With the announcement that President Obama will be speaking in Cairo next month, many a commentator has seized on the inherent contradictions in U.S. policy toward Egypt, an authoritarian state that quashes democracy at home but provides a moderate counterweight and mediator in Mideast regional politics. Two good commentaries worth your time come from the Times' Michael Slackman, an excellent foreign correspondent and a gentleman, and Foreign Policy's Marc Lynch.
Lynch suggests that boldness is in order, however, because strategic considerations in the U.S. have changed; with Egypt increasingly skeptical of engagement with Iran, it's important not to reinforce Bush-era status quo with Egypt, which has also not been as effective mediating between Palestinian factions in recent years as it has in the past. A forceful speech in Cairo could touch on human-rights issues as well as the new path the U.S. is following in the Middle East. On the other hand, Slackman reports that Egyptian democracy activists would be satisfied with a carefully coded discussion of democratic institutions without explicit criticism of the Mubarak regime.
It's a very tricky set of circumstances, and the realists that populate his foreign-policy team will be doing battle with Obama's more progressive advisers on the content and delivery of this address; afterward, the questions around U.S. democracy promotion policy that Michael Signer adroitly discusses will be answered to some extent. Remember this: In his speeches in foreign countries, Obama tends to ignore governments and talk to people. Whether in Germany, Turkey, his Strasbourg town hall, or his outreach to Iran on the occasion of their new year, he has focused more on people-to-people diplomacy than the connections between world leaders. Obama's words will be intended for the Egyptian people and Muslims worldwide (though I bet he'll take a moment to recognize the 1-in-10 Egyptians who are Coptic Christians), not Mubarak or other regional leaders.
-- Tim Fernholz
