By Walter Russell Mead
Secretary of State John Kerry went uncomfortably off-message yesterday in Pakistan, voicing a surprising level of support for Egypt’s military to journalists in Islamabad:
“In effect, they were restoring democracy,” Mr. Kerry said of Egypt’s military to Pakistan’s Geo News during a South Asia tour on Thursday. “The military did not take over, to the best of our judgment—so far, so far—to run the country. There’s a civilian government.”
Obama administration officials tried to walk back the remarks—”He didn’t stick to the script,” an unnamed source growled to the WSJ—but
it was too late. The media pounced, the remarks were quickly torn apart
on Twitter, and Team Obama is again struggling to regain its balance on
Egypt, trying not to call what happened a coup while hoping that the
military doesn’t get too much more blood on its hands in restoring order
to Cairo and Alexandria.
Let’s get the obvious parts out of the way: No, the Egyptian military
is not restoring democracy in Egypt. You can’t “restore” something that
never existed, and it takes a lot more than a couple of elections to
make a democracy. Democracy requires a host of institutions, tacit
agreements, and social norms most of which don’t exist in Egypt. It also
depends on a certain basic level of economic progress and prosperity,
also not exactly likely to sprout up on the banks of the Nile anytime
soon.
The army wasn’t trying to build democracy, either; it was restoring
order and protecting the deep state, more or less in accordance with the
will of a large number of middle class and urban Egyptians. That’s the
beginning and end of it. Americans desperately want somebody to be the
pro-democracy good guys. But right now at least, democracy doesn’t seem
to be on the menu at the Egypt café.
We don’t want to be too hard on Secretary Kerry. Foreign policy is
never easy to do in real time, and the world is in a good deal of
disarray at this very moment. But his remarks do point to a deeper
problem with the Obama administration’s foreign policy approach—a
problem that’s finally starting to bite.
The Obama administration has made a fundamental strategic choice that
hasn’t worked out well. Officials decided to support the Muslim
Brotherhood in the hope of detoxifying US relations in the Middle East
and promoting moderation among Islamists across the world. Between Prime
Minister Erdogan’s surging authoritarianism in Turkey and the
unmitigated Morsi disaster in Egypt, that policy is pretty much a
smoking ruin these days, and a shell-shocked administration is stumbling
back to the drawing board with, it appears, few ideas about what to try
next.
Adding insult to injury, the Obama administration has conducted
itself erratically enough to have lost everyone’s respect in the
process. It hastily and indecorously ditched long time ally Mubarak and
embraced the Muslim Brotherhood only to drop the Brothers when the going
got tough. It’s hard to blame anyone in Egypt right now for thinking
that the Americans are worthless friends whose assurances are hollow and
who will abandon you the minute you get into trouble. At every point
along the way, the administration made the choices it did out of good
motives, but it would be difficult to design a line of policy more
calculated to undermine American prestige and influence than the one we
chose.
Rarely has an administration looked as inconsequential and trifling
as the Obama administration did this week as it tried to square the
circle. It isn’t using the c-word because it doesn’t want to offend the
military, but it bleats ineffectually about human rights in hopes of
retaining a few shreds of credibility among the supporters of the ousted
President. The armed forces appear to be treating the United States
with indifference; our support won’t help and our scolding won’t hurt.
It’s very hard to see how all this has won us friends or influenced
people. The kerfuffle with Kerry’s remarks in Pakistan wouldn’t normally
amount to much. Even Secretaries of State are human, it is hard to
explain complicated ideas in short television interviews, and all of us
get our feet in our mouths sometime. But as one more misstep in a long
series, it has had more impact than usual.
We’ve said from the beginning that the Arab Spring was going to
present the administration with some horrible headaches and impossible
choices. George Washington was the first US President to learn just how
much trouble a long and complicated revolutionary process in an allied
nation could cause. The French revolution split his cabinet, caused him
huge political and diplomatic headaches, and so embittered American
politics that he felt and feared that he had failed. Those who criticize
the President should never forget just how difficult these challenges
really are. Flip and vain talking heads are always sure that there are
simple, easy alternatives that would make everything work out okay. That
is almost never the case, and it certainly isn’t now.
All that said, it’s unlikely that the President and his team can be
anything but unhappy with the view as they look across the Atlantic:
Edward Snowden is sitting pretty in Moscow with Putin humiliating the
administration (once again) by failing to give it advance notice of the
decision, Assad is still holding court in Damascus and even predicting
victory, there appear no easy outs in Afghanistan, Iran is surging in
Iraq, and the promise of the Arab Spring has mostly evaporated. The
recent jailbreaks in Iraq, Libya and Pakistan, along with Thursday’s announcement
that the US would be temporarily closing its embassies across the
Middle East due to an unspecified terrorist threat, suggest al-Qaeda and
other fanatical terror organizations are on a roll. Meanwhile, the US
is farther than ever from the kind of partnership with relatively
liberal and democratic Muslim parties and movements that the Obama
administration sees as the best way to tame terror and build a better
future. Success in the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks would have a
large impact, but that prospect, sadly, still seems unlikely.
Fortunately for the administration, the public seems to want to think
about the Middle East as little as possible. Yet the President’s poll
numbers on foreign policy continue to decline, and much of the foreign policy establishment seems to be tip toeing away from the administration as quickly as it can.
Failure in the Middle East has the potential to wreck the President’s
foreign policy world wide. The “pivot to Asia” was predicated on a
shift of American attention and resources away from the Middle East.
That seems less likely now; many in Asia are wondering what happens to
the pivot when the Secretary of State has clearly put the peace process
at the center of his priorities. It is not easy to discern a commitment
to humanitarian values or human rights in an administration that has
passively watched the Syrian bloodbath metastasize and that has put
together global surveillance programs that have angered many human
rights groups as well as some allied powers.
President Obama still has more than three years left in the White
House, but many of the policies that he brought with him or developed
early in his tenure have now passed their sell-by dates. Abandoning
Iraq, the surge in Afghanistan, intensification of the drone war in
Pakistan, alliances with moderate Islamists, and a democracy agenda in
the Middle East: sadly, those dogs won’t hunt anymore.
Many in the State Department and the broader foreign policy
establishment believe that the relatively small group of trusted aides
with whom the President has worked most closely don’t have the depth or
experience to manage the country’s international portfolio well. We
aren’t going to arbitrate that issue here; such criticisms are often
self-serving. But whether he relies on the same aides or reaches out to
more and different advisers, the President is going to have to change
his approach to the Middle East and, one suspects, to Russia.
No comments:
Post a Comment