Egypt after Mubarak: Will Military Defend Egyptians? 

(Foreign Policy of Egypt-7)

-Dr. Abdul Ruff

--------------

The TahrirSquare in Cairo symbolizes Islamic freedom and has changed the Egyptian history peacefully and powerfully. Mubarak's departure was greeted with jubilation throughout the Middle East and North Africa, including in Tunisia, where people overthrew their own president last month.

Authoritarian President Mubarak’s resignation from office has electrified a nation and sent political shock waves throughout the region. Friday afternoon, the longest-serving modern ruler in the Arab world left his palace in the Cairo suburb of Heliopolis for his equally palatial home in the Sinai resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh. “Leave, leave, leave,” the people chanted. As Egyptians celebrated loudly late into the night, they applauded themselves and the youthful people-power that made it happen as much as they cheered the departure of a despot. Not since 1952 has Egypt had such a celebration. At that time, it was King Farouk and British colonialism that were forced to leave.

As people hurried past the parliament buildings on the road leading to Tahrir Square, epicentre of the 18-day revolution, many paused just long enough to shake the hands, hug or even kiss the soldiers who stood beside the tanks and barricades they had manned for the past two weeks. A slogan reads: “The people, the army – one hand.” That was the slogan the people shouted all day, in an appeal to the soldiers to remember whose side they were on. It is a love affair that dates back at least to the 1952 Free Officers rebellion that overthrew the monarchy. But it is worth remembering, noted a Western diplomat, that it was the army that appointed Mubarak in the first place, just as it appointed Anwar Sadat before him and agreed on the assumption of power by Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1954. Celebrants in Tahrir Square weren’t ready Friday night to consider the possibility of the army turning against them.

World is astonished about the sudden departure of Mubarak, who had announced only on Thursday night in a televised speech that he would keep his title and give some of his authority to Vice President Omar Suleiman, suddenly handed over power to the military and left Cairo.  The Al-Arabiya television network reported that the Supreme Council will sack the cabinet, suspend both houses of parliament and rule with the head of the Supreme Constitutional Court, the country's highest judicial body. Suleiman said Mubarak has mandated the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces to run the state. God is our protector and succour”  There is a strong hunch that Mubarak’s sudden departure, after denials, might have been a "soft coup" in which Mubarak was forced by the military to announce the suspension of his presidency.  It is important that we did not hear Mubarak resign; we heard Suleiman announce the words that Mubarak refused to utter. Totalitarian regimes don't fall very neatly and predictably.

There are some rumors at the moment that he has left the country, but that has not been confirmed.  If he has not yet left, it is very possible that he will try to leave Egypt for a safe haven in one of the Gulf States, Europe, or perhaps in the United States, but any nation that accepts Mubarak will have to deal with the anger of the Egyptian public.  Mubarak also might have to worry about legal challenges and extradition.

For Arab rulers, surviving may mean finding an exit without exile or death. For the Saudi Royal Family and Jordan’s King – whose dynasties can claim to closely match Egypt’s decades-long record of hand-in-glove co-operation with a parade of American presidents, like Mubarak’s, have been Washington’s faithful allies in the so-called war on terrorism. Both have crushed Islamic hopes and Islamists as "extremists and terrorists" and imprisoned those the United States fingered as enemies.

Mubarak's Egypt was a longstanding American ally that cooperated with the United States on a long list of issues, ranging from combating terrorism to assisting U.S. military operations in the Middle East to helping secure shipping lanes to facilitating Arab-Israeli negotiations. The tectonic shift going on in Egypt, and in the broader Middle East, may have dramatic effects on the future price of oil, the extent of American regional influence, Israeli security.

Egypt is a US major anchor in the Arab world, in the Islamic world, and a key nation of Africa. President Barack Obama described the Egyptian people as an inspiration to the world for carrying out a non-violent revolution, adding: "Egypt will never be the same again." Obama does not attempt to select political winners or losers as this would later backfire and undermine America's ability to have a healthy relationship based on mutual interests with Egypt's next government. The White House defined the core principles that it most cared about—no violence, respecting the right of people to assemble and protest, and calling for meaningful, inclusive transition—and these became the frame for many other key nations and commentators.  This principle-driven pressure from the USA made a difference.

Egypt is a vital ally of America in the region and some are unnecessarily nervous about what change will mean. By dumping Mubarak, America’s closest and most important Arab ally, USA under Obama has signaled to Muslims throughout the Middle East and elsewhere that repressive rulers can no longer rely on Washington and are vulnerable to ouster by uprising. That may be realpolitik from a pragmatic president, but the Arab street may see it as America impotent; unable or unwilling to rule from afar by propping up loyal, albeit, thuggish regimes. Obama seems to have put himself on the right side of history, rather as Ronald Reagan did a generation ago with his ringing demand that Soviet leader Mikhail “Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”.

Championing freedom and democracy is risky. It can produce chaos, collapse or civil war. US strategists cry over the fact that Barak Obama refused to side with Mubarak. They say not since the shah of Iran was abandoned by Jimmy Carter 40 years ago has a key U.S. ally been so quickly and completely dumped. The Iranian revolution of 1979 was just as popular, broad-based and full of promise as the brave, surging, pro-democracy uprising that has swept out Mubarak. They are opposed Islamic Iran and its rightful string for nuclear facility. They claim that the democratic hopes in Tehran three decades ago were soon crushed. Iran’s Islamic rulers today are more repressive than the shah, avowedly hostile to the West and, with their drive to create an arsenal of nuclear missiles capable of reaching Europe, far more dangerous.

There are rosy hopes that Egypt may transform itself from a repressive dictatorship, racked with poverty and reliant on a now-moribund tourism industry, into a peaceful, prosperous democracy that remains a reliable ally and a valuable partner for a wider Middle East. Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, both called as "terrorist groups" by Washington, Tel-Aviv, London and Ottawa, can justly claim to represent the political will of peoples long oppressed.

The military that killed hundreds of the demonstrators now appears to be fully in control of the country. Suleiman, Mubarak's ally, is still part of the governing body but with potentially diminished influence. Egypt, with 80-million people, keeper of the Suez Canal, partner in cold peace with Israel, and possessor of the Arab world’s most powerful military, is the Arab world’s strategic powerhouse and, maybe, the tipping point. In opulent presidential palaces across the region, repressive rulers will have watched the past three history-making weeks in Tahrir Square with rising fear.

It is a fluid situation, and how power ultimately will shake out is unclear. The effects of this earthquake in Cairo may be substantial but also hard to predict even by the Jewish Neocon nuts. The military continues to have robust communication with the Pentagon, and the White House and State Department are in increasing communication with representatives of opposition leaders. With Egypt in a state of transition, the USA might see some of its interests suffer and some remain secure. Whatever ultimately happens in Egypt, the process has only just begun. The fate of America's regional influence and its diplomatic, economic and military ties to the Middle East is a part of that process.

One major outcome of the Mubarak’s resignation is the slash in oil prices. The Gulf’s vast oil reserves have been the target of the anti-Islamic North Atlantic regimes. The worst-case scenarios include the West’s still-fragile economic recovery wrecked by soaring oil prices. So, obviously, America’s interests in the Middle East – oil, Israel and access to military bases – haven’t changed. And hunger and hunt for energy resources cannot end just like that. Attempting to influence, let alone manage, the cataclysm unleashed by the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt may be the defining US foreign policy challenge.

In fact elections are not the crux of the problem now. Elected regimes misbehave like in India and Pakistan. It is the system that sustained him will be the next target of the people of Egypt. They are expecting the armed forces to help by ushering in a transition to civilian rule via a democratic election. The Egyptians armed forces might not have a choice in the matter now that the Egyptian people have discovered their collective voice. The historic achievement Egyptians in toppling an authoritarian ruler who looked completely in control less than a month ago will guide them in future too. And it will change the Middle East and Africa too.

The Egyptian military has been at the heart of the Egyptian system since a coup in 1952. It is now being asked to preside over the dismantling of that system that sustained it very well over 60 years. But can it really defend the Islamic faith and the Egyptians by helping establishing truly Islamic governance?