Back to the Future: Libya and Egypt

During the Central American wars, the Reagan Administration was criticized for supporting repressive, but anti-communist governments. Amb. Jeane Kirkpatrick, our mentor and friend, noted that while engaged, the U.S. could push them in the right political direction, but if they fell to the communist alternative, the possibility of increasing civil liberties was remote. One could see in this the lesson of the abandonment of the Iranian people to the clutches of the ayatollahs.

During the Central American wars, the Reagan Administration was criticized for supporting repressive, but anti-communist governments. Amb. Jeane Kirkpatrick, our mentor and friend, noted that while engaged, the U.S. could push them in the right political direction, but if they fell to the communist alternative, the possibility of increasing civil liberties was remote. One could see in this the lesson of the abandonment of the Iranian people to the clutches of the ayatollahs.

By and large, over the years it proved true – in areas as distant and different as Central America and Iran, where the government is controlled by ideological or religious dictators, the opening for gradual change (as opposed to change itself) is substantially less than in places controlled by secular, non-ideological dictators. If we were simply picking our poison, we could stop here – but Libya and Egypt are on the table.

In the Middle East, the siren songs of pan-Arab nationalism and communism have been replaced by the siren song of religious fundamentalism. Like other “isms,” it is restrictive, repressive and uninterested in constructive engagement with free societies, accounting for the Odd Couple relationship between Chavez and Ahmadinejad. It is in our national interest to ensure that fewer countries move that way than our way.

Restoration of diplomatic relations with Libya, following Khaddafi’s surrender of WMD capabilities and step back from support of terrorism, is neither approval of or absolution for the regime; only recognition that it has ceased to do what most threatened us. No one would mistake it for a nice country, so this should be the beginning of a process of engagement to help open Libyan society to civil liberties and civic space.

This, then, is the worst possible time for the Administration to botch our relationship with Egypt’s secular, non-ideological dictatorship. But that’s what it is doing.

The Mubarak government is tightening the noose on judges who had begun a move toward increased judicial independence, including two judges who criticized abuses in last year’s elections. News accounts tell of security men clubbing and kicking protesters demonstrating in support of the judges in Cairo. This follows by only days what appears to have been a pleasant meeting between the Administration and Gamal Mubarak, the heir apparent.

Mubarak moans that if we don’t support him Egypt will fall to the Muslim Brotherhood. In no uncertain terms, the U.S. should tell him that it is precisely his heavy hand that increases support for Islamists in Egypt. American political, economic and military support must be predicated on widening the civic space for the judges and protesters, releasing democracy advocate Ayman Nour from prison, and ensuring non-interference in the establishment of political parties. And furthermore, we don’t support hereditary government, so young Mr. Mubarak should consider other options.

Anything less fails the Egyptian people and sets the stage for failure in Libya as well.