Little more than smoke and mirrors marked Condoleezza Rice's recent public appearance in Cairo, writes Hassan Nafaa* Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, came to the region with clear messages, ones that she took directly to the public at the American University in Cairo (AUC), in front of a crowd of 1,000 or so people. Her messages were directed partly at Arab governments and partly at pubic opinion and specific political groups. The first message was one of recognition and apology, or perhaps repentance and remorse. Condoleezza admitted the error, perhaps even sins, of US policies that favoured stability over democracy and that backed despotic governments in the region over the past 60 years or so. Apparently, the US is sorry and will not do it again. Instead, it will support democratic regimes from now on. "For 60 years, my country, the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region, here in the Middle East, and we achieved neither. Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of the people." The second message was that Egypt needed to regain its traditional role of leadership in the region. Egypt has led the states and nations of the region on the path to modernity and peace with Israel, Rice said, and the US hopes that it will lead the process of democratisation now too. "Throughout its history, Egypt has always led this region through its moments of greatest decision. In the early 19th century, it was the reform- minded dynasty of Muhammad Ali that distinguished Egypt from the Ottoman Empire and began to transform it into the region's first modern nation. In the early 20th century, it was the forward-looking Wafd Party that rose in the aftermath of WWI and established Cairo as the liberal heart of the Arab awakening. And just three decades ago, it was Anwar El-Sadat who showed the way forward for the entire Middle East, beginning difficult economic reforms and making peace with Israel." The third message was one of clarification and explanation. The US apparently does not want to impose a specific model of democracy on the region and will accept the choices made by the nations involved. The secretary of state cited President Bush's remarks in his second inaugural address: "America will not impose our style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, to attain their own freedom, and to make their own way." Different societies will find forms of democracy that work for them, Condoleezza said. Those to whom the above messages were meant listened carefully. But most, I would say, still have their doubts. The secretary of state's speech, laden with incoherence and contradictions as it was, cast doubt on US intentions. Defending US policies is a tough job, but a craftier person would have been more professional about it, particularly when addressing an academic forum. Look at the choices Rice made when giving examples of Egypt's historic role. She cited the Muhammad Ali era as a model for Egypt's leadership of the modernisation process. She chose the Wafd Party to illustrate how Egypt spearheaded modernity and political liberalism in the region. And she praised President Sadat for freeing the economy and launching "peace" with Israel. Intentionally, Condoleezza made no mention whatsoever of the Nasserist era, the most powerful example of Egypt's leadership in modern times. In the Nasserist era, Egypt pushed the region towards liberation and national independence; hardly the type of feat the secretary of state wants to see repeated. This omission is quite telling, I believe. The US wants Egypt to be a leader in fighting fundamentalist currents in the region by way of eliminating terror. And it wants Egypt to help quash Palestinian aspirations by way of promoting peace on Israel's terms. That's all. Condoleezza's assessment of democracy in Arab countries is equally revealing. Jordan got flying colours. "I have just come from Jordan, where I met with the King and Queen -- two leaders who have embraced reform for many years. And Jordan's education reforms are an example for the entire region. That government is moving toward political reforms that will decentralise power and give Jordanians a greater stake in their future." Iraq also figured prominently, a country where "ordinary Iraqis are displaying great personal courage and remarkable resolve. And every step of the way -- from regaining their sovereignty, to holding elections, to now writing a constitution -- the people of Iraq are exceeding all expectations." As for Lebanon, Condoleezza made her point in a few words. "Supporters of democracy are demanding independence from foreign masters." The secretary of state had little to say about conditions in Saudi Arabia, aside from the fact that "brave citizens are demanding accountable government. And some good first steps toward openness have been taken with recent municipal elections." Libya was omitted, but Syria and Iran received the usual bashing. "The case of Syria," she said, "is especially serious, because as its neighbours embrace democracy and political reform, Syria continues to harbour or directly support groups committed to violence in Lebanon, and in Israel, and Iraq, and in the Palestinian territories." "In Iran," Rice claimed, "people are losing patience with an oppressive regime that denies them their liberty and their rights. The appearance of elections does not mask the organised cruelty of Iran's theocratic state. The time has come for the unelected few to release their grip on the aspirations of the proud people of Iran." Any student of political science could see the ideology squirming through the rhetoric. The secretary of state's views were calibrated according to how Arab countries treated US policies in the region, human rights and democracy being little more than pretexts to bash countries that are hostile to the US and Israeli schemes. Countries that condone US policies get away with a slap on the wrist, if any. Consider this: is democracy in Syria worse than in Libya? I rest my case. What is particularly curious is the way Condoleezza viewed Egypt. Only a few weeks ago, the US seemed to be putting considerable pressure on Egypt, to the point where it balked at taking part in a G8 meeting slated to be convened in Cairo. Things have changed, apparently. Before venturing into any criticism, Rice noted that, "President Mubarak's decision to amend the country's constitution and hold multiparty elections is encouraging." Only then were reservations voiced. "We are all concerned for the future of Egypt's reforms when peaceful supporters of democracy -- men and women -- are not free from violence. The day must come when the rule of law replaces emergency decrees and when the independent judiciary replaces arbitrary justice." The secretary proceeded to demand that elections in Egypt, including parliamentary ones, comply with general standards required in any free election. The language she used was too soft to convince anyone, least of all those who aspire for a new era of freedom and genuine democracy in this country. Condoleezza's remarks at AUC confirm the impression that the US is blackmailing Egypt with a view to more concessions on Iraq and Palestine -- the brave foray into democratic rhetoric being nothing but a smokescreen. The only regional role the US wants to see Egypt assume has nothing to do with democratisation. The US knows that the governing elite is unwilling to democratise and will not bow to any pressure that would undermine its monopoly on power and wealth. The US may also be aware than any true democratisation in Egypt would bring to power a regime that is far less tolerant of US policies in the region. The US is pushing the rhetoric with two things in mind. One is to pose, before the international and regional community, as a defender of democracy. The other is to pressure governments to alter their position on Iraq and Palestine. In Egypt's case, the US has been successful. Egypt released the Israeli spy Azzam Azzam, signed the QIZ (Qualified Industrial Zones) agreement, agreed to sell natural gas to Israel, and decided to establish full diplomatic relations with the Iraqi government. None of these acts is backed by public opinion, and all are believed to have been the outcome of a deal between Egypt and the US, a deal that has taken place at the expense of democratisation in Egypt, if not in the region. The murder of the Egyptian ambassador in Baghdad, a horrific act by all means, is indicative of the crisis facing Egypt's regional policy. Egypt cannot play a lead role in the region unless it adopts a fully independent stance. Concessions would only damage Egypt's role and perhaps its national security. The US must be held as accountable for the murder of the Egyptian ambassador in Iraq as Al-Qaeda. After all, the US is the one in charge of security in Iraq, including that of ambassadors. * The writer is professor of political science at Cairo University.
