At its inception, the United States was a neutral nation. George Washington wanted to see no foreign entanglements because he knew that such arrangements could be disastrous for a country in its infancy. For most of our history, we hewed to this policy as closely as we deemed possible. We avoided what had been the downfall of many great nations and what bankrupted so many of our European cultural allies.
However, when the United States began to find itself with a growing ability to shape the actions of other countries, we began the process of conveniently forgetting the lessons of President Washington. Starting perhaps with Latin America, the United States began brandishing its newly developed big stick.
Today, our foreign policy is the opposite of what we started with, without equivocation. For both better and worse, we have embedded ourselves in more of the world’s problems than I have time to count. And if we did not already know it, Wikileaks exposed to us our own hubris in expecting the world to accept our involvement. Like the bad aunt in a family comedy, we let our opinion be known - righteously and imperiously.
The biggest problem we have found is that our interests and our national morals often conflict. We have spent a century preaching freedom and a decade turning our serious face to the Middle East and its lack of democracy. Meanwhile, we spent a century supporting dictators and a decade being delicate with dictatorial allies in the Middle East. Our leader even held one of their dictators’ hands and we even forthrightly declare our intention to devastate the people who elected Hamas in order to depose the government.
Which brings us to Egypt. Partly for historical ties and partly for timeliness, Egypt represents our dueling interests coming around the back and kicking us in the ass. Our balancing act between helpful dictators and America’s grander goals is failing spectacularly. One day, the Secretary of State declares support for the friendly dictator. The next, and without a hint of embarrassment or restitution, she is declaring support for the upstarts.
And yet, it is more complicated. Our support for dictators and our general expectation of involvement has more than angered a large radical fringe of a certain religion. Our self-righteousness, peachiness, and willful ignorance of our own faults has – wonder of wonders – encouraged these people to lash out. You see, our culture may make them hate us but it is our imperiousness and unrelenting presence that makes us the target. Coming full circle to one of history’s most convenient microcosms and metaphors, the likely next Egyptian government is one of radical Islamists.
So, what are we to do? At first glance, it would seem that declaring unequivocal support for the protestors is a convenient and highly public way of declaring our intention to make everything right. At second glance, we see the Muslim Brotherhood. Their unrelenting hatred of us leaves us no choice but to support Mubarak at all costs. However, that unrelenting hatred is largely the result of our support of dictators and, more importantly, our expectation of involvement.
You see the problem?
I strongly disagree with your assertion that the protests in Egypt are directed toward the U.S. and its imperialist interests. How many protestors are burning American flags? How many are holding up signs with Obama's head? No, these protests are not against the U.S. and the aid we give Egypt; these protest are about a corrupt dictator denying Egyptians freedom and food. As to your expectation that the Muslim Brotherhood will seize power, I also have to disagree. In the main, the protestors are secular. They are not looking for a Beckian caliphate. They are looking to gain basic human rights.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I wasn't clear. I'm not trying to assert that the protests in Egypt are directed at the US. I was trying to explain how the US has found itself in a high-profile situation where it is bound by rhetoric, precedent, and national interest to defend both sides, and how this reflects part of what has made so many so angry at the US. In fact, I was trying to imply that US expectation of involvement in Egypt's situation reflects how the US expects to be involved in many other countries' problems without first considering whether it should be involved, to what extent it should be involved, and whether its involvement will contradict its stated values. It is my assertion that this lack of self-awareness fuels anti-American rage around the world. Egypt is simply a convenient metaphor because in a sense the US has no business in Egyptians choosing a new government.
ReplyDeleteNow, this certainly raises questions. For instance, perhaps US benevolence and support for democracy is a very positive force, but that we must realize the US will often look out for its own interests. It is not the UN, after all. There's more examples but I gotta go. Just trying to start more debate on US presence, as more is certainly warranted.