In Hillaire Belloc’s poem “Jim (who ran away from his Nurse and was eaten by a Lion)”, the father of the eponymous character advises small children to “always keep a-hold of Nurse, for fear of finding something worse”.
Something like that attitude is implicit in Israel’s position on recent events in Egypt, as described in this article from Haaretz. According to the article:
Israel called on the United States and a number of European countries over the weekend to curb their criticism of President Hosni Mubarak to preserve stability in the region.
This is essentially the same “he may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch” reasoning that kept Mubarak in power for thirty years. As far as the Israelis (and the Americans) were concerned, if Mubarak could keep anti-Israeli elements in line and support American goals in the Middle East, he was welcome to run the country however he saw fit. To seal the bargain, Mubarak’s Egypt was the second-largest beneficiary of US foreign aid after Israel, getting an average of $2bn annually — most of which went to the military.
Politics inevitably involves compromises, often ugly ones, but it’s a matter of some shame that the US is so often in the position of supporting tractable tyrants like Mubarak in the interests of an apparent stability. The real trouble is that it’s short-term thinking. In the long run, no dictatorship can last. When it crumbles, the people in the streets know who their friends were. If the army yields to Mubarak’s calls for them to turn their American weapons on the protesters, Egyptians are going to remember who armed the soldiers for a long, long time.
An Israeli official quoted in the Haaretz article says:
“The Americans and the Europeans … aren’t considering their genuine interests … Even if they are critical of Mubarak they have to make their friends feel that they’re not alone. Jordan and Saudi Arabia see the reactions in the West, how everyone is abandoning Mubarak, and this will have very serious implications.”
By ‘genuine interests’, he apparently means the considerations of realpolitik, not moral obligations or democratic principles. Still, he’s not wrong on one level. The Saudis and the Jordanians are definitely watching developments in North Africa, and they’ve noticed the sea change in the international attitude. If the US finally lets Mubarak twist in the wind, they will take note and draw the appropriate conclusions.
Or will they? There are at least two possible conclusions to be drawn here. One, which the unnamed Israeli has in mind, is that the US is not to be trusted and that it will abandon its allies when the chips are down. The other is that it’s time to start making such much-needed reforms at home or one day the ruling families of the Arab world will also be looking out of the palace windows at an angry mob and wondering where it all went wrong. This may actually be a ‘teachable moment’, when Barrack Obama can - and should - try to convince some of our ‘friends’ of the truth of Kennedy’s dictum that “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
But amid all the exhilaration of watching ordinary people actually stand up and kick their dictators to the kerb, we shouldn’t forget that what comes next isn’t guaranteed to be all sugar plums and rainbows. The problems facing the people of Egypt and Tunisia aren’t going to disappear overnight simply because the local dictator finally left for the airport. Widespread poverty, endemic corruption and massive unemployment are all things that will survive the fall of the regime.
There’s also the question of the power vacuum. Something has to take the place of the ousted strongman. It would be nice to think that a vibrant, pluralistic democracy could spring up overnight, and that a suitable man of the hour, someone sober and statesmanlike, might step forward to take the helm. Maybe there’s a whole queue of North African Mandelas, all ready to heal the wounds and steer the country into a new era of peace and prosperity. That may be over-optimistic, however.
The US and the Israelis would probably like to see someone like Mohammed El-Baradei in charge (I confess, I’ve always had a certain respect for him, and never more so than when he refused to be bullied by George Bush). Someone who can work with the West but isn’t tainted with tyranny would be just ideal from their point of view. Their fear is that the moderates may not have the necessary support and that it could be the religious movements that end up taking power.
That may be less bad than it sounds. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is religious, but it’s hardly the kind of fiery bomb-throwing organization that Americans imagine when they hear the name. Even the Tunisian Islamists have pledged to work to establish a democratic system. It may be that - as usual - the people of the Arab world have better sense than the West is prepared to give them credit for. The future rulers of Egypt and Tunisia may not be as well-disposed to the West as Hosni Mubarak, but they might serve their own people better.
The Israelis are afraid that whatever comes after Mubarak and Ben Ali will be ‘something worse’ from their point of view. They may well be right. If the place left by the current crop of despots does end up being filled by religious extremists or military strongmen, then the change may also be for the worse for the people of North Africa. At the moment, however, I’m cautiously optimistic that it may not come to that.
Sooner or later, you have to let go of Nurse. If you’re lucky, you may find that it’s not all lions out there.
