Opinion

President Obama, say the 'D-Word'

US appears to shy away from talk about democracy in Middle East, despite
historic anti-government rallies in ally Egypt.

Mark LeVine Last Modified: 28 Jan 2011 12:36 GMT

Obama has 'sought to equate Egypt's protesters and government as equally

pitted parties in the growing conflict' [AFP]
It's incredible, really. The president of the United States can't bring himself to talk
about democracy in the Middle East. He can dance around it, use euphemisms,
throw out words like "freedom" and "tolerance" and "non-violent" and especially
"reform," but he can't say the one word that really matters: democracy.

How did this happen? After all, in his famous 2009 Cairo speech to the Muslim
world, Obama spoke the word loudly and clearly - at least once.

"The fourth issue that I will address is democracy," he declared, before explaining
that while the United States won't impose its own system, it was committed to
governments that "reflect the will of the people... I do have an unyielding belief
that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a
say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal
administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the
people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they
are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere."

"No matter where it takes hold," the president concluded, "government of the
people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power."

Simply rhetoric?

Of course, this was just rhetoric, however lofty, reflecting a moment when no one
was rebelling against the undemocratic governments of our allies - at least not
openly and in a manner that demanded international media coverage.

Now it's for real.

And "democracy" is scarcely to be heard on the lips of the president or his

most senior officials.

In fact, newly released WikiLeaks cables show that from the moment it assumed
power, the Obama administration specifically toned down public criticism of
Mubarak. The US ambassador to Egypt advised secretary of state Hillary Clinton
to avoid even the mention of former presidential candidate Ayman Nour, jailed and
abused for years after running against Mubarak in part on America's
encouragement.

Not surprisingly, when the protests began, Clinton declared that Egypt was "stable"
and an important US ally, sending a strong signal that the US would not support the
protesters if they tried to topple the regime. Indeed, Clinton has repeatedly
described Mubarak as a family friend. Perhaps Ms Clinton should choose her
friends more wisely.

Similarly, president Obama has refused to take a strong stand in support of the
burgeoning pro-democracy movement and has been no more discriminating in his
public characterisation of American support for its Egyptian "ally". Mubarak
continued through yesterday to be praised as a crucial partner of the US. Most
important, there has been absolutely no call for real democracy.

Rather, only "reform" has been suggested to the Egyptian government so that, in
Obama's words, "people have mechanisms in order to express legitimate
grievances".

"I've always said to him that making sure that they are moving forward on reform -
political reform, economic reform - is absolutely critical for the long-term well-
being of Egypt," advised the president, although vice-president Joe Biden has
refused to refer to Mubarak as a dictator, leading one to wonder how bad a leader
must be to deserve the title.

Even worse, the president and his senior aides have repeatedly sought to equate the
protesters and the government as somehow equally pitted parties in the growing
conflict, urging both sides to "show restraint". This equation has been repeated
many times by other American officials.

This trick, tried and tested in the US discourse surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, is equally nonsensical here. These are not two movements in a contest for
political power. Rather, it is a huge state, with a massive security and police
apparatus that is supported by the world's major superpower to the tune of billions
of dollars a year, against a largely young, disenfranchised and politically powerless
population which has suffered brutally at its hands for decades.

The focus on reform is also a highly coded reference, as across the developing
world when Western leaders have urged "reform" it has usually signified the
liberalisation of economies to allow for greater penetration by Western
corporations, control of local resources, and concentration of wealth, rather than
the kind of political democratisation and redistribution of wealth that are key
demands of protesters across the region.

Al Jazeera interview says it all

An Al Jazeera English interview on Thursday with US state department

spokesman PJ Crowley perfectly summed up the sustainability of the Obama
administration's position. In some of the most direct and unrelenting questioning of
a US official I have ever witnessed, News Hour anchor Shihab al-Rattansi
repeatedly pushed Crowley to own up to the hypocrisy and absurdity of the
administration's position of offering mild criticism of Mubarak while continuing to
ply him with billions of dollars in aid and political support.

When pressed about how the US-backed security services are beating and torturing
and even killing protesters, and whether it wasn't time for the US to consider
discontinuing aid, Crowley responded that "we don't see this as an either or [a
minute later, he said "zero sum"] proposition. Egypt is a friend of the US, is an
anchor of stability and helping us pursue peace in the Middle East".

Each part of this statement is manifestly false; the fact that in the midst of
intensifying protests senior officials feel they can spin the events away from openly
calling for a real democratic transition now reveals either incredible ignorance,
arrogance, or both.

Yet this is precisely an either/or moment. Much as former US president Bush

declared in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, we can either be "with or against" the
Egyptian people. Refusing to take sides is in fact taking sides -the wrong side.

Moreover, Crowley, like his superiors, refused to use the word democracy,
responding to its use by anchor al-Rattansi with the word "reform" while arguing
that it was unproductive to tie events in Egypt to the protests in other countries
such as Tunis or Jordan because each has its own "indigenous" forces and reasons
for discontent.

That is a very convenient singularisation of the democracy movements, which

ignores the large number of similarities in the demands of protests across the
region, the tactics and strategies of protest, and their broader distaste and distrust of
the US in view of its untrammelled support for dictatorships across the region.

Systematic silence

Ensconced in a system built upon the lack of democracy - not just abroad, but as
we've seen in the last decade, increasingly in the US as well - perhaps president
Obama doesn't feel he has the luxury of pushing too hard for democracy when its
arrival would threaten so many policies pursued by his administration.

Instead, "stability" and "reform" are left to fill the void, even though both have
little to do with democracy in an real sense.

Perhaps Obama wants to say the D-word. Maybe in his heart he hopes Mubarak
just leaves and allows democracy to flourish. By all accounts, the president is no
ideologue like his predecessor. He does not come from the political-economic-
strategic elites as did Bush, and has no innate desire to serve or protect their
interests.

Feeling trapped by a system outside his control or power to change, maybe

president Obama hopes that the young people of the Arab world will lead the way,
and will be satisfied by congratulations by his administration after the fact.

But even if accurate, such a scenario will likely never come to pass. With
Egyptians preparing to die in the streets, standing on the sidelines is no longer an
option.

A gift that won't be offered again

The most depressing and even frightening part of the tepid US response to the
protests across the region is the lack of appreciation of what kind of gift the US,
and West more broadly, are being handed by these movements. Their very
existence is bringing unprecedented levels of hope and productive activism to a
region and as such constitutes a direct rebuttal to the power and prestige of al-
Qaeda.

Instead of embracing the push for real democratic change, however, surface
reforms that would preserve the system intact are all that's recommended. Instead
of declaring loud and clear a support for a real democracy agenda, the president
speaks only of "disrupting plots and securing our cities and skies" and "tak[ing] the
fight to al-Qaeda and their allies", as he declared in his State of the Union address.

Obama doesn't seem to understand that the US doesn't need to "take the fight" to
al-Qaeda, or even fire a single shot, to score its greatest victory in the "war on
terror". Supporting real democratisation will do more to downgrade al-Qaeda's
capabilities than any number of military attacks. He had better gain this
understanding quickly because in the next hours or days the Egypt's revolution will
likely face its moment of truth. And right behind Egypt are Yemen, Jordan, Algeria,
and who knows what other countries, all looking to free themselves of
governments that the US and its European allies have uncritically supported for
decades.

If president Obama has the courage to support genuine democracy, even at the
expense of immediate American policy interests, he could well go down in history
as one of the heroes of the Middle East's Jasmine winter. If he chooses platitudes
and the status quo, the harm to America's standing in the region will likely take
decades to repair.

Mark LeVine is a professor of history at UC Irvine and senior visiting researcher

at the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies at Lund University in Sweden. His most
recent books are Heavy Metal Islam (Random House) and Impossible Peace:
Israel/Palestine Since 1989 (Zed Books).

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily
reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.