Establishment international relations analysts in the West
view the justification for their existence in terms of the utility their work
has for decision makers. They often end their articles in academic journals
with policy prescriptions for government officials. This partly helps explain
the wide disparities in coverage and analysis of comparable conflicts and
political events around the world: protests in Turkey are discussed in great detail, those in
Bulgaria ignored; a war where millions die in the Congo is side-lined, but
conflict in Syria has thousands of pages of analysis dedicated to it. This
reflects, in part, the relative strategic priority assigned to different events
and nations by the government of the state the analysts call their home. Most
IR work is carried out in the US, and so they spend their time studying and
coming up with policy prescriptions for areas the US considers to house its
vital strategic interests; the Middle East is far more important to the US than
Central Africa, and so the corresponding volume of academic analysis dedicated
to the two regions reflects the incongruity in importance US planners and policy
makers assign to the two areas.
I write this because recent events betray this fact in its
entirety. Since the June 30th protests in Egypt several articles about the situation have already appeared on Foreign Affairs,
the journal published by the Council on Foreign Relations (probably the largest
establishment institution for IR analysis). Having several articles published
on the website of possibly the main
IR journal two days after a political event is notable. It signifies that
analysts believe urgent policy advice is needed for US governmental planners
for the Middle East; it signifies that the US considers Egypt to be a country
of major importance to US interests.
There is ample evidence to suggest that this is the case and
ample reason why it would be. Egypt, the most populous Arab country, is located right
at the heart of the Arab world in an incredibly important geo-political
location. The Suez Canal is the connection between the Mediterranean and the
Red Sea, the sea route between East and West. The Sinai Peninsula connects
Africa to the Arabian Peninsula, and is a historic locus of political strife
involving Israel, Egypt and outside powers. Egypt is known as the ‘heartland of
Arab discontent’, with a tradition of revolution and uprising; Nasser was once
one of the biggest enemies of the West for his anti-imperialism and attempted
moves towards Arab independence. What happens in Egypt effects the rest of the
region, and what happens in the region effects the rest of the world.
It then comes as little surprise that the Egyptian military
receives more military aid from the US- around $1.3 billion a year- than any
other country in the world, bar Israel. US troops are stationed in the Sinai
(more are being moved
there currently), and close relations between the US and Egyptian
governments have been entrenched since the days of Sadat.
The Arab Spring is a complex phenomenon that has been
subject to many competing interpretations. The situation in Egypt is in many
ways evidence of a true revolution taking place; democratic transformations
don’t happen overnight. Sheri Berman detailed in Foreign Affairs the
other month how most modern democracies had years long, sometimes
generational struggles to achieve the gains they have today, on occasion even
descending into civil war before coming out the other end (the US is a prime
example). Those upheavals which we uncontroversially describe as ‘revolutions’
today often took years, and smaller events which were at the time described as
revolutions, like those in the 2000s in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, will
probably not be judged as such by history.
The struggle in Egypt has been characterised as taking on
three parts- against the Mubarak government in 2011, against the SCAF (Supreme
Council of the Armed Forces) regime in 2012, and against the new Morsi
government in 2013. But there is another underlying and pervasive struggle against counter-revolutionary forces present which is often missed. As Tariq Ali claimed in New Left Review a couple of months ago, ‘any adequate analysis of
the outcomes of the Arab Spring must reckon with Washington’s tight defence of
its interests in the region’ (‘Between Past and Future’; New Left Review; 2013 (80)) . This isn’t merely leftist dogmatism;
a careful reading of the establishment journals and a close look at US policy
reveals as much. Writing in the same issue as Sheri Berman, Seth Jones of the
conservative RAND Corporation gave a realistic assessment of US policy during
the Arab Spring. According to him, the US and its allies ‘need to protect their
strategic interests in the region- balancing against rogue states such as Iran,
ensuring access to energy resources, and countering violent extremists.
Achieving these goals will require working with some authoritarian governments’
(‘The Mirage of the Arab Spring’; Foreign
Affairs; 2013; 92(1)). This is more or less what the US is doing and should be
doing, according to him. He is honest when he states that ‘a number of authoritarian
Arab countries… are essential partners in protecting [US] interests’. However
the key piece of analysis comes at the end of the article, where he states that
the reality is ‘that some democratic governments in the Arab world would almost
certainly be more hostile to the United States than their authoritarian
predecessors, because they would be more responsive to the populations of their
own countries’, which he goes on to show are highly unsupportive of the US role
in the region (i.e. in 2012 19% of Egyptians had a favourable view of the US,
according to a Pew Research poll).
More to come on Egypt as events unfold.
No comments:
Post a Comment