Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Revolution in Tunisia & Egypt, Protests in Libya, Bahrain, Oman & Yemen

Cimarron29414 · 02-01-2011, 08:19 AM

Perhaps all of this is obvious to most. I just wanted a place to write it:

I read an interesting analysis of the double-edged sword that the U.S. policy in Egypt is facing. The analysis stated that the U.S. "must" support any move towards greater freedom, as this is the basis for our birth as a nation.

However, the U.S. "must also" support it's allies in order to ensure consistent ties to governments. Basically, if we bail on our allies when there are a couple of protests in the streets (think a week ago, not today), that our allies would find us fickle and would be less likely to align. This would be bad for long term diplomacy.

The analysis concluded that it's this quandary which the Obama administration is struggling to resolve. So the wait and see approach became the only viable approach the government could take.

While I agree with this analysis in principle, I think the key mistake is that our original alliance was to a government rather than a nation. Diplomacy with nations extends to all people of that nation, not just the officials in the government. If our nation had historically taken the position that our alliance is to "Egypt" rather than "Mubarak", we could maintain a sound diplomatic position.

In truth, it's no different than what we expect from other nations. Each 4 to 8 years, a new regime with a completely different view of running a government becomes our government. We have an expectation from our allies that they will accept this as fact and work just as diligently with each regime. It seems only fair that we would do the same thing. So, for me, this exposes a failure in US diplomacy policies.

02-01-2011, 08:19 AM	#67 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	Perhaps all of this is obvious to most. I just wanted a place to write it: I read an interesting analysis of the double-edged sword that the U.S. policy in Egypt is facing. The analysis stated that the U.S. "must" support any move towards greater freedom, as this is the basis for our birth as a nation. However, the U.S. "must also" support it's allies in order to ensure consistent ties to governments. Basically, if we bail on our allies when there are a couple of protests in the streets (think a week ago, not today), that our allies would find us fickle and would be less likely to align. This would be bad for long term diplomacy. The analysis concluded that it's this quandary which the Obama administration is struggling to resolve. So the wait and see approach became the only viable approach the government could take. While I agree with this analysis in principle, I think the key mistake is that our original alliance was to a government rather than a nation. Diplomacy with nations extends to all people of that nation, not just the officials in the government. If our nation had historically taken the position that our alliance is to "Egypt" rather than "Mubarak", we could maintain a sound diplomatic position. In truth, it's no different than what we expect from other nations. Each 4 to 8 years, a new regime with a completely different view of running a government becomes our government. We have an expectation from our allies that they will accept this as fact and work just as diligently with each regime. It seems only fair that we would do the same thing. So, for me, this exposes a failure in US diplomacy policies. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."