ElBaradei, Muslim Brotherhood Offer Political Path Out of Egyptian Confrontation

Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leader Essam el-Eryan said today that
Egyptian opposition groups have agreed to back former IAEA head
Mohamed ElBaradei to negotiate with the government, Al
Jazeera reports:

Egypt's opposition groups have agreed to support
opposition figure Mohamed ElBaradei to negotiate with the government,
a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood said on Sunday.

"Political groups support ElBaradei to negotiate with the regime,"
Essam el-Eryan told Al Jazeera.

This move by Egyptian opposition groups potentially offers a peaceful
path out of the crisis not only for the Egyptian government, but also
for the United States government, which is finding itself the object
of increasingly bitter criticism from Egyptians who back the
protesters' call for Mubarak to step down and see the policy of the
United States of backing Mubarak as a key obstacle to the realization
of their aspirations for free and fair elections. Failure to take
advantage of this opportunity could lead to a bloody showdown in the
streets - even worse than what we have seen already - for which the
U.S. would bear significant responsibility.

One path to the holding of free and fair elections would be the
establishment of a transitional government to prepare the elections.
Yesterday, US officials seemed to indicate support for this
possibility. The New York Timesreported:

Another possibility, American officials say, would be a
transitional government led by an outsider, perhaps Mohamed ElBaradei,
the former director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency,
who flew back to Cairo several days ago.
[...]

A frequent critic of United States policy, he could form a caretaker
government in preparation for an election. As one American official
said, "He's shown an independence from us that will squelch any
argument that he's doing our bidding."

U.S. officials have said that the Egyptian government should engage in
dialogue with the opposition. Now, apparently, there's a proposal on
the table from opposition parties for such dialogue. What the
opposition parties want to talk about is establishing a path to free
and fair elections - the same thing they have been demanding for
months.

The proposal from the opposition parties for negotiations with the
government is an opportunity for the U.S. to "put its money where its
mouth is." The US could publicly call on, and privately pressure, the
Egyptian government to respond to the opposition parties' call for
negotiations.

Of course, many want the US government to do much more than this. They
want the US and other Western allies of the Egyptian government to
publicly condemn Mubarak, publicly call on Mubarak to step down, and
indeed to try to force Mubarak out; and many are increasingly
frustrated that the U.S. is not even willing to condemn Mubarak.

The Washington Postreports
today:

In the streets of Cairo, many protesters are now openly
denouncing the United States for supporting President Hosni Mubarak,
saying the price has been their freedom. They say the Obama
administration has offered only tepid criticism of a regime that has
received billions of dollars in U.S. aid.

The New York Times reported yesterday that the U.S. says it
does not want to call for Mubarak to step down because 1) it fears
losing all leverage with Mubarak 2) it fears creating a power vacuum
in Egypt 3) it wants to avoid the perception that the U.S. was "once
again" engineering the ouster of a Middle East leader.

Regardless of whether one believes that these stated reasons are the
full story, or whether they are also a cover for other U.S.
motivations - the Times acknowledges that the
administration's "restraint" is also driven by lack of enthusiasm for
"dealing with an Egypt without Mubarak" - these are the stated reasons
of the U.S. for not responding to the protesters' call.

But publicly and privately backing the opposition parties' call for
negotiations would not, on the face of it, trigger any of the stated
U.S. objections. It is a very modest demand, totally consistent with
previous U.S. statements, which would not plausibly lead to "losing
all leverage" with Mubarak; it would not create a "power vacuum"; it
would not reasonably lead to a perception that the U.S. was
"engineering" Mubarak's ouster. On the contrary: the U.S. would be
raising the profile of a particular proposal for negotiations as a way
out of the crisis, and increasing pressure on the Egyptian government
to respond to it.

No doubt some folks who subscribe to the "cooties" school of
international diplomacy may object to any U.S. endorsement of a
process that involves the Muslim Brotherhood. But refusing to support
this reasonable, pragmatic, and moderate proposal, just because the
Muslim Brotherhood also supports it, would be extremely short-sighted.
The Brotherhood brings a lot to the table in its potential to help
peacefully establish a consensus government that could supervise
elections that the majority of Egyptians would see as legitimate.

And the fact that the Brotherhood is endorsing ElBaradei to negotiate
with the Egyptian government on its behalf indicates a key thing that
ElBaradei brings to the table: since his return to Egyptian politics,
ElBaradei has established a relationship of trust with the
Brotherhood. This is a key asset for ElBaradei, the Brotherhood, and
all Egyptians going forward towards the establishment of free and fair
elections and of a government that the majority of Egyptians will see
as legitimate.

The U.S. should take advantage of this asset, and of this proposal for
negotiations, and act decisively to forestall a bloody confrontation
between protesters and forces loyal to Mubarak which could be
significantly worse than what we have seen already, and for which the
U.S. would bear substantial responsibility.