Author's Note: Due to an especially busy personal schedule I have not posted
to this Blog for a couple weeks. This article has been in the works since the
beginning of the uprisings in Egypt. The article was completed on February
12, the day after Mubarak resigned as the Egyptian President.
Egypt is among the most ancient of nations. Its history rivals that of the greatest civilizations in human history. The great pyramids not only baffle the architectural world but serve as a reminder that this is truly one of the proudest and most enduring cultures. Yet all of this means little in the midst of the current crisis that has rocked the Nation of the Nile and shocked the rest of the world in the past two weeks.
As I am sitting at my computer writing this article, safely tucked away some 5,800 miles from Cairo, Egypt, I nevertheless am dumbfounded by the turn of events and the implications it holds for the world. We are experiencing an historic moment the likes of which I have not really witnessed in my adult life. I lived through the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's and can remember some of the events that highlighted that decade. I know where I was when I received word of President John F. Kennedy's assassination. Likewise I clearly remember the deaths of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert F. Kennedy. I followed, with great interest, Richard Nixon's humiliating departure from Washington D.C. I witnessed the collapse of the Iron Curtain and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Yet what we are seeing these days is second to none in its intensity.
It is difficult to get a handle on the turn of events in Egypt. Hosni Mubarak came to power some 30 years ago in the aftermath of the assassination of then-President Anwar Sadat. At the time Mubarak was Vice President. He, too, was injured in the attack that claimed the lives of eleven in addition to Sadat and wounded 28 persons. He is the fourth and longest tenured President in Egypt's history. Such a long reign, however, comes at a price. He has survived something like six assassination attempts and a host of corruption charges. As is the tendency among autocratic regimes the voices of opposition are not only viewed suspiciously, they are not even tolerated. Consequently political dissenters are routinely imprisoned and mistreated. Such has been the case in Mubarak's Administration.
Throughout history the citizens of a nation endure political oppression for only so long. Somehow, someway, the general population begins to organize itself and resist such tyranny. Consider just a few examples.
· The Exodus of the Hebrew slaves from the grasp of Pharaoh;
· The Fall of the Roman Empire at the hands of the barbarian hordes;
· The division of Israel into two separate Kingdoms following the death of King Solomon and in response to his oppressive policies of forced labor and uncompromising authority.
· The nonviolent independence of India from the British Empire;
· The Civil Rights movement in the United States;
· The return of the Ayatollah Khomeini to Iran and the subsequent removal from power of the Shah of Iran who, likewise, was oppressive.
These are just a tiny sampling that indicate the fact that such movements cross the barriers of time and culture. The events in Egypt follow a similar pattern in some ways. Perhaps more importantly they raise some fascinating questions and observations. For example...
· How do movements like this mass opposition demonstration become organized? For thirty years Egyptians have lived under the same conditions they are living under now, yet there has been no opposition of this magnitude previously. There is no leading charismatic figure who has rallied the people, such as a Martin Luther King or a Mahatma Ghandi. I understand that Facebook postings played a large part in this and of course, that is a rather new phenomenon. Could it be that cyber-social networks are really this powerful? Can the internet actually topple a powerful political regime?
· Have you noticed that the Egyptian people - - untrained and virtually unarmed as an "army" - -have accomplished nearly as much in three weeks as the United States and its coalition partners have accomplished in Iraq in over 8 years of of outright war? This either says a lot about the effectiveness of mass civilian uprisings, or speaks volumes about the ineffectiveness of the American war strategy. How is it that the most powerful military force on earth had to blow the nation of Iraq into pieces with its "shock and awe" approach back in 2003 yet finds itself still engaged in a challenging and dangerous struggle, while the Egyptian civilians have not launched a single bomb nor flown a sortie but are on the verge of removing a Dictator from power?
· Speaking of Dictators, When is a Dictator considered a good friend? According to former Vice President Dick Cheney the answer is: When his name is Hosni Mubarak. Commenting on the status of the embattled Egyptian President Chaney said, "He's a good man, a good friend and an ally to the United States. We need to remember that." In response I say with friends like Mubarak who needs enemies? This is a man with a proven record of civil rights violations left and right. He has a thirty year history of corruption and oppression. He heads a repressive regime that will not tolerate opposition and refuses to engage in fair elections. Economic and social injustices abound. From a political standpoint there is virtually no difference between Mubarak's Egypt and Castro's Cuba. Why, then, is the former considered a "good friend" to the United States and the latter is an enemy worthy of a trade embargo and attempted assassinations at the hands of the CIA? Could we have a little consistency here, please? It is no wonder the international community distrusts the United States and views us as living by a double-standard. True, among the Arab States Mubarak has played the role of a moderate and has shown some signs of cooperation with the United States. Nevertheless, he can hardly be referred to as a "good friend". The fact remains that Hosni Mubarak has contributed to the negative reputation of our nation because of his dictatorial style of leadership and our endorsement of it.
· What are the long-range effect of continuing to support such a corrupt government like Mubarak's? When Mubarak is toppled from power - - and it seems certain he will be - - - how will the United States be viewed by his successors? Will we continue to be associated with the former regime and thus lose our credibility? A worse case scenario would be exemplified by Iran at the time of the overthrow of the Shaw. In that setting we were suddenly transformed into the role of an evil intruder. However, the possibility exists for us to forge a truly effective partnership with the most populous Muslim nation on Earth. This will not be easy. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama have an uphill struggle ahead of them as they attempt to relate to the new government in Egypt.
A final thought to the topic of Egypt. No nation, and certainly no government, exists of its own will. As Jesus said to Pontius Pilate: "You would have no power...unless it were given to you from above. (John 19:11 NIV)" Throughout the Bible it becomes clear that governments exist at the will of God. Any government that abuses its authority and becomes a vehicle of oppression and injustice will ultimately face the judgment of God. It matters not what continent such governments are located upon nor how many references are made that include the word "God". The proof is in the results and not the rhetoric.
gdgehr February 12, 2011
comments are invited below
No comments:
Post a Comment