It is easy to be misled by the media images of recent
events in Egypt into thinking that violence is everywhere. It is not--it is localized and its areas are
predictable. People are not being killed daily. Egypt is not currently sinking
into a "quagmire of violence."
It could happen, but that is not inevitable.
Unfortunately whenever I see or read a US media report,
the story is almost completely about violence.
There has been comparatively little violence in the days leading up to
30 June and since. Today there is music
playing in Tahrir Square, and it's like one big street party.
Look for news on al-Jazeera International, al-Arabeyya English, read
al-Ahram English Online, coverage in the Guardian or the daily news summary
from POMED (Project on Middle East Democracy) for more diverse and informed
views then for US mainstream media.
The 30 June events were most definitely a popular
uprising. The army then stepped in to
prevent things into deteriorating into civil war and for reasons of its
own. I don't trust them to build
democracy, nor respect human rights--they don't know how to do either.
But the governing coalition put into place isn't bad--it
includes a lot of technocrats, from a broad spectrum of political groups. It doesn't include the Islamicists, as they
refuse to participate, not being very happy about being ousted. The cabinet includes four economists, and I
hope they implement change on the economy quickly, as its collapse would make
blood run in the streets, as eating regularly has become more difficult for so
many people since 2011. If you look at who they are, it is a really interesting
mix of people who brings some good skills to governing.
The Muslim Brotherhood and their supporters are taking
their cause to the streets, insisting they are the "legitimate"
government, and the current situation undermines democracy. No need to go into all the problems of their
administration, but they left human rights in Egypt worse off then before, and
became increasingly more repressive, so their claims to be democratic are
pretty hollow.
The secularists and liberals in Egypt blame the US for
supporting the Muslim Brotherhood (MB).
They were blamed for supporting Mubarak's regime for 30 years before
that. Now the MB is blaming the US for
supporting the military in ousting Morsi's government. "Mama Amrika" is the favorite scapegoat
for Egypt's problems, and has contributed to many of them, but can't be guilty
of all of the above. Egyptians love
conspiracy theories and there have been enough bad US actions to made adding up
the circumstantial evidence about US involvement look plausible. But it isn't reasonable to suppose that the
Arab Spring is a US sponsored event.
There is no question that US foreign policy has been
problematic. The US propped up Mubarak's
30-year rule with the same funding formula as it continued under Morsi's
presidency: $1.3 billion in military assistance, the remainder of the 1.5
billion total in other forms of assistance, mostly delivered through the
largest US AID program in the world.
Each time the question of cutting US funding comes up, it is renewed. Even when Congress threatened to cut the
funds last year, after the military arrested members of three large US and one
German NGO, Kerry privately agreed to keep sending the funds just a week or two
before the NGOs' verdict was decided.
Everyone knows the funds won't be cut, because it is the price of
Egypt's peace with Israel, a deal struck with Anwar Sadat in the Camp David
Accords.
The US agenda in Egypt is stability--never mind who is
running the country: Mubarak, the military, or the MB. The US wants stability so its business deals
with Egypt remain unthreatened, as well as the status quo, the cold peace with
Israel is maintained. Democracy is not
the US agenda, even though it funding of democracy building efforts was part of
the Egyptian military's motivation for going after the NGOs.
At any rate, the debate rages about whether the army's
actions on 3 July constitute a coup, primarily because by law, US funding
depends on saying it was not a coup. The
MB are loudly shouting that it was. The
military insists it wasn't. The people
who took to the streets are insulted by the idea that it was a coup, given the
overwhelming popular participation in the demonstrations to topple Morsi.
What's ahead? That
is difficult to say. General Al-Sisi has just called for the MB to leave the
streets and asked for popular support "against terrorism," in other
words, asked the people to go to Tahrir again this Friday and support the
army's attacks on Morsi's supporters. I
think this is a dangerous move.
The military is like the repairman with only one tool, a
hammer--therefore he pounds everything to fix it. The military's tool is
violence, and it is their main response to everything--they think they can
restore order by using more violence and repression. They do not understand that violence is a
problem, not a solution. I think the forcible removaI of the MB demonstrators
will take massive violence. It will mean
very bloody street battles, probably between the pro- and anti-Morsi peoples,
with the army watching. Then perhaps we
will sink into the "quagmire of violence." The army will perhaps then
clamp down, and pretend they had no alternative for the "sake of
Egypt."
The 30 June was Revolution 2.0, or Step Two, and there
are many more steps to come, in order to achieve the goals of the 25 January
Revolution of Bread, Social Justice, and Democracy. There are many steps still needed, in part
because the revolution has been mostly nonviolent, instead of including mass
murder of old regime persons or a purge of counterrevolutionaries. Egyptians don't want a violent
revolution. So there will likely be many
more cycles of change to go through--very little has improved so far.
What remains a central problem is that the "deep
state," is the military and the secret police. They haven't gone anywhere, and they don't
intend to. They also don't intend to give up power, and they don't "do
democracy." They prefer a low
profile, because they don't want to run affairs of state. They prefer figureheads to do that, whether a
Mubarak or a Morsi, while they rest on their popular support and control the
economy (they directly own 40% of it).
They quickly became very unpopular with the Supreme Council of Armed
Forces (SCAF) ran the country after Mubarak and before Morsi's election. The
revolutionaries were in the streets again in large numbers, calling for the
SCAF to step down. They massacred
activists on Mohamed Mahmoud Street (20 November 2011 and 2012) and at Maspero
(9-10 October 2011). The popular will,
over time, will turn against the military again, if they stay in direct control
of the country too long.
So stay tuned--it isn't over, it's just another step in
Egypt's struggle for democracy. The best thing Washington can do is shut
up. Its words are not believed and its
actions are usually taken badly.
---------
I'm Kathy Kamphoefner, just adding my "two cents
worth." I am US citizen living in Egypt since 2007, enjoying my "front row seat on
history." I live two blocks from
Tahrir Square, so we listen well before we go out the door, to see what's
happening in the streets. Most days
things are calm. I did my doctoral
research in Egypt from 1984-86, so I have followed events here a long time. I lost my job with recent events, as I was
teaching US university students and the US State Department ordered them
evacuated. I also direct a conflict
resolution organization for refugees, Refugees United for Peaceful Solutions
(RUPS), www.refugees4peace.org
--end--
