The Democratic Revolution in Egypt - Research Paper Example

May The Obama Administration’s Approach to the Democratic Revolution in Egypt The regal subjugations have often had their conceptual rationalizations. Even before, during the ancient times and even at our modern history, annihilating people, taking advantage of their resources, taking their valuable possessions especially lands, and subjugating children were, in general, not new when it comes to goading the public for another military demonstration. In view of that, the Romans established civilizations for the Barbarians, the Spanish set off Christianity and religion to the new world, and the English were improving the developments in some of the geographical civilizations in India. Albeit most historical literatures are inclined to cut the genocide and bondage that is attributed to the European series of invasion that comprises the North American continent, hardly any have any delusions regarding the real motives of Rome, Great Britain, Spain and other nations regal escapades. Correspondingly, when prospective learners of history study about the assignment that the US government has undertaken to proliferate democracy at the tail-end of the 21st century, they will likewise realize its real motivations way better than the thinkers and political analysts who oftentimes being seen on television nowadays. [Student’s Last Name] 2 Not so long ago, a chaotic military and political demonstration took place in Egypt that desires the downfall of Mubarak from power. “Security forces and military police, swinging batons, firing birdshot and driving armoured personnel carriers, stormed the square late Sunday afternoon, chasing out protesters and burning tents.” (Fleishman & Hassan, “Frustrated Egyptians Come Out in Force”). The latest democratic revolution in Egypt delivers numerous visions into the margin between the United States governments apparent and genuine dedications to democracy in the continental regions of North Africa and in the Western Asia. “An alternative interpretation of Washington’s response to the Egyptian revolution, however, suggests that US officials have no desire to see democracy establish itself in the North Africa or West Asia, their public pronouncements---repeated endlessly by the major news media---notwithstanding.” (Napoletano, “The Egyptian Revolution and Democracy”). Concurring to the most accurate versions of the media, the Obama Administrations interest for the democratic revolution was strengthened by its craving for stability and constancy in these regions. Particularly, some United States officials, concurring to this outlining of the revolutionary end, desired to support the revolutionary acts for democracy but they would still have to cogitate on the implications that this support might reach their allies in these regions. Lying beneath this elucidation is the truth that the United States is an ally to numerous governments that are not exercising democracy and may, sooner or later, have to deal within a comparable revolution that occurred in Egypt. A different, alternate understanding of the Obama Administrations reply to the democratic revolution in Egypt, nevertheless, proposes that United States officials are balking the idea of establishing democracy in the North African continent as well as in the Western Asia; [Student’s Last Name] 3 their unrestricted statements are recapped boundlessly by various news media. Although this interpretation will not become a coveted article posted on some of the worlds leading journals, it is more than dependable and steady enough with the obtainable proofs and the historic accounts and evidences that is the one grounded on a "stability-democracy" compromise. The substance and the quintessence of this alternate approach is that what the United States is being referred to as "democracy", hence, the Obama Administration would desire to see being instituted in Egypt and to some of their allied regions, assumes merely a shallow likeness to the power of democracy, or the type of democracy that was exemplified in the democratic revolution in Egypt. More than just it is being described in its precise substance, democracy involves the contribution of the people in the most substantial decisions that will eventually influence everybodys beings, an administration that is not frigid enough to ignore the needs and the sentiments of the people, hence, there is a need for a government that is receptive and is quick to respond to the desires and inclinations of the people while at the same time respecting the civil rights and liberties of the minority in order to obtain mainstream backing via unhindered speech, opposition, and an evenly-balanced access to the media, a reverence for personal nobility, and a dedication to setting up the to encourage every person to improve his or her promise to his or her personal gratification. More than just the mere fact that this kind of democracy can be regarded as channels instead of a purpose, it is a channel through which every person conveys his or her personal authority and independence, and it is a procedure by which the society be taught of administrating itself. The United States legislators and other lawmakers, conversely, regard this description as something simple at finest, and on the whole regard it as precariously mistaken and erroneous. They stick to a different definition of democracy as a channel through which a [Student’s Last Name] 4 recommended collection of policies is made legitimate with permission from the public. In this type of democracy, majority of the policies and plans that personally influence and affect the entire populace are vanished from the democratic empire and brought into the economy, where dictatorial foundations take over the decision-making procedures with a very small autonomous responsibility. In replacement, the manufacture of prime commodities and other services is decided by splices of democratic advocates whose main goal is to make the most of the end result, at the same time a splice of administrators and officeholders guarantees that the transmission or handover of the public resources coming from the state-run organizations towards the private sector is not interrupted by an alteration in political governance. The manifold definitions of democracy – most famously the “popular” and the “formal” versions of its definitions – are oftentimes being bent or fused together by politicians, and the media hardly ever argue this prevarication. Consequently, critics and observers must therefore create a sophisticated and intricate explanations to interpret for the difference between the Obama Administrations acknowledged democratic standards and the apparently the laws it adopts that are against democracy. The Egyptian revolution, nevertheless, proposes an epitome of a prevalent democratic drive that disobeys the Washingtons declining and dilapidated political structure and the reorganizations it proposes as placebos. By means of manifold interpretations, the pervasive democratic revolution in Egypt shaped in reaction to the Mubaraks administrations failure to meet the standards of general autonomy. The immense preponderance of the country was consolidated after a plain motivation: the immediate relinquishing of Mubaraks position. “The Obama administration initially sided [Student’s Last Name] 5 with Mubarak. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, who considers Mubarak a family friend, was among the first US officials to comment on the situation, and emphasized that Mubarak’s regime was an important US ally that had consistently helped the US maintain “stability” in the region.” (Napoletano, “The Egyptian Revolution and Democracy”). In a speech delivered by President Barack Obama that he organized with Mubarak, Obama contemptuously prompted the demonstrators and the raging demonstrators that they had the accountability to convey their individual sentiments serenely and peaceably, notwithstanding the ferocious aggression laid on them by Egypts military forces who are trained under the United States military training and services. Albeit, Obama proposed nothing more than empty-headed announcements regarding Egypts future, assured no particular reformations, and displayed no dedication to support the protesters petitions and requests. However, according to a news report by a Washington Post correspondence, at the later part of January, the Obama administration had strongly arranged in a line with the revolutionary demonstrations that has taken Egypt by surprise, asking for a well-ordered transition to a more archetypal administration. The Obama Administration simply appealed to Mubarak to carry out enhancing reorganizations, while the activists were insisting is instant resignation. “The Obama Administration has called on the Egyptian government to respect the basic rights of protestors and has expressed concern about violence, while calling for a meaningful transition toward more democratic governance to begin immediately.” (Sharp, “Egypt: The January 25 Revolution and Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy”). Latterly into the revolutionary sequences, as of February 7th, a report from the Los Angeles Times said that the Obama Administration had reduced its sense of earnestness pertaining to the transition from the administration of Mubaraks administration, and in [Student’s Last Name] 6 replacement, line up itself with the demonstrators and the activists who are seeking for administrative reforms including the Omar Suleiman - the latest Vice President of Egypt - who are insisting for a better, more steady and stabilized, and genuine autonomy or democracy. “Obama supported this revolution.” (Philpott, “A Friend or Foe of Democracy in the New Egypt”). Seen this way, it can be viewed as in line with Obama Administrations objective of preserving constancy in the Middle Eastern regions. In the interim, Obamas representative to Egypt explicitly requested Mubarak to keep hold of the power over Egypt which in return was counter-commented by the Obamas administration saying that Obamas envoy was just expressing his personal thoughts and suggestions of the matter and should not be attributed as a decision or an official statement from Washington. As soon as the activists, demonstrators conclusively compelled Mubarak to relinquish his position, the Obama Administration performed a reversal or a "U-turn". In his prudently-expressed reaction to Mubaraks resignation, Obama commended and acknowledged the effort that the people have exerted to get what they have demanded and on collapsing the Mubarak administration and added that the United States Government remain standing and is prepared to provide necessary protection and aids for the successful pursuit of trustworthy transition from Mubaraks regime into a genuine democratic government. President Obama, nevertheless, never made an apology to the people of Egypt for the military and political aids, together with the armaments and the trainings that the United States has provided to the armed forces of Egypt that were utilized against the activists. Having said that, this raises a rather anomalous cue on what could be the real intention of the Obama [Student’s Last Name] 7 administration to Egypt considering that at first, he was strongly supporting Mubaraks stance on the situation while later made a reversal treatment to Mubaraks regime and even congratulated the people for collapsing Mubarak’s administration. Cogitating on just even on the sequence of events and the development on the matters of the United States’ aid to Mubaraks administration, we can observe that there is a suspicious and ironical turnaround of things. Does Obama have concealed intentions for Egypt? Did he betray the people of Egypt? Did he betray Mubarak or just merely playing politics? “ The Obama administration has the greatest culpability in this, as they not only had the capability to undermine Mubarak, but their failure to do so revealed the hypocrisy of US support for democracy and human rights in the region.” (Hoover, “Egypt and the Failure of Realism”). Self-proclaimed pragmatists and other substantial factors and elements of the United States’ foreign policy founding have immensely acclaimed the Obama Administrations well-adjusted answer the democratic revolution in Egypt. However, was it really a balanced response? Does reversal of treatments, especially in the matter of political and military support makes it balanced at the end of the day? It could be projected as a reason that the United States might be considering forthcoming difference of the people of Egypt if the Obama Administration is planning to conduct another political and, more so, economic interest on the country if and most probably if they would have continued to support Mubaraks administration. Conclusively, we concede that although the United States was seemingly favoring transition towards a genuine democratic government, it doesnt cut the rather obvious political motivations of the Obama administration for Egypt. Many media people have depicted or represented the United States Government, particularly the Obama administration, as having desisted from direct participation [Student’s Last Name] 8 in the interruption of the revolution and commended Barack Obama for preserving a diplomatic equilibrium between the need of regional steadiness, which comprise mostly of administrations disposed to endure - and recurrently make possible - the United States "counter-terrorism acts, in the first place, and the willingness to encourage the broadening of democracy on the second. This provoked the Obama Administration to accept, in accordance with the description, a non-domineering method of action to the demonstrations, which was the most perfect thing to carry out by the Obama Administration, and in general, by the United States Government in situations such as this. In so far as this description has gained various and extolling commendation for President Obama, it abandons two substantially important key points: that endowing for the military training and providing military equipment for Egypt utilized by the ones who used them as before and military forces that were obstructing, tormenting and persecuting the demonstrators was withdrawn from the taxes of the United States citizens, and the United States and some other administrations routine of supporting dictators - which has been nearly and entirely and generally loathed and abominated by the international community and the international human rights associations - has been recognized as the main upwelling of the rage heading for the United States and still the routine persists. In spite of the recognized nonappearance of self-governing trustworthiness, the government of Egypt was the biggest lone receiver of the United States martial services and endowment and other assistances following that other models of democracy within the Middle Eastern region, which is the Israel. More ironically, most of the funds that the Obama [Student’s Last Name] 9 Administration has provided for Egypt had a little to no relation to the recommendation of Obama to the Egyptians to carry out democracy or even in safeguarding the people of Egypt from the tortures of Mubarak’s administration. As a matter of fact, the United States has reduced its endowment on promoting democracy in the country from 50 million dollars to only 20 million dollars in 2008. Moreover, yet there was a massive reduction on the aids of promoting democracy in the country and all the more so in the civil society, this is nothing if we calculate it and compare it to the total endowment of Egypt from the United States that is amounting to almost 2 billion dollars. Therefore, we can concede that the seemingly underlying interest of Obamas administration for Egypt will somehow never become contingent to the type of government the Egypt might have or to the kind of administration the country might have. If we can recall, the Obama administration was initially favoring Mubarak’s administration but then later sided to the protesters and was even glad about the Egyptians efforts to oust Mubarak out of his position. What does this imply? The Obama administration is not even worried whether there will be resentment from the Mubarak administration or whether there will be a change of government for as long as the United States is free to exercise its political and economic interests in the country. Secretary of the state, Hillary Clinton, did not confirm that Egypt had met the democratic values that the United States congress has laid down. In replacement, “she [Mrs. Clinton] waived that requirement. That move allowed money for F-16 fighters and Abrams M1A1 tanks to flow again.” (New York Times, “Enabling Egypt’s Military Rulers”). Although there have been handful developments towards a fresh and different democratic setting, the military administration has not rescinded the "emergency law" under which many protesters are incarcerated and put on trial in martial courts. Many people from Egypt disbelieve that the [Student’s Last Name] 10 military will surrender its power to the voted non-combatant leaders. Yet, there are positive causes to continue working with the Egyptian military comprising the same old objectives of carrying on the peace agreements with Israel, working together on counter-terrorism and contending with Iran. However, these causes are motivated by political interests, control and estimate for the reason that the armaments are predominantly manufactured and designed in the United States, with an added explanation that suppression of aid with result into job losses and disadvantages. The Obama administrations approach to the democratic revolution in Egypt is rather well-adjusted in a sense that he is not compromising both the interest of the people and the interest of the United States for Egypt. The overwhelming amount of aids that it provides to Egypt does not necessarily mean that he would have to be on one side of the lever, sacrificing the other. In other words, as we can see it, he was not trying to meddle in the transitioning process but was very cautious in maintaining good relations between the United States and Egypt. However, the Obama administration should have set up a method to delay some assistance to demonstrate a rather "concealed" backing for the democratic proceedings. In addition, Hillary Clinton could still keep up some control over the funds by placing it in the Department of Treasury where the United States would preserve management instead of putting it on a different interest-gaining banks managed together by Egypt and United States, which has been the routine. Anytime in the middle of today and the first of July, Egypt will select its new president and will make a revision on its constitution. All the Egypt citizens have to be pledged that the United States is supporting and always on their backs during the democratic transitioning while making aids for military purposes available is sending completely an erroneous implication. References: Editorial. (2012, March 26). Enabling Egypts military rulers. The New York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/opinion/enabling-egypts-military-rulers.html Fleishman, J. & Hassan, A. (2011, November 20). Frustrated Egyptians come out in force. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/20/world/la-fg- egypt-military-protesters-20111121 Heritage Foundation (2012, April 06). Obama officials meet Egypts muslim brotherhood as rockets hit Israel. Opposing Views. Retrieved from: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/white-house-hosts-egypt%E2%80%99s- muslim-brotherhood-rocket-hits-israel Hoover, J. (n.d.). Egypt and failure of realism. Retrieved from: http://www.criticalglobalisation.com/Issue4/127_137_EGYPT_REALISM_JCGS4.pdf Napoletano, B. (2011, February 15). The Egyptian revolution and democracy. The Palestine Chronicle. Retrieved from: http://palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=16654 Philpott, D. (n.d.). Daniel Philpott on Islam: a friend or foe of democracy in the new Egypt? Berklee Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs. Retrieved from: http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/essays/daniel-philpott-on-islam-a-friend-or-foe-of-democracy-in-the-new-egypt Roberts, N. (2011, February). Gambling with Egypts future. Voices: Tomorrows Leaders, Todays Issues. Retrieved from: http://www.voicesoftomorrow.org/us/gambling-with-egypts-future/ Scheer, R. (2011, February 09). Why Obama should read wikileaks. Toward Freedom: A Progressive Perspective on World Events Since 1952. Retrieved from: http://towardfreedom.com/home/global-news/2286-why-obama-should-read-wikileaks Sharp, J. (2011). Egypt: the January 25 revolution and implications of U.S. foreign policy. Retrieved from: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/157112.pdf Sharp, J. (2012). Egypt in transition. Retrieved from: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33003.pdf Read More