(1) Mubarak is a “friend” of the US. Nation-states don’t have and can’t have friends. They have allies at best, based on mutual interests, not sentiments or other personal attributes. Everything else is rhetoric. (2) Mubarak is party to the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty. Wrong, treaties are agreements between states, not individuals. (3) The US must balance the interests of Egyptians and the Mubarak government. If the people do believe that their government does not support their interests, it is no longer a legitimate government. Without free and fair elections there is no reason to allow the current regime to continue. Therefore, there is nothing to balance, unless the US means that it will support an illegitimate government instead of the people, because the tyrant sings “The Star-Spangled Banner.” (4) There is the dangerous “Ripple Effect.” This absurd notion implies that something that is good, democracy, becomes bad if it spreads to other regimes which don’t support America in defiance of their people. It becomes horrific if it makes Israel nervous. (5) The balance between security and democracy. This is again a false dichotomy. A democratic people determine the relationship of individual liberty and the need for law and order and security. Placing security or any other concerns outside the sovereignty of the people denies democracy in principle. (6) The Egyptians are not ready for democracy. If so, the Mubarak regime has not helped them become ready, unless it intended the current protest. Democracy is a learn-by-doing process. (7) But what comes next? The idea that a revolution must have a democratically arrived at program before it takes power is a counsel of perfection, which no revolution has ever met, perhaps with the exception of the Russian one. The only program of the American Revolution was to get rid of British rule. All other issues were hammered out later. (8) Throwing Mubarak under the bus: the Ripple Effect again. This idea implies that the leader of a regime, no matter how tyrannical, deserves the support of the US, so long as its leader has supported US interests, especially in defiance of his or her people. Casting Mubarak aside in favor of Egyptians will send the wrong message to other tyrants and their people. What wrong message? That democracy is bad? That tyrants are good? That America is not trustworthy? The message that might be sent is that the US believes that its allies should do all they can to secure the approval of their people. If they fail, they cannot count on US support because democracy is the best guarantee of legitimacy, which in turn is basic to stability. This is the only stability worth talking about. Trust is a personal attribute, not a factor governing relations between states. (9) Balancing stability with democracy. See above regarding legitimacy. Stability without legitimacy is like a sheet of ice waiting for its first crack. (10) Mubarak has been a friend of Israel and therefore the US. If so, this assertion is totally irrelevant. The only real question is whether Mubarak has served the interests of Egyptians, which few people outside his circle believe. Or has he betrayed the interest of his people in favor of the US and Israel for billions in US aid?
The treaty: Ribbentrop light interference
Apart from the fact that it is extremely unlikely that Egyptians believe that the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty is in their interests, let us examine its effects. On the positive side, there has been no war between Egypt and Israel for 30 years. Egypt has received billions in aid -- mostly to the army. For Israel, the most important gain has been securing its southern border. As a result it has been able to step up its military and political aggression against Palestinians and its northern neighbors. When Hitler and Stalin signed the Ribbentrop Pact, Hitler postponed a two-front war. He then concentrated on France, which he defeated in six weeks. From the Palestinian and Arab point of view the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty has been Ribbentrop light. If this is so, the treaty should be renegotiated. My suggestion for Egyptians is that they demand that they receive the same per capita aid that America gives Israel. This would work out to between $48-64 billion per year, depending on how American aid to Israeli is calculated. Let’s talk!
*Christopher Vasillopulos is a professor of international relations at Eastern Connecticut State University.
