Egypt is free. Or, at least, it is free from the tight grasp in which Hosni Mubarakheld it during his 30-year rule. Throughout 18 days of national protests, men and women, young and old, poor and middle-class stood together against the state to accomplish what the regime and the many in the West thought was impossible.
Like the Baghdad statue of Saddam Hussein being ripped from its rods in 2003, Mubarak’s resignation is a symbol of hope for the end of oppression. Parties lasted all day and into the night – from Alexandria to Cairo to Suez and beyond. The night sky went from being filled with clouds of teargas to impromptu bursts of colour from flags and fireworks.
Now Egypt is under military rule. The army has already banned the organisation of labour unions. To succeed, the broad anti-Mubarak movement has to create effective and electable political parties. Since it is so widespread, it is hardly surprising that the opposition is divided, but this will make it difficult to establish an organisation capable of challenging the National Democratic Party. With elections planned for September and perhaps earlier, there may be less than six months to organise and fundraise across a country of 82 million citizens. Nevertheless, Mubarak’s fall is the first stage in building a new Egypt.
Some in the West remain cautious wary of describing the overthrow of Mubarak as a revolution of the people. Yet while Egypt’s former President and other Middle Eastern leaders have accused outsiders of “blatant interference” throughout the social unrest, others say that “interference” consisted of propping up Mubarak for three decades.
Free and fair elections are key for Egypt’s future. But Israel and some in the West have expressed concern about the Muslim Brotherhood gaining significant representation. After Mubarak had been forced out, British Foreign Secretary William Hague declared that it was up to the people of Egypt to determine their own destiny. Within hours, US President Barack Obama demanded that the transition of power begin immediately. There are suspicions that a revolution of the people may have been a movement of the American military in the Pentagon. However, it has given hope to the oppressed underclass throughout the Middle East.
Sadly, Western nations continue to stand by while dictators around the world oppress the basic rights of their people. Successive British governments have turned a blind eye when it has suited economic interests. The last Labour Government championed democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq after the invasion of those countries, but seemed indifferent when regimes in the Middle East and Africa to flouted international human rights law and rigged elections. Robin Cook’s “ethical foreign policy” is largely forgotten.
The Shadow Cabinet’s near silence on the Egyptian revolution shows that those in Labour’s upper echelons are still scared of being denounced as leftists. A strong show of support for the anti-Mubarak movement may be what many ordinary members want to see, but in the interest of entrenching Labour in the centre of British politics, prominent party figures are likely to remain cautious.
In office, Labour overlooked abuses of the values it was created to uphold. For both Labour and the Tories, trade has long been at the top of the foreign policy agenda. Now Labour must decide whether it wants foreign policy to continue to support trade with dictators or protect human rights and democratic freedom. In his first speech as leader, Ed Miliband told last year’s Labour conference that the party’s values must shape its alliances in foreign policy. It was a step in the right direction.
