Egypt has capable alternatives to Hosni Mubarak, from military and diplomats to cultural and religious. However, Mubarak’s efforts to stay at all costs are spilling the political credibility of many of such leaders who are critical to a transition to a more open and democratic Egypt. As more time goes by without resolution the greater risk that current military and diplomatic leaders becoming political corpses in this revolution. The longer it takes, the more risk that western capitals will become even more identified with Mubarak’s intransigence and as obstructionists to substantive change. The greater the political vacuum that develops the more likely also those more reactionary forces will push to the forefront.


Not About “Islamic Brotherhood”, At least for Now

The Muslim Brotherhood is not the driving force of this Egyptian Revolution, at least currently. This is largely a grassroots uprising across most of society. Mubarak cannot round up a few "ring leaders" of a tightly knit movement and thus eliminate the impetus driving the revolution. Mubarak instead is throwing into the battle men and institutions that are most likely to dent the sharp edge of this broad revolution because of their standing and credibility with the masses. By placing these men in between himself and the street masses, he is potentially wasting the best opportunity for an orderly transition, at least from the perspective of Western capitals.


Fodder for Battle with Street Masses

It is Mubarak’s political head that the Egyptian street wants. No cosmetic or substantive change will successfully end the crisis unless it comes with Mubarak’s going. As one by one the current military and diplomatic leaders are thrown as fodder at the advancing masses, so goes another opportunity for a less violent and volatile change. (The looting that is currently becoming more rampant is also symptomatic of another great problem that has become worse under Mubarak’s rule – economic inequity and class division.) The longer that it takes, the more likely that the revolution will become one of citizen versus citizen, even class warfare, further increasing the slide toward aggressive military action. All of this could be evolutions of the current street crisis that Mubarak might welcome in desperation to create a clear “we” versus “them” differentiation that would de-emphasize his role as the symbol of discontent and re-anoint him as a necessary savior of the establishment.


If Egypt’s military does step in to confront the demonstrators with full force, it is a confrontation that will leave many losers and cut the possibility for a less traumatic transition. From the perspective of Washington and western powers, military force may appear like an option, (despite recent public statements to the contrary,) but it would in consequence be most likely to produce the worst. Egypt’s military enjoys the benefit of a dichotomy: it is the West’s close ally within the country but also respected by broad segment of Egyptian society as the government institution most closely identified with the nation. Actively confronting the demonstrators would not only be seen as bullets on behalf of the status-quo but also as acting at behest of such western powers. Credibility to act constructively as part of the solution would be lost, and the military would sink into the morass of chaotic battle.


An Ideological Transformation or a Blood Letting

That is when a vacuum would become most critical and such cohesive underground institutions as the Muslim Brotherhood would be emboldened to act more openly and become more capable of piloting the course of a revolution already underway. It is too rough of a comparison, separated by centuries, continents and culture, but the choice for Egypt is something akin to an American type revolution (a transformation that took place more in principles of political governance) or to a French Revolution (with its rapid convulsions, class struggle and spilling of blood that eventually spread beyond its borders.)


Washington & West: From Wasted Lead Role to Passive Observer

The West cannot stand by, but its role nonetheless may be limited now after years of when it may have had an opportunity to encourage meaningful reforms. Washington may have some credit with the military, but it has been understood as a quid-pro-quo for Egypt’s role in the peace with Israel. Otherwise, official Washington has at best a mixed reputation more associated with renditions, black holes and torture co-opting the same security apparatus that Mubarak would now turn again against his people. President Obama’s initiatives in early months of his Administration directed at the Arab and Muslim worlds, (neither the same thing nor is either monolithic,) have been lost due to failure to follow up with substantive policy changes – look at Gitmo.


This Time Around, Finding Democratic Partners to Engage

Still, Washington in particular and the West in general has too much not only invested but responsibility for the dangerous inertia that has been allowed to develop in and around Egypt after Anwar Sadat’s assassination. Last time around, Washington was lulled into ever-greater dependence upon one man and regime. Now, new partners must be identified, but that are willing to actually represent the Egyptian people as a whole. In my capacity as Ambassador and Foreign Minister, I was impressed with the talent of Egypt’s many diplomats and to what extent they gave weight to official Washington’s nod. (It was not always in the best interest of Bosnia & Herzegovina, but they exhibit an adept instinct for the safe ground.) Mohamed El-Baradei, Nobel Laureate, is only one of several that may need to be accessed. El-Baradei may have already deftly defined himself as opposition unifying force, (thus exceeding the role in this revolution decreed to him by many talking heads). In the alternative, he could end up being a stepping-stone for more reactionary forces, a political corpse, if he does not succeed soon in his stated mission.


"Reset" Official Washington Role/Must be True to its Rhetoric

Despite its rhetoric, official Washington has generally opted for the ease of dealing with autocrats rather than the complexity of engaging with democracies. Even now, the reality of Washington’s actions has not caught up with our rhetoric. Besides core US interests, Washington needs to deal with Egyptian military, cultural, religious and diplomatic/political alternatives that are in position to bring resolution to the crisis and consistent with deeds and not just words regarding America’s core values of human rights, freedom, democracy and open society. "Reset" is a favorite term that this Administration has become fond of in describing a rapprochement on various foreign policy fronts. Reset this time must first be as to substantively changing the perception and substance of the US role.


Publicly Asking for Democracy, Privately Entrenching Autocrats

Official Washington has often complained of not having a “democratic partner” while acting frequently to the contrary in terms of encouraging reform. Washington has slowly sunk to becoming ineffective in the region or as one recent NY Times article referred: “the butt of jokes.” (View our recent articles and film reports: “US Government-Is it Perceived a Force for Democratic Change in Arab World” - diplomaticallyincorrect.org/films/blog_post/us-government-is-it-perceived-as-force-for-democracy-in-arab-world-by-ambassador-mo/18636 ) Egypt is one of the regimes with which the US Government is most closely associated with, but fortunately, it is also a country most capable of absorbing change constructively.


Egypt the Trend Setter in Arab World

Egypt also represents the most populous Arab country, with sophisticated culture and broad diversity. It is a trendsetter in many ways. Change must be welcome first with focus on internal considerations, (to address the continuing inclusion of Coptic Christians and to further nurture an open debate and society.) In our recent interview with the Palestinian Ambassador to the United Nations, I was frankly stunned by his not so subtle support for “change” in Egypt as part of a broader Arab trend. (The Palestinian Authority has been associated with some of the same inertia of which the Mubarak regime is accused, and the current Palestinian leadership has much at risk having also been targeted for everything from ineptness and corruption to being too soft in negotiations with Israel – View our interview Parts1 & 2 with the Palestinian Ambassador - diplomaticallyincorrect.org/films/movie/palestine-statehood-at-unamb-riyad-mansour-interview-p1/24296 .

diplomaticallyincorrect.org/films/movie/change-arab-world-egypt-tunisiagood-bad-for-palestinian-cause-interview-p2/24298


Change is Risky but Inertia is Fatal

Israel of course will face a new environment as well. Consecutive Israeli governments have probably become too comfortable in dealing with static Arab regimes. While Israeli official rhetoric has frequently also differentiated it from autocratic Arab regimes, (even as a rationalization for less flexibility in its own negotiating position,) now the Netanyahu Government may have the opportunity to deal with more democratic counterpart(s). Of course, that does not mean that Israel’s demands or ambivalence will be easier to exercise. Rather, as Israeli leaders in the past have cited internal opposition from hard-line members within Israeli Governments to deflect more flexible negotiating positions with Palestinians, now they may have to face similar arguments from a newly democratizing Cairo and perhaps Arab world as a whole. Democracy is not always orderly and comfortable. However, as in examples from Indonesia to Turkey, it is proving more progressive and stable than its predecessors regardless of the West’s fear of “Islamic influences.”


In short, the change is coming and it is fraught with both opportunity and risk for Egyptians, Arabs, neighbors and global powers as the United States. The change has its own ideological rationale consistent with democratic and open society values. It is also undoubtedly unsettlingly chaotic, regardless of direction of change. Democracy and open societies should be viewed though as opportunities that we should welcome lest we get caught up in the backdraft. The stakes are high for all involved. Since we, the Western democracies, did not timely and adequately encourage change, the timing of such is now beyond our control. Perhaps we can help shape direction of such change by also being willing to change, but it is change that we will have to eventually welcome, whether we are truly comfortable with it.

By Ambassador Muhamed Sacirbey

Facebook - Find & Join "Diplomatically Incorrect"

Twitter - Follow us "DiplomaticallyX"