4th of July

Sorry! This was written after July 4, 2012, but some technical trouble prevented it from getting posted. Better late than never:

Greetings, and happy 4th of July everyone. I was fortunate enough to have attended the 4th of July celebration at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. It was a great way to cap my six month stay in Cairo; I chatted with friends and other guests, and made a few contacts. I could not help but feel a certain sense of awe during the event, however. Just how does it come to pass that a group of Americans, Egyptians and diplomats and dignitaries of other nationalities unite in the singing of Sweet Caroline a few blocks from Tahrir Square?

Ambassador Anne Patterson made formal remarks partway through the event. She began her remarks with famous lines from the American Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” 

Ambassador Patterson went on to touch on some achievements of the U.S., but more importantly, she highlighted our challenges. I posted the above quotation to my Facebook this morning, and was quickly challenged by a friend who insisted we add a disclaimer that Jefferson’s words do not currently apply to minorities, women and other persecuted groups. America is not perfect. The democratic experiment is not complete; if we ever consider that experiment complete, we’d be fools. The United States was built on the precept that hard work yields a tomorrow better than the today, that continued toil by the forebears paves the way for greater achievements by successors. Whether that applies to science, economic growth, political liberty or the well-being of one’s family, that value permeates American society. This drive has almost always yielded us better tomorrows. We will always have our challenges, but Americans and our society have evolved and triumphed repeatedly when beset with perils that have destroyed other nations. It has taken 236 years for our fledgling democracy to develop into the robust system it is today. 

More importantly, Ambassador Patterson noted how long it has taken us to get this far. To a room full of Egyptian government officials, businessmen and socialites, she gave a stark truth: democracy can fail. Egypt has not yet made a full transition, and its democratic institutions may not develop into what older democracies consider adequate within our lifetimes. The important thing is that they try, and through hard work achieve a better tomorrow. The Ambassador ended her address by saying that if Egyptians were willing to confront their challenges, Americans would “roll up their sleeves” and join them in the effort. 

There are so many good things about America. That people of disparate backgrounds can find common pleasure in something like Sweet Caroline playing beneath red, white and blue banners is a testament to this fact. Yet the sand-colored, reinforced concrete barriers and legions of security guards present speak to the fact that many still cannot tolerate us. I would like to believe that with enough public diplomacy, we can solve almost any problem. Diplomacy is increasingly shifting from state-to-state interaction to people-to-people interaction. However, so long as there remain structural reasons that cause hate by making people vulnerable, like poverty, war, discrimination and persecution, then public diplomacy will only go so far. Perhaps someday, when Egypt is a full democracy and such problems are diminished, we can sing together in Tahrir rather than hiding in what Egyptians refer to as “the American Fortress.”

Jaded

                                              al-Jazeera image of a protest at Tahrir Square

This post is long overdue.  Though a lot has happened in two months, nothing has stood out as particularly worthwhile to discuss.  Until now.  Events during the final days of the Egyptian elections between felool, or regime remnant, candidate Ahmed Shafiq and Mohamed Morsi, of the Muslim Brotherood-backed Freedom and Justice Party, have caused me to contemplate my feelings during these past months, and whether it is right for a diplomat to have them.

I found a place to work in Cairo until after the proposed transfer of power in Egypt from the military government to the civilian administration.  I arrived in Cairo at the very end of 2011 after applying to the American University amidst the media coverage of crackdowns by Central Security Forces on protestors in Tahrir and long bouts of street fighting on Mohamed Mahmoud Street.  My parents and friends were worried, but I was hopeful.  SCAF and the Muslim Brotherhood, the largest opposition organization, were in agreement and wanted to go ahead with parliamentary elections.  I came to Cairo amidst those elections, and unrest settled down like I predicted.  Though many people were alarmed by the strong showing of Islamist candidates, this past semester has been fairly peaceful when compared to the turbulent year prior.

As the semester progressed, I lost focus.  I forgot my political science training that said that incumbent authoritarian powers do everything they can to retain power.  I forgot my history background that said that men like the consuls before Caesar and statesman like George Washington, who would readily give up enormous personal power for the greater benefit of humanity, are few and far between.  I took comfort when my government said SCAF wanted nothing more than to go back to their barracks.  I dared to hope that genuine change was occurring while I was here.  Official election results have not been announced yet, but I am already beginning to doubt that dream.

I do not think of myself as an idealist, and gladly leave that moniker to others.  I believe there are times when actions of ill repute are the best recourse, though others may hate it.  Pleasing everyone at the expense of your own success and security is a losing battle.  I also believe, however, that no one should make a show of their disregard for others or revel in self-righteousness.  We are all joined in common humanity, if not by national or ethnic ties. 

My personal conflict at the moment stems from my empathies for the Egyptian people and my concerns over regional stability and national interest.  Egyptians desire free and fair elections to determine a government that will finally work for them.  The Failed State Index recently ranked Egypt 31st out of more than 150 countries listed.  Egypt has infrastructure and the government effectively maintains a monopoly on force, but it has utterly failed to provide a system that protects the rights of its citizens.  A democratic transition could change that by making officials genuinely beholden to the selectorate.  However, the Muslim Brotherhood is a group that has previously espoused violence and desires to implement sharia law as the basis for its legislation.  It remains unclear how that will impact minorities like women, Copts, Jews, foreigners, and even Shi’a and Sufis.  The peace treaty with Israel, a substantial cause of the dramatic decline in inter-state warfare in the region since the mid-1970’s, could come under fire.  The U.S. would also lose what was previously a staunch ally against extremism in the region. 

In short, do I side with what is best for the people or best for the interests of my country?  As a diplomat, I should always do the latter, but I feel that, as a human being, I should do the former where I am able.

The recent suspension of the democratically-elected Parliament, reports of voter fraud coming from election monitors, postponing the official announcing of results, and statements and rallies by both sides insisting they are victorious have brought things to a climax that could prove a powderkeg.  If the Supreme Election Committee announces an Ahmed Shafiq victory, whether genuinely earned or fixed, Mohamed Morsi and his supporters may make good on their claim that there will be “blood in the streets.”  If Morsi is announced the winner, it is unclear how the military deep-state will interact with an administration filled with members they had spent the better part of three decades repressing and imprisoning. 

A diplomat’s job is to work with whomever is in charge of the country they are posted to.  The beliefs I mentioned above may not always lead to moral outcomes, but I believe that the U.S. often tries for net positive outcomes.  There is no telling how the new administration will turn out, but how do diplomats handle change? How can diplomats swallow their beliefs when interacting with a government built on lies or, even worse, murder?  How do they go on when a toppled government was a friend and the new one becomes a foe?  How do they cope with wasted financial, political, and emotional investment in a country when a regime may change but the people living there have not?

Whatever the outcome of this election, those questions remain unanswered for me.