I just had a major epiphany regarding the crisis going on in Egypt, and it helps to put the entire situation into context. What was that epiphany you ask? Mohamed ElBaradei is a 'big deal.' Let me explain.
For the past 30 years, Hosni Mubarak has suppressed domestic rivals, and now there are few figures to fill the void if he leaves. ElBaradei is one of, if not the only, credible alternative as he hasn't climbed his way up through the Egyptian bureaucracy. Rather, his experience has been built during his time working with the United Nations.
If you wrack your brain for a minute you may recall that he was the head of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency during the run-up to the Iraq War. He was the lead individual on the ground in Iraq tasked with conducting last minute inspections attempting to determine whether Saddam Hussein really had nuclear weapons (which he didn't). ElBaradei was one of the leading voices before the invasion urging patience and more time to inspect.
He also helped to expose the forged documents the United States put forward linking Saddam with attempts to purchase yellowcake uranium from the Republic of Niger. So you see, even before the crisis in Egypt broke loose, ElBaradei was a major figure on the world stage. For more than a decade, he served as the most consequential international figure working to stop nuclear proliferation.
Yet somehow the domestic news media have failed to connect these dots for their viewers back home. I don't understand it. They talk of ElBaradei but don't provide any context as to who he is and why he's important. Let's be clear: ElBaradei is a 'big deal.'
But what is really interesting in all of this is the fact that the U.S. had a checkered past in supporting ElBaradei. They tried to oust him from the IAEA in the wake of Iraq intelligence failures in 2004. While the exact reasons for the actions of the U.S. are murky, his statements in advance of the Iraq War and his positions regarding Israeli nuclear weapons probably contributed to making the Americans uncomfortable.
In early 2004, he published an opinion-editorial in The New York Times that used veiled references to Israel to argue that the idea that it was morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue weapons of mass destruction
yet morally acceptable for others to rely on them for security had to be abandoned. Translation: Countries such as Israel couldn't continue to be exempt from international scrutiny of their nuclear programs. The U.S. failed to oust ElBaradei. Instead, he won The Nobel Peace Prize in 2005.
So now the U.S. is stuck between propping up a dictator who helps protect American interests in the region, and allowing an internationally respected democratic reformer, who might not support American strategic interests, to be democratically elected.
ElBaradei appears to be the embodiment of modern western enlightenment ideas that the U.S. aspires to embrace, yet so often is distracted from achieving in the pursuit of its own self-interests. While in the past the U.S. would often choose the path of least resistance and protect its own, in the wake of invading Iraq on the grounds of spreading democracy and liberty, it's becoming harder for the U.S. to compromise its values for the sake of protecting its citizens.
Is this a positive development? I'll leave that for you to decide.
Kevin Berry is a senior studying history.
4
Opinion
Letter to the Editor
