There are moments in history when things could turn out in more ways than one, and the decisions of a very few people, perhaps just a king or a president or a revolutionary, settle the fate of millions for years to come. Karl Marx came up with the phrase “a plastic hour” for this uncomfortable moment when history hangs in the balance. We have a plastic hour right now in the Middle East.
Crowds all over the Arab world are protesting against the authority under which they live. Like the French before 1789 or Russians before 1917, they want to be rid of their rulers, knowing them to be brutal and corrupt, as indeed they are. Pretty well every Middle East expert and pundit, and certainly the man with the microphone in Tahrir Square in Cairo, supports the protesters without the least reservation. These Westerners all take it for granted that the protesters share their understanding of freedom and democracy, and once they are rid of the brutal and corrupt rulers all will be fine, and Arab societies will be just like ours.
This is evidently President Obama’s assumption. Famous as an anti-colonialist and openly contemptuous of the British for the way they used to order people about, he nonetheless sends an envoy to instruct President Mubarak peremptorily to leave office and start a process of “orderly transition.” He is taking it upon himself to arrange the government of another country. Never mind the hypocrisy, this is as imperious as anything the British ever did.
Mubarak has been a faithful ally of the United States these 30 years, and for all his faults has kept the peace. His abrupt and unceremonious dumping signifies that no head of state anywhere can in future trust the United States. Here is a great power that has no qualms about punishing its friends when it is expedient to do so. “Orderly transition” is mere verbiage in the circumstances, displaying ignorance as well as imperialism. No mechanism exists to pass power from Mubarak to anyone else. The plastic hour fills with ambitious contenders: Omar Suleiman, Muhammad El-Baradei, the Muslim Brotherhood, and some likely generals who can command the army. It will be just good luck if the winner of this free-for-all is not brutal and corrupt, and now untrustworthy into the bargain. And in the event that this winner turns out bad, Obama has made sure that the United States gets the blame.
But are concepts of freedom and democracy understood in the same way in different cultures? Pew surveys last year showed Egyptians to be overwhelmingly Islamist. The journalists with the microphones are time and again recording young men saying they want freedom, because freedom means making war on Israel. “Orderly transition” is an invitation to the Muslim Brothers or the army, or most probably some combination, to arrange the next order of things, for instance the balance of power and issues of war and peace. It is quite possible that when the plastic hour comes to an end and new men are installed in Arab presidential palaces everywhere, the United States will have neither friends nor influence in the region, maybe not even in a disappointed and embattled Israel.
This does indeed appear to be 'the plastic hour,' poised somewhere between tragedy and farce. With the arrival of the men on camel back and horseback ("Send in the Clowns?"), farce seemed, for a moment, to be winning.
But sadly, the smart money is on tragedy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama has some peculiar friends in the Muslim world. We may learn more about his views than those of the Egyptians. I'm not saying he is a closet Muslim but I wish I knew more about who were his supporters early in his career. We know that Edward Said was one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow little respect does Pryce-Jones have for the intellects of his readers? Telling the hated and corrupt dictator of a country convulsed by mass protest (bordering on a full-scale social revolution) that he should probably make ready to leave office is "as imperious as anything the British ever did?" Really? Did we appoint a king in Egypt, like the British did? Do we have military forces stationed there, like the British did?? Did we take possession of the Suez Canal, like the British did? Did we goad our allies into invading Egypt in order to maintain possession of the Suez Canal, like the British did?
I know that Oxford men aren't typically famous for their introspection, but David Pryce-Jones attempt to equate Obama's mild rebuke of Mubarak with the full-throated imperialism practiced by the British is an embarrassing and pitiful whitewash. With men of the intellectual caliber of Pryce-Jones running the show, it's little wonder that the UK has come to ruin.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOur "alliance" with Mubarek was never based on shared principles ot anything similarly honorable. It was always one kind of power helping another: his employed to keep the peace so far as he was able, ours to keep him there. Now that his power is gone, he is no longer useful to us. If our power to help him had vanished, we could have expected similar treatment from him. I don't think any "allies" of Mubarek's ilk are under any illusions about that. Such alliances are alliance of convenience.
True alliances with nations like the UK are a different matter. Obama's childish college dorm "anti-colonialism" has driven him to damage these alliances, which ARE based on shared principles and a meaningful kind of trust. He has weakened the Western compact, which of course is apart of his plan. I'm more worried about that than about what other Mubarek-like "allies" will think. Do the Saudis, for example, think for a moment that when their oil is gone or no longer needed, that we will give a fig what happens to them? I think not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think the point David Pryce-Jones is making is that the chances of US government actions vis-a-vis Egypt as being seen as positive is close to nil. At the end of the "plastic moment" Eqypt is not going to be what is considered a Liberal Democracy (or anthything close to it). The more likely options range from a theocracy (like Iran) to a full-fledge military dictatorship (think Egypt 1950s-60s). The reality is that there is very little that the US or the West can do about it. To even appear like you are involved in managing events in Egypt(as Pres. Obama has been)will only backfire. Carter's withdrawal of support for the Shah did little to endear him and the US Gov't to the Iranian people. Obama's actions (real or perceived as real) will do little to endear the Egyptians.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo his credit, Eisenhower did not stand by the UK and France during the Suez crisis. He did the right thing. Clinton did the same by pushing the Brits to make peace in Northern Ireland. The idea of having an unconditional unquestioning 'friendship' with any other country is what's childish.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDoes any dictator currently think he can depend on the United States in a confrontation with his own people? Can't imagine they do.
It's not even if the Saudis ran out of oil: If their people gathered in the millions in the capital demanding their resignation we would side with the protesters.
Ironically, the best way to prevent us from siding with the protesters is to be our bitter enemy and pretend you are ready to deal..
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI read this article and thought, "Plastics were invented while Karl Marx was alive?" I guess you learn something new every day.
Oh, and everybody's right- this will end badly.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe word plastic long predates the product plastic. It is called "plastic" because the material is plastic at high temperature and therefore easy to mold into almost any shape imaginable. Hence, "a plastic hour."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse