to become part of the story. That hardly is an exciting agenda, but the United States could do far worse than do very little.
MARINA OTTAWAY
Director of the Middle East program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Washington's reaction to the growing unrest will have almost no impact on what actually happens in the Arab world, which will be determined by domestic factors - the protesters' determination, the governments' response, the willingness of police and army units to use force against demonstrators. Protesters, who view the United States as the historical prop for Arab authoritarian regimes, will not heed Washington's calls to avoid violence. And regimes that have been authoritarian for decades will not suddenly see the wisdom of liberalization because of statements from Washington.
But what the United States says affects its standing in the region. The Obama administration's attempt to strike a balance between not offending incumbent regimes and refurbishing its image by sending a message that Washington wants reforms is failing - messages are circulating on the Internet to the effect that the United States is once again supporting authoritarianism. Washington must get off the fence and choose whether it wants to support democracy, and thus be on the side of Arab publics enraged by decades of repression, or whether it wants to continue supporting regimes that have been repressive for decades in the name of ill-defined strategic interests. It cannot do both. The United States' long-term interests would be best served by supporting unequivocally the messy process of democratic change.
ANDREW ALBERTSON
Executive director of the Project on Middle East Democracy from 2007 to 2010
The Obama administration has begun taking many of the right steps already. Aware of the dangers for U.S. interests posed by governments that resist democratic participation even as their people become more educated, affluent and connected to the outside world, they have repeatedly raised with Arab leaders the need for comprehensive reforms. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presciently warned regional foreign ministers two weeks ago, "Those who cling to the status quo may be able to hold back the full impact of their countries' problems for a little while, but not forever."
For far too long, the United States has relied on leaders in the Middle East who maintain their rule through coercion. Against the backdrop of appalling violence in Tunisia and Egypt, and the stark moral legitimacy of protests sweeping the region, the bankruptcy of that approach has never been clearer.
In the wake of Friday's events in Egypt, the administration needs to double down on its call for political reforms across the region. In Tunisia and Egypt, the administration should seize the opportunity to support full-scale transitions to democracy. New subsidies or cabinet shuffles aren't enough. What happened on the streets of Cairo was not a bread riot but a legitimacy riot. And forceful crackdowns represent a big roll of the dice - for regimes and for Washington, to the extent that the United States is perceived to be complicit in such violence.
People in the region want to be citizens - protagonists in their national political life, rather than subjects who passively take what the government gives. They want an end to ministries, parties and police forces that operate above the law and foster endemic corruption. The United States should quickly press allies such as Yemen, Jordan and Morocco to drop constraints on political participation, convene broad political dialogues, and place the highest premium on transparent and effective governance. The best guarantee of stability is participation, pluralism and progress.
ED HUSAIN
Senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations
Arabs regularly accuse America of flagrant hypocrisy: The United States claims that it stands up for freedom and democracy and yet supports the world's most tyrannical governments in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. The current popular uprising is a chance to set the record straight. Former secretary of state Condoleeza Rice once quipped that America had traded freedom for stability in the region and got neither.
I've lived and traveled across the Arab world and witnessed the vast popularity of American clothes, Hollywood, McDonald's, baseball caps, cars and books. Visa applications overload U.S. embassies. Yet double standards in U.S. foreign policy anger young Arabs and fuel radicalization and terrorism. By proudly supporting the freedom chanters today, America has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to help undermine terrorists and tyrants and support the people. So far, Vice President Biden has blundered by supporting Egypt's dictator. This needs to change.
The Arab world is no longer across the oceans. It is also on our streets here. Millions of American citizens are of Arab descent. Millions more are here as workers and students. What happens over there matters here. Can America make these people proud and empower them against Muslim extremists by changing the American story and making us all safer? Yes, it can. It must.
publicado no The Washington Post em 30.01.2011
Vice president at the U.S. Institute of Peace and special adviser to the Muslim World Initiative
Arab regimes are reeling from the aftershocks of events in Tunisia. Governments in Egypt and Yemen are the focus of mass protests expressing the anger that many Arab citizens feel toward their leaders. Surprises are possible, but it is most likely that the Egyptian and Yemeni regimes will survive these "days of rage."
After the truncheons have done their work, what are U.S. options? The administration has an extraordinary opportunity to reinvigorate support for democratic reform in the Arab world. For decades, supporters of reform have struggled to make a convincing case that Arab democracy is in America's interest. Fear of Islam and a strong preference for stability have long trumped arguments about the damage to U.S. interests of supporting authoritarian regimes. The recent uprisings demonstrate just how misguided these calculations have been. U.S. interests are poorly served by regimes that have lost the confidence of their people. Illegitimacy and instability are now linked; the connection provides compelling justification for a more assertive U.S. approach to political reform in the Arab world.
The United States can help the region's transition to democracy by acknowledging the depth of anger among Arab publics, making explicit the link between U.S. interests and the legitimacy of regimes, and communicating forcefully to our Arab allies that current governments will not overcome the crisis of legitimacy that is driving their citizens into the streets without fundamental political transformation - through processes that are themselves democratic, peaceful and inclusive. Such an approach does not require the isolation or abandonment of current regimes, but it would signal clearly that American interests and Arab democracy are now, finally, aligned.
STEPHEN J. HADLEY
National security adviser in the George W. Bush administration
Once the situation in Egypt got to a crisis point, America's options were limited. It did not have to be this way. Our government - and particularly then-President George W. Bush - urged the Egyptian government to encourage the growth of civil society and of non-Islamist political parties. Sadly, instead of fostering them, it oppressed them. The underground Islamist Muslim Brotherhood thus became the only alternative to the government party.
If Egypt descends into chaos, either a takeover by the army or a putsch by the Muslim Brotherhood is the most likely option. Neither will be a triumph of democracy nor give the Egyptian people the freedom they seek and deserve.
If President Mubarak survives the current violence, even he may conclude that neither he nor his son can win the Presidential elections this fall. If President Mubarak leaves the scene, a caretaker government under army tutelage is likely. Either way, the United States should not press for early elections. The Egyptian people need time so that civil society and non-Islamist political parties can emerge. Only in this way will the Egyptian people have real choices for a democratic future ¿ and avoid the Islamist state that they clearly do not want.
AARON DAVID MILLER
Public policy fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; former Arab-Israeli peace negotiator for the State Department
Mr. President,
You smartly steered clear of the ideological freedom agenda of your predecessor. And now, in one of history's crueler ironies, you're confronted with a home-grown freedom agenda in Tunisia and Egypt and maybe elsewhere, with impact over time that may be far greater than the politics of Iraq and Afghanistan.
If you're smart and lucky, you won't make an already complicated situation worse, and you might even do some good. Remember:
You can't control history. The Middle East is littered with the remains of great powers that thought they could impose their will on small tribes. The changes loosed in the Arab world are primarily driven by local factors, and they'll have to play themselves out.
Don't abandon your friends. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak may be an authoritarian, but since 1981 your predecessors and you have deemed him vital to American interests. Be careful what kind of signals you send until you have a much better sense of who or what will come after him. The worst outcome of Egyptian unrest would be a Mubarak who crushes the opposition and resents the United States because he believes that you wanted him on the next flight to Paris.
This will be a long movie. It's driven by deep-seated divisions in the Arab and Muslim world, first between the haves and have-nots over economic resources and second between those who can participate in governing their societies and those who cannot. You will need a strategy, but don't rush to come up with one; it will probably be wrong. For now, loudly proclaim the importance of American values such as respect for human rights, peaceful demonstrations, rule of law, good governance. But keep your distance until you have a much greater sense of where these changes are headed.
DANIELLE PLETKA
Vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute
There are three choices on foreign policy at any given time: to lead, to react or to be indifferent. When it comes to the question of human freedom, the Obama administration (and, before it, the Bush administration in its latter years) chose indifference. That is how we now find ourselves on the wrong side of history, watching the people of the Middle East as they stand against American-financed and -supported dictators. We have always had the chance to right our ways and to use our great moral, diplomatic and economic suasion to push for increased openness in the region, but other priorities - and the establishment's love affair with "stability" - have taken precedence.
Proponents of indifference (the proto-statesmen of the Foreign Service and their allies) like to posit a binary sort of choice between armed intervention in favor of democracy and the status quo, but that has never been the choice. Rather, we should be educating people about their rights, teaching consistently about the creation of political parties, working to free political prisoners and building the foundations of freedom. That, and not budgetary support and cash-transfer programs, is the proper role for American aid.
Some say that a freedom agenda only opens the door to Islamists; the truth is that our support for secular dictators does more for Islamists than democracy promotion ever did. We have an opportunity to right our ways and stand with the people of the Middle East - not forgetting Iran - in their quest for basic freedom. But it's going to take more than bland statements and White House hand-wringing. The president himself needs to stand up and unequivocally make clear America's position: in favor of the people over their oppressors. Suspend aid to the Egyptian government. Initiate an immediate review of all programs in the Middle East. Get the word out to our diplomats. Now.
HUSSEIN AGHA and ROBERT MALLEY
Agha is senior associate member of St. Antony's College, Oxford University; Malley is Middle East program director at the International Crisis Group and was special assistant to the president for Arab-Israeli affairs from 1998 to 2001
Decades of U.S. policy in the Middle East are coming back to haunt Washington. The United States backed Arab regimes that supported U.S. objectives irrespective of whether they legitimately represented popular aspirations. It propped up "moderate" rulers whose moderation consisted almost exclusively of cooperating with American policies. The more they aligned themselves with Washington, the more generous America's support and the greater the erosion of their domestic credibility. As a result, the United States now faces a battle it cannot win.
To continue supporting unpopular rulers would further alienate those who are most likely to assume power in the future. Openly siding with the street would strain ties with regimes that might survive the unrest and whose help the United States still needs; signal to America's remaining friends that its support is fickle; precipitate the rise of forces hostile to U.S. interests; and do little to persuade demonstrators who will see in America's midnight conversion hypocrisy and opportunism.
Washington can cut its losses and begin turning the page in its relations with the Arab world. That will have to wait. For now, it means assuming a low profile and resisting the temptation to become part of the story. That hardly is an exciting agenda, but the United States could do far worse than do very little.
MARINA OTTAWAY
Director of the Middle East program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Washington's reaction to the growing unrest will have almost no impact on what actually happens in the Arab world, which will be determined by domestic factors - the protesters' determination, the governments' response, the willingness of police and army units to use force against demonstrators. Protesters, who view the United States as the historical prop for Arab authoritarian regimes, will not heed Washington's calls to avoid violence. And regimes that have been authoritarian for decades will not suddenly see the wisdom of liberalization because of statements from Washington.
But what the United States says affects its standing in the region. The Obama administration's attempt to strike a balance between not offending incumbent regimes and refurbishing its image by sending a message that Washington wants reforms is failing - messages are circulating on the Internet to the effect that the United States is once again supporting authoritarianism. Washington must get off the fence and choose whether it wants to support democracy, and thus be on the side of Arab publics enraged by decades of repression, or whether it wants to continue supporting regimes that have been repressive for decades in the name of ill-defined strategic interests. It cannot do both. The United States' long-term interests would be best served by supporting unequivocally the messy process of democratic change.
ANDREW ALBERTSON
Executive director of the Project on Middle East Democracy from 2007 to 2010
The Obama administration has begun taking many of the right steps already. Aware of the dangers for U.S. interests posed by governments that resist democratic participation even as their people become more educated, affluent and connected to the outside world, they have repeatedly raised with Arab leaders the need for comprehensive reforms. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presciently warned regional foreign ministers two weeks ago, "Those who cling to the status quo may be able to hold back the full impact of their countries' problems for a little while, but not forever."
For far too long, the United States has relied on leaders in the Middle East who maintain their rule through coercion. Against the backdrop of appalling violence in Tunisia and Egypt, and the stark moral legitimacy of protests sweeping the region, the bankruptcy of that approach has never been clearer.
In the wake of Friday's events in Egypt, the administration needs to double down on its call for political reforms across the region. In Tunisia and Egypt, the administration should seize the opportunity to support full-scale transitions to democracy. New subsidies or cabinet shuffles aren't enough. What happened on the streets of Cairo was not a bread riot but a legitimacy riot. And forceful crackdowns represent a big roll of the dice - for regimes and for Washington, to the extent that the United States is perceived to be complicit in such violence.
People in the region want to be citizens - protagonists in their national political life, rather than subjects who passively take what the government gives. They want an end to ministries, parties and police forces that operate above the law and foster endemic corruption. The United States should quickly press allies such as Yemen, Jordan and Morocco to drop constraints on political participation, convene broad political dialogues, and place the highest premium on transparent and effective governance. The best guarantee of stability is participation, pluralism and progress.
ED HUSAIN
Senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations
Arabs regularly accuse America of flagrant hypocrisy: The United States claims that it stands up for freedom and democracy and yet supports the world's most tyrannical governments in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. The current popular uprising is a chance to set the record straight. Former secretary of state Condoleeza Rice once quipped that America had traded freedom for stability in the region and got neither.
I've lived and traveled across the Arab world and witnessed the vast popularity of American clothes, Hollywood, McDonald's, baseball caps, cars and books. Visa applications overload U.S. embassies. Yet double standards in U.S. foreign policy anger young Arabs and fuel radicalization and terrorism. By proudly supporting the freedom chanters today, America has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to help undermine terrorists and tyrants and support the people. So far, Vice President Biden has blundered by supporting Egypt's dictator. This needs to change.
The Arab world is no longer across the oceans. It is also on our streets here. Millions of American citizens are of Arab descent. Millions more are here as workers and students. What happens over there matters here. Can America make these people proud and empower them against Muslim extremists by changing the American story and making us all safer? Yes, it can. It must.
publicado no The Washington Post em 30.01.2011
Posted by por AMC
on 04:14. Filed under
ESCRITOS,
ESPUMAS,
uma janela para o mundo,
vídeos
.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
Feel free to leave a response
