Moubarak a gagné…

Moubarak a gagné…

Dans tous les cas, Teymoor Nabili, de Aljazeera.net, pose la question («Has Mubarak won?»), ce 3 février 2011. Il la justifie par une référence à l’analyse d’un professeur de la Naval Postgraduate School, Robert Springborg, publiée le 2 février 2011, sur Foreign Policy.

Springborg estime que Moubarak a manœuvré en complète coordination avec l’armée, et que tous les événements ont été contrôlés après l’explosion populaire initiale, pour orienter la situation vers une “normalisation” qui renforcera le régime et ouvrira la porte au remplacement de Moubarak par un général. Cette analyse n’est par ailleurs nullement complaisante puisqu’elle représente, pour l’auteur, une défaite de la démocratie et de la politique des USA, et une chance perdue dans ce cas puisque démocratie et “politique des USA” vont ensemble, et se définissent implicitement par le qualificatif de “vertueux”. Mais, dans l’analyse que développe Springborg, la “politique des USA”, effectivement vertueuse au départ, a été prise au piège et sera désormais contrainte de soutenir un dictateur de plus, après le départ de Moubarak. On conclurait donc que, même américaniste, la vertu ne suffit pas.

»The threat to the military's control of the Egyptian political system is passing. Millions of demonstrators in the street have not broken the chain of command over which President Mubarak presides. Paradoxically the popular uprising has even ensured that the presidential succession will not only be engineered by the military, but that an officer will succeed Mubarak... […]

»The president and the military, have, in sum, outsmarted the opposition and, for that matter, the Obama administration. They skillfully retained the acceptability and even popularity of the Army, while instilling widespread fear and anxiety in the population and an accompanying longing for a return to normalcy. When it became clear last week that the Ministry of Interior's crowd-control forces were adding to rather than containing the popular upsurge, they were suddenly and mysteriously removed from the street. Simultaneously, by releasing a symbolic few prisoners from jail; by having plainclothes Ministry of Interior thugs engage in some vandalism and looting (probably including that in the Egyptian National Museum); and by extensively portraying on government television an alleged widespread breakdown of law and order, the regime cleverly elicited the population's desire for security. While some of that desire was filled by vigilante action, it remained clear that the military was looked to as the real protector of personal security and the nation as a whole. Army units in the streets were under clear orders to show their sympathy with the people. […]

»The Obama administration, having already thrown its weight behind the military, if not Mubarak personally, thereby facilitating the outcome just described, can be expected to redouble its already bad gamble. Fearing once again that the regime might be toppled, it will lean on the Europeans, the Saudis, and others to come to Egypt's aid. The final nail will be driven into the coffin of the failed democratic transition in Egypt. It will be back to business as usual with a repressive, U.S.-backed military regime, only now the opposition will be much more radical and probably yet more Islamist. The historic opportunity to have a democratic Egypt led by those with whom the U.S., Europe, and even Israel could do business will have been lost, maybe forever. Uncle Sam will have to eat yet more humble pie, served up by the dictator who has just been insulting him.»

dedfefensa.org