The Need for a Revised US Monologue in Egypt

So. Egypt. There's been a lot going on there in the past week. At least 100 people have died in Cairo, the result of violent protests calling for the removal of President Hosni Mubarak. Given the United States' close relationship (at least until now) with the controversial leader, striking the right chord in our communications with the Egyptian government and the country's people is incredibly important. As my colleague Laura McGinnis stated in her most recent post, taking sides could prove dangerous for the US. So far, however, the US's statements have been underwhelming, even taking their abject neutrality into account. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying that "we are not advocating any specific outcome" in Cairo? How nice. How carefully worded. How bland.

Like Laura, I don't think explicitly siding with the protesters OR the government is a good idea. No use burning bridges when we obviously don't know what the next few days, weeks and months will bring. But from a public diplomacy perspective, statements like Clinton's simply don't create positive feelings from Egyptians toward America. Monologue, as stated in Geoffrey Cowan and Amelia Arsenault's excellent article about the three layers of public diplomacy, is an integral part of outreach to foreign publics. In my view, monologue is perhaps the best form of PD in this situation; Egyptians are looking for a strong response from other governments, and statements with a bit more heft from the State Department and/or the White House would go a long way toward showing America's support for democracy in Egypt--and I think it would be possible to do so without condemning Mubarak outright.

Philip Seib, the Director of the Center on Public Diplomacy at USC, would seem to agree. In his article "Obama's Missed Opportunity in Egypt," Seib critiques the president's "overly cautious" stance of the past few days and indeed the past two years, starting with lack of follow-up after his landmark speech in Cairo in the spring of 2009. He argues that a bit more risk in monologues and their follow-ups--which includes not worrying about offending Mubarak--would lead to a more integral role for the US in building a strong democracy in Egypt: "With Mubarak's departure, the United States will lose an ally who has been pliable and reliable, but if the United States helps Egypt move smoothly into its new era, the loss of Mubarak will be mitigated by new friendship with the Arab people." I think that monologues with a bit more presence would help to achieve this friendship and build trust on the part of the Egyptian people toward the US, which could lead to an integral role in democracy-building. As we've discussed a bit in class, forming a relationship of trust is an extremely important part of public diplomacy, and doing so with Egypt via statements and other monologues could prove to be a great success--if the White House and State Department are willing to step up to the plate a bit more in those monologues and not be so cautious about stepping on dictators' toes.