By pondering and delaying to act against oppressive Arab regimes, the credibility and commitment of the US have come into question. While commenting on Egypt’s recent uprising, Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, during the conflict vowed that “our evaluation is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the genuine needs and interests of the Egyptian people”. Gradually, with increasing chaos, US narratives began to shift, slowly at first but then much more quickly. What we saw at work in Egypt was evidence of a new Clinton propounded Middle East doctrine. She tried to hedge US bets by keeping a foot in almost all camps, maintaining contact with different sectors in society, emphasising ‘stability’ when regime endurance seemed feasible, and then emphasising ‘orderly transition’ when change seemed probable. It was a mixture of realism, opportunism and an aspiration to intervene without being seen to intervene.
What sort of friend to Egyptians has the US been? How trustworthy is its record of sustaining democracy in Egypt? Does Obama believe the US will not be held accountable? The fact remains that history is being written by those who were always on the wrong side of it.
Published in:
Daily Times: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011%5C02%5C24%5Cstory_24-2-2011_pg3_7
