Washington’s fault

Even for someone who served abroad as an American diplomat, the Egyptian penchant for conspiracy theories about Washington’s supposed role is astonishing.  So too is the crudeness of Egyptian anti-Americanism.  While I was treated to a good deal of poor taste and baseless speculation about American machinations while serving as an American diplomat in Italy and Brazil, the admixture of hope for good relations with the United States was significantly greater there.  Egyptians seem genuinely to dislike the US and attribute many of their ills to it.

It is difficult to understand how people as clever as the Egyptians have failed to break the code of American behavior:  Washington understands that it has relatively little influence over what happens in Egypt and is prepared to accept whoever comes to power with a modicum of legitimacy and promises to steer the country towards something like a democratic outcome with as little violence as possible.  That’s what happened when Mubarak fell, it is what happened when Morsi took over, and it is what happened when the demonstrations and General Sissi pushed him out.

Washington is following the Egyptian lead.  If American behavior seems erratic and incomprehensible to Egyptians, that is largely because the revolutionary course the Egyptians have chosen is so unpredictable.  The result is that all sides in Egypt are convinced the Americans are arrayed against them.  Neither secularists nor Islamists in Egypt seem inclined to look in the mirror to see the origins of what ails their country.  Both prefer to blame it all on Washington, which has been less than adroit in countering the vituperation.

This is not to say there is no basis whatsoever in the conspiracy theories.  Ambassador Patterson likely did try to get General Sissi to negotiate some sort of deal with the Muslim Brotherhood.  Deputy Secretary of State Burns did not spend several days in Cairo recently lounging around the embassy–he surely pushed for Sissi to clarify the future roadmap for preparing a constitution and holding new elections.  The Americans will be concerned to see things in Egypt move towards relatively democratic stability, with the state’s monopoly on the legitimate means of violence restored (especially in Sinai).  They may make mistakes of judgment about how that would best be accomplished, but to imagine that they want Morsi back in power, or Sissi to continue in power without elections, is just plain wrong.

I don’t begrudge Egypt its enthusiasm for its latest military rock star.  General Sissi has clearly tapped some deep vein of political gold in the Egyptian body politic.  But we should all recognize this cult of personality for what it is:  a budding autocrat whose similarity to Gamal Abdel Nasser should raise eyebrows not only in Washington.  My dean Vali Nasr predicts that the Americans will soon be back to a policy of supporting Middle Eastern autocrats against more and less radical Islamists.

I hope not.  The Arab uprisings are a tremendous opportunity to encourage greater freedom in a part of the world that has seen little of it.  Things are now going sour in Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, and Egypt, not to mention poor Syria.  Each circumstance is distinct, but in all of them the genie will be difficult to put back in the bottle.  What is needed from the United States is consistent backing for democratic processes, which require relatively stable and orderly environments.  The only thing we should want to be blamed for is support to those who seek human dignity and open societies.