U.S. faces its own Suez crisis as Hosni Mubarak holds on in Egypt

By Peter McKay of the Daily Mail, UK
Last updated at 9:15 AM on 7th February 2011

Hosni Mubarak

As a dictator who has plundered his nation’s treasury to the reported tune of £40 billion to enrich himself and his ¬family - while keeping the majority of his 80 million subjects in poverty - Egypt’s president, Hosni Mubarak, should yield to popular protest and retire with dignity. But has the rest of the world done or said enough to encourage him to do so?

The United Nations pressed for him to go, but no one pays much attention to its announcements. The European Union - via its lacklustre high representative, Baroness Ashton - said Mubarak should move on, but this counts for even less. Our own Government has made encouraging noises about the elderly tyrant withdrawing in an orderly fashion, but no one - least of all Mubarak - cares what we think.

Any support? Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak has some support from the United States - but there are mixed messages coming from the White House.

If any great powers, such as Russia or China, have come out formally one way or another, I’ve missed it. Neither are models of democracy, of course. So they might have felt it was better to say little. The same goes for most Islamic governments.

There is only one foreign state that matters to Mubarak and that’s America, which had bankrolled his regime for 30 years and pays for Egypt’s armed forces. And the ¬message from Washington? Shockingly, it’s all over the place. President Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, began by saying Mubarak should stay. Then they said he should take heed of the protests. When that yielded nothing, they said he should consider going. He disagreed. Finally, they insisted he should step aside.

Unfortunately, the special ambassador they dispatched to Cairo, former envoy to Egypt Frank Wisner, has not been kept up to date about their changes of mind.After meeting Mubarak last week, Wisner said: ‘The President must stay in office to steer those changes. I believe President Mubarak’s continued leadership is crucial - it’s his chance to write his own legacy.’

What? That’s not what Obama and Mrs Clinton are spouting. Hillary says that ‘an orderly transition’ to an interim government headed by Egypt’s foreign spy chief Omar Suleiman - who’d be well known in Washington - is needed.

Country torn apart: Thousands of protesters have demanded that Mubarak steps down - but there needs to be more definitive support from the West.

As for the hapless Wisner, according to a White House spokesman, he was speaking ‘in a personal capacity’, even though Obama had sent him to see Mubarak. Obviously, Wisner wouldn’t have been sent there as Obama’s special envoy in order to later advise the world about his own personal views.

The truth is, America is terrified that the demise of their reliable stooge Mubarak might lead to the installation of an Islamic government in Egypt, which in turn might result in restrictions on the Suez Canal, putting western economies in crisis, and a reduction in Israel’s security.

Intelligent American analysts recognise it’s transparently cynical to demand democracy in Egypt while at the same time preventing Islamic parties, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, taking part in any election.
But what if the Muslims - like Hamas in Palestine - seek power in order to establish an Islamic state which is not democratic?

Oh dear. That’s a thorny one! ‘Democracy’ for America often means a system in which they can interfere a system of governing that inclines the nation concerned to support Uncle Sam.

The U.S. sacrificed 58,000 American lives in South Vietnam in the vain hope of saving ‘democracy’ there from communist insurgents from the North. It has sacrificed more lives and treasure in pursuit of ‘democracy’ in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But its self-interest has become too transparent. Even friends of America grimace when they hear the simplistic rhetoric the U.S. uses when talking about an outside world which remains a great mystery to the majority of its citizens.

Why does the U.S. - and Britain as its cheerleaders - need to interfere abroad at all? Because, like us, it is addicted to growth. It wants its economy to become bigger and its citizens richer. It needs to sell more goods in order to consume more. America (and ourselves) can’t do that without freedom of trade and a continuing supply of raw materials, including oil.

With Britain’s enthusiastic co-¬operation - no matter what government was in power, Tory or Labour - the U.S. fixed this by backing Arab leaders keen to deal with us while enriching and entrenching in power their own families.

This trusted old racket is now coming to an end. You can’t keep peons down for ever. We’ll have to get used to the idea.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1354301/Egypt-protests-US-faces-Suez-crisis-Hosni-Mubarak-holds-on.html#ixzz1DIJjf8ce