Edward Schumacker-Matos, director of the Harvard University Migration and Integration Research Program and a syndicated columnist for the Washington Post Writers Group, offers the first intelligent and thoughtful interpretation I’ve seen of America’s response to recent events unfolding in Egypt. Schumacker-Matos correctly points out the paternalism on the opinion pages of our leading newspapers and the screaming headlines of self-important blogs:
Meanwhile, Americans on the left and right speak as though the success or collapse of democracy in Egypt and other Third World countries depends on us. It's as if the people in those countries are children and we are still the leader of the "bloc."
In the New York Times this week, conservative columnist David Brooks bemoaned that "the United States usually gets everything wrong" and that we are stepping on Egyptians' "dignity," while liberal Maureen Dowd accused the administration of trying "to stanch the uncontrolled surge of democracy in the Arab world."
Schumacker-Matos concludes:
All this suggests two things. First, reporters and analysts, in addition to considering the U.S. angle, should reframe their analysis of Third World events to put the focus on the local actors and local motives. Second, policymakers have to be sophisticated enough in their statements to separate a relationship with a government from political endorsement of it.
Egypt is a good example. In the past week, the administration and the Republican leadership have displayed remarkable restraint in calibrating comments to support the emergence of a legitimate popular will in Egypt without inflaming chaos. As a result, the American government is not in any danger of being "on the wrong side of history" as so many news reports breathlessly worry.
Now that's news. But the bigger success, one hopes, will be Egypt's.
Read Schumacker-Matos’ complete op-ed here.
No comments:
Post a Comment