Obama has the last word on Egypt (ha, ha, ha!)

Washington, at first, didn’t know what to make of the protests. After turning a blind eye to the atrocities perpetrated by their preferred thug in the Middle East, Hosni Mubarak, while happily turning countries into rubble, populations into either corpses or IDPs, incarcerating objectors and suspected objectors in dungeons and torture chambers where the sunlight of due process is strictly forbidden and having the gumption to throw the moral book at others, the United States of America suddenly had to deal with the unexpected. Caught wrong-footed, it was not surprising that Hillary Clinton got her knickers twisted. She had to acknowledge that Hosni’s days were numbered and slip into transition-speak.

Obama is not Hillary. He has the intellect, presence of mind, sense of political reality and of course the gab. He said the US would be happy to help (if asked), but acknowledged (officially) that it all belongs to Egyptians.

He even spoke about the moral grounds of peaceful protests. Here’s a quote:

“Over the last few weeks, the wheel of history turned at a blinding pace as the Egyptian people demanded their universal rights. We saw young Egyptians say, ‘For the first time in my life, I really count. My voice is heard. Even though I’m only one person, this is the way real democracy works.’”

Egypt’s ‘tomorrow’

He even conceded the day to Egyptians: “Today belongs to the people of Egypt.”

What of Egypt’s ‘tomorrow’ though? What of the ‘moral grounds’ (or lack of it, rather) of his involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan and of course the belligerence with respect to Iran and the immorality of turning blind eye to Israel’s nuclear program? What indeed of the economic prerogatives of the United States, especially the fact that flames in the Middle East is an important ‘must’ for the US economy?

What of the US $ 60 billion arms deal signed with Saudi Arabia last year (the largest in US history), an arrangement which will ensure jobs to tens of thousand US citizens? What of the fact that Washington’s economic and strategic interests in the region are about backing Isreal, fermenting conflict and a big say in deciding flame-height? What about the manifest disinterest in pushing Israel to back down from its intransigence with respect to regional peace? Obama’s words are not soothing. They are smooth. Today the Washington-bound media is busy talking about who will succeed Mubarak. Sure, there’s the mandatory quote of a protestor talking about reform of entire institutional framework, but the focus is less on structure than on personality. This Egyptian story is hardly over. It is just starting and time will tell who really writes the script.

The bottom line that’s being articulated by all the Middle East ‘experts’ showcased by the media is keeping intact the status-quo with respect to Israel. It’s like ‘Plan B’ and I can hear Obama telling his advisors something on the following lines:

‘Look, we lost our guy out there and it is possible that Egypt will get a democracy. What we need to do is to ensure that his successor, whether he’s a democrat or a demagogue, elected or otherwise, a people-person or a tyrant, will not upset our applecart.’

Policy positions

The sincerity or otherwise of Obama’s notes on Egypt is best assessed by his sincerity or lack thereof in the preferred policy positions and on-the-ground operations elsewhere. Just the other day he handed to Britain a ‘big growling bust’ of Winston Churchill that his predecessor had installed in the White House, near his desk. That’s because Churchill tortured one of Obama’s ancestors. Hussein Onyango was Obama’s grandfather. He returned the bust but remains resolutely Churchillian in Afghanistan, about which country decades earlier Winston had written, ‘We proceeded systematically, village by village, and we destroyed the houses, filled up the wells, blew down the towers, cut down the shady trees, burned the crops and broke the reservoirs in punitive devastation.’ I wrote about this six months ago in an article titled ‘Hussein Onyango never died (he’s being killed daily, though)’(www.dailynews.lk/2010/08/16/fea03.asp).

Principal enemies

Egypt belongs to Egyptians. Today. Obama is dead right on this. There will be an Egyptian tomorrow too. Calling it ‘Egyptian’ will not necessarily imply or confer ownership to the people of Egypt though.

There 30 Egyptian years, the last two of which were also ‘Egyptian’ by name but in fact belonged to one of Washinton’s favourite Middle Eastern thugs.

Obama has said the US will help, if asked. Egyptians would know best who their friends have been and I have no doubt that those who brought Hosni down are quite aware of who the principal enemies have been. They would know how and why Uncle Sam helped Hosni.

They might need some help, but that’s something they have to decide. If they do need help, I would think the last direction they should look would be across the Atlantic. If they do talk to Obama, maybe they’ll say, ‘Yes, you can help us Barack; just let us be and which just being, please mind your own business.’

They might add, ‘You know, we are sure, the traditional homelands of your weaponry and we need not tell you where to shove them!’ Talk is cheap, Barack. You know this.

[email protected]