Europe needs to get real on defence; Britain needs to get real on Europe
13 February 2025
Tahrir Square must be scene of extraordinary mix of hope and fear
-
Post
-
10 February 2011
When finally Hosni Mubarak falls from power, there will be enormous celebrations among the crowds in Liberation Square, and throughout Egypt.
There will be fear too, and it will not be confined to Mubarak as he works out how to get out alive.
Even the most revolutionary of the revoutionaries know that once the joy subsides, the country has to have a government, and how that government is formed, and what it does, will dictate whether the revolution is a date in history - that much is sure already - or a genuine milestone on the road to a truly democratic and prosperous Egypt.
There is no doubt that Mubarak's own vested interest has been a big factor in his determination to hang on to power. But a part of him will be genuinely fearful for what happens in the country once he has gone. And of course that fear will extend to other Arab nations and indeed to the US.
President Obama looked his usual calm and composed self when he spoke about the situation this afternoon. But the tone also exposed the fear about what follows. There is something of a conflict, or at least a tension, between deep-seated US values, including their commitment to democracy, and actual US strategic interest.
It is impossible not to feel moved and inspired by the refusal of the protesters to give up their fight. Even as we wait for Mubarak's latest statement, I can only begin to imagine the excitement and the hope that is surging through the tens of thousands who make up the crowds which have been a part of all of our lives these past 17 days.
But nobody outside Mubarak's immediate circle, not even Obama himself, appears to know what the Egyptian president is going to say, and what kind of regime may follow. Until there is clarity, there will certainly be fear. And even when the clarity comes, assuming it does, it does not mean that all the fear will vanish.
2 minute(s) read
Recent Posts
Tahrir Square v Tiananmen Square = two different outcomes. Power to the people – at last!
Jahanger Hussain, RUMBA Training
Tahrir Square v Tiananmen Square = two different outcomes. Power to the people – at last!
I spoke to soon about Tahrir Square – Mubarak to stay – I worry what will follow after Fridays prays!
Very good blog AC. You’ve summed-up the current state of play in Egypt better than any other articles and blogs I’ve read today.
Personally, I am fearful for the Egyptians during this transition period. Are they going to end up with martial law, another sort of dictatorship, a muslem sharia state or a genuine democracy. I think it’s important to remember that Mubarek has been a good “friend” to the west, especially with his help and support during the two Iraq wars. I believe that as dictators go he certainly wasn’t among the worst. And I think he did his best for the country he clearly loves. I guess most people simply think he’s a self-appointed dictator, end of. But things are different in those sorts of countries. Totally different cultures. Things that we in the west regard as the norm would be abhorrent to them and vice versa. Can only wish for the Egyptians what they would wish for themselves. It’s going to be interesting and hopefully peaceful.
Whilst no one could or would deny the Egyptian’s “people power” I hope they also have the sense to use it wisely.
Imho People Power is just a meaningless phrase. Even in so called democractic countries, people power is just an illusion. All of us the world over are Governed in the true sense of the word, to a greater or lesser extent.
The events in Tahir Square does seem to have struck an emotional chord with us mere onlookers. The fear certainly emanates from the uncertainty as to how the Egyption army respond to Mubarek’s address, and to the ongoing protest.
One suspects that the momentum that the protest movement has gathered will make it very unliikely that Suleiman’s ‘go back to work’ will be taken onboard.
While united in rebellion, the conflicting agendas of those protesting will almost certainly come to the fore once the downfall of this regime comes to pass. Hopefully this unity of purpose will continue in forming a new Government which is fully inclusive of all strands of Egyptian society. I, for one, remain optimistic given the generally dignified manner in which this revolution has developed thus far.
Not sure the playing of the ‘outside interference’ card will wash with the revolutionaries either. The sophistication of their campaign heretofore would suggest that they will not be sidelined by such rhetoric.
All we can do is watch on with great interest be optimistic that hope will prevail over the fear.
A good friend indeed especially when it comes to the outsourcing of torture of terror suspects
I have to agree with your summary! Egypt has just lost a Billion Pound Tourist industry. How do you claw yourselves back from that,and faced with the possibility of the mafiosa style Muslim Brotherhood “seizing the time”,the domino effect is now coursing through the middle east! Soon to be the last place to visit! Sometimes bad is good, depend which perspective you view it from. LOL
We live in a post-ideological, non-interventionist age. New great powers like China and India are pragmatic, self-interested.
So external conflict resolution efforts are usually non-existent these days. The US and Britain no longer seek to spread freedom and democracy.
The US has agressively been arming Middle East autocrats.
The emphasis is on oil and security, not on human rights.
For Washington, democracy is only acceptable if it conforms to its strategic and economic objectives.
Fear of radical Islam requires opposition to democracy on pragmatic grounds. But the US has also supported radical Islamists to prevent secural nationalism. See Saudi-Arabia.
In the interests of realism and stability Britain has also sought to charm Arab dictators. The FO has also embraced the theocrats of the Muslim Brotherhood as it is expected to become the religious dictator of the future.
Interests of those who have been living under dictatorships in Tunisia, Egypt or Syria have not been promoted.
The conventional wisdom among diplomats has been that engaging with dictators is necessary because of national interest.
In Egypt, the choice is between pro-democratic idealism and strategic realpolitik. Radical Islam is a factor. Iranian revolution of 1979 was hijacked by religious fanatics.
Should we allow the Muslim Brotherhood to run Egypt?
It seems that the Muslim Brotherhood is aiming to take over Egypt through democratic process and then bring an end to democracy.
The Muslim Brotherhood has support of 30%-60%. It is best organised and most powerful political party in Egypt. But general staff of the army fear Islamists.
If the Brotherhood were to seize power, would its first act be to annul Egypt´s 1979 peace treaty with Israel? Will the Brotherhood follow the model of Iran and Hamas in Gaza?
To the Muslim Brotherhood democracy is of no value. But it can be a means to an end.
And the end is an end to democracy.
Dumb blog. Herr Goebbels, you are not in Cairo, so how do you know about the atmosphere there? It’s easy enough for everyone outside to say Mubarak must go & must go now. And then what? Best case scenario:Someone else just becomes President? And where/when/how did this person get the mandate of the people? Worst case scenario: Egypt becomes an unruly mess.
What makes sense is for Mubarak to assume a caretaker role. And promise an election of some kind within 3 months. This will enable political parties to organise themselves & campaign for votes. Mubarak should pledge NOT to be a candidate & NOT support any political party, even his own. Once the election is held, Mubarak can hand over power to the lawfully, legally elected person or people and ride off into the sunset. Putting him on trial would be a waste of energy. The people of Egypt should just look forward & concentrate on improving the country as a whole. There are so many other problems to solve that are more important than getting even with Mubarak.
nice to see godwins law appear on a blog discussing people fighting for freedoms.
Looks as if he has thrown the towel in.
Never seen so large letters used by the BBC on their news website reporting it at the moment.
Yes, the beeb, the most impartial news blog, little england style, that there is!
Actually, the Goebbels reference comes from a few weeks ago when AC was referred to as Goebbels by George Galloway on BBC QT. So, I’m not a100% convinced that my use has proven godwins law. But I bow to the more knowledgeable scholars.
‘There is something of a conflict, or at least a tension, between deep-seated US values, including their commitment to democracy, and actual US strategic interest.’
You can say that again! That’s a masterpiece of understatement. They’ve certainly shown their commitment to democracy all over the globe since Yalta – Iran in the early 1950s, Chile in the early 1970s, Central America in the 1980s – where do we stop?
What the US has seen as its strategic interest has led it to empower and support all manner of nasty dictatorships and to subvert and undermine all manner of movements towards democracy.
Mubarek’s dictatorship for thirty years has been just one example. When I heard his speech last night (10 February) I couldn’t believe the degree of utter stupidity, arrogance and blockheadedness of the man, completely out of touch with his country. Maybe that’s what thirty years of having your own way does for you. He disproved by his example the notion that age brings wisdom!
Yes the long term future is uncertain and dangerous, but in the short term of one night let’s celebrate with the Egyptians, hope for the best and say GOOD RIDDANCE!
Olli Issakainen . From your perspective what you say rings a bell of truth,but,that is all you offer! where are the solutions!
Sorry Olli but there seem to be a few contradictions in this account.
‘We live in a post-ideological, non-interventionist age.’
In the UK at present we are under a sustained ideological attack reminiscent of the Thatcher/Major years. And there is hardly a lack of intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan despite the talk of pulling out.
‘The US and Britain no longer seek to spread freedom and democracy.
The US has agressively been arming Middle East autocrats’.
The US has been aggressively arming autocrats all over the globe since the Second World War, sometimes overturning democratically-elected governments in the process.
‘Fear of radical Islam requires opposition to democracy on pragmatic grounds. But the US has also supported radical Islamists to prevent secural nationalism. See Saudi-Arabia’
The US/UK did intervene in Kosovo on behalf of a Muslim population. And, as you say, the US/UK continue to support Islamic dictatorships in places like Saudi Arabia.
Spot on as usual Olli I. I fear Egypt will sooner or later be under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood by fair means or foul. Imo it’s a foregone conclusion. The Egyptian people have been successful in removing Hosni Mubarek and their reasons for doing that are quite understandable. At the moment their victory in that achievement must be very sweet. I’m not disagreeing with their decision to do that. But I believe the people have been cleverly manipulated into doing that, by much more malevolent forces than Mubarek’s regime even. I hope I’m wrong about the eventual outcome in Egypt. I would prefer to see them get a genuine democratically elected government as I think most people would.
The implications of an Egypt being controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood are very scary indeed for that region. Not to mention the obvious knock-on effects for the rest of the world.