US Encouraging Mubarak to Remain In Power

The U.S. "diplomatic envoy" to Cairo, former Egypt ambassador Frank Wisner, has publicly stated that "President Mubarak's continued leadership is critical: it's his opportunity to write his own legacy." This statement is absolutely shocking, given that the Obama White House has publicly stated, in so many words, that Mubarak needs to step down.

However, given Wisner's current situation, hist comments are not so surprising. In fact, what appears surprising is the Administration's choice of Wisner to act as liaison. Though an ambassador before, Wisner has, for the last two years, been a partner at Patton Boggs, a powerful D.C. lobbying law firm. According to Patton Boggs' website:

Patton Boggs has been active in Egypt for 20 years. We have advised the Egyptian military, the Egyptian Economic Development Agency, and have handled arbitrations and litigation on the government’s behalf in Europe and the US. Our attorneys also represent some of the leading Egyptian commercial families and their companies, and we have been involved in oil and gas and telecommunications infrastructure projects on their behalf. One of our partners also served as the Chairman of the US-Egyptian Chamber of Commerce, promoting foreign direct investment into targeted sectors of the Egyptian economy.

20 years ago, Mubarak was 10 years into his 30+ year term as Egypt's President. Patton Boggs has only dealt with Mubarak, and Mubarak administration officials. As partner, Wisner is almost certainly invested, personally, professionally and fiduciarily, in maintaining firm income from Egyptioan sources through the current crisis. As such, Wisner can only be expected to work against any kind of regime change in Egypt.

The Obama administration must have known about Wisner's Egypt connections before sending him off to Cairo as envoy. Thus, when the White House says it is infuriated about Wisner's statements, it really means it is infuriated he made the comments in public.

After all, the US is supposedly trying to do two things. First, it is allegedly trying not to interfere in Egyptian affairs in a time of political crisis. However, sending someone so deeply connected to the Egyptian power structure says otherwise. Second, the US is supposed to be fostering democracy, particularly in the Middle East. Isn't that what the Iraq War/occupation was all about?

But the US has a vested economic interest in maintaining a Mubarak regime; after all, the bulk of the annual $2 billion in US aid to Egypt is in the form of military equipment and other aid to the military, supplied by US arms manufacturers. Moreover, Israel greatly fears a regime change in Egypt, including a potential Islamic fundamentalist government. (See: Iran, 1979.) There is some merit to the idea of allowing Mubarak to stay in power, but only for so long as power can be shifted to a secular leader such as ElBaradei; after all, the Shah's fleeing of Iran in 1979 led to a power vacuum into which the fundamentalist ayatollahs stepped to take over that country.

However, given Wisner's selection and comments, the US is effectively signaling that the strongman Mubarak's regime is to be maintained. Left out in the cold, apparently, is the desire of the Egyptian protesters for a more democratic Egyptian state.