Skip to Content

Yes, Egypt's in turmoil, but think about it: The Mideast has been remarkably stable

Thousands of pro-government supporters of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak push their way towards Tahrir square on Wednesday.
REUTERS/Yannis Behrakis
Thousands of pro-government supporters of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak push their way towards Tahrir square on Wednesday.

This is in no way a hint or a prediction about whether Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak can hang onto power till the end of the day, the month or until the next scheduled election (where he now says he will not seek another term).

And of course, it’s true that the 24-year authoritarian regime was just overthrown in Tunisia.

But it may be a good time to note something Martin Sampson of the U of M, one my long-time sources of wisdom and insight about the Mideast, likes to point out (and reminded me of when we spoke about the situation in Egypt).

We talk constantly about instability in the Arab countries and the Middle East more generally. The U.S. media tend to portray the region, really, as the world capital of instability. And there always seems to be something going in the region to justify this notion, a war or the threat of a war or a low-intensity semi-war-type conflict or a civil war or a demand for the overthrow of the one of the kings or dictators or the threat of a revolution.

But on another and very relevant level, Professor Sampson has often pointed out to me, the Mideast is a region of astonishing stability.

Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak addressed the nation on Egyptian State TV on Tuesday.
REUTERS/Egyptian State TV
Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak addressed the nation on Egyptian State TV on Tuesday.

Start with Egypt, for obvious reasons. Mubarak is going on 30 years in power, having gained the presidency on the death of the man that appointed him as his successor, Anwar Sadat. Sadat took power in 1970 upon the death of the man, Gamal Abed Al Nasser, who appointed him as his successor. Nasser took power in 1952 by a coup, which he led, that overthrew the last king (although Nasser didn’t technically acquire the title of president until 1956). So, there hasn’t been a revolutionary change in Egypt since the 1952 coup, and the presidency has been handed down, without benefit of any real elections, to three men over more than 50 years.

Other nations
In Jordan, the current King Abdullah, is the fourth member of the Hashemite monarchy since the nation was created by the British in 1921, and handed to the current king’s great-grandfather (also Abdullah) in recognition of the family’s assistance to the Allies in World War I. Although the first Abdullah was assassinated and his son, King Talal, was replaced by his own son (King Hussein) because Talal was diagnosed with mental illness, the crown has stayed in the family and been handed down peacefully. No successful revolution in Jordan since World War I.

In Syria, the current president, Bashar al-Assad, is the son of the previous president, the long-serving dictator Hafez al-Assad, who held power from 1970 until his death in 2000. So that’s at least 41 years of “stability” under one-family rule. Hafez Assad took power via a bloodless intraparty coup in 1970, but his Baath Party has held power in Syria since 1963 – 48 years since the last real change of power.

Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi has been the de facto dictator of Libya since he seized power in a 1969 coup (he was 27 at the time). He’s still the de facto dictator of Libya (he’s 68 now).

In Iraq, there was a big change. But it was brought about by a U.S. invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein. For all the chaos that the Saddam years visited upon Iraq, including the decade-long war with Iran and the reckless invasion of Kuwait that brought about the first U.S.-Iraq war, Saddam nonetheless maintained a secure grip on power from 1979 to 2003, and his Ba’ath Party had held power since 1968.

Speaking of Kuwait, the Sabah family has been in charge since the 1700s, and is the only ruling family since the British created Kuwait as a semi-independent state separate from the rest of Iraq in the 1920s. The Saudi royal family has controlled its original homeland for centuries and by 1925 had defeated the Hashemites (yes, the same clan that is now the royal family of Jordan) for control of the Hejaz region, where the holy cities are located. So they have been in power since the founding of the modern nation of Saudi Arabia in 1931.

When you get past all the talk of instability and look at the endurance of so many of these regimes, “the longevity is astonishing,” said Sampson.

Related Tags:

Comments (11)

Stability? But under what conditions?

Then I suppose one could say maybe...that we would be more stable if we were still under British rule?...God save the kings and the oligarchs and the dictators for the price of "stability", whatever the sacrifice?

Or you could call it a 'teleological suspension' of freedom and justice for the sake of 'stability',ho!

That's the problem with democracy -- leaders are replaced every now and then.

It's good to point out, but stability by sharpened stick eventually leads to a change and frequetly a violent one. It is kind of a false security because eventually -- 2 days, 10 years, a century later -- people will demand a say, just like people everywhere, from European serfs to North American natives.

If you're an investor, stability is good, and repression unimportant.

If you're a writer, freedom to write what you think is good, repression unbearable, and investment opportunities are way down the list.

It's not often that "freedom" and "stability" find a way to live together relatively peaceably. That makes the past couple centuries in the U.S. (with the obvious exception of Mr. Lincoln's tenure in the White House) very unusual on the historical scale.

Martin Sampson is a great source. So is Rami Khouri, though more given than Martin to hyperbole. See Khouri's column in today's Beirut Star on the great change taking place in the Middle East.

After we helped crush democracy in Haiti by recognizing an illegal coup and an illegal election as pleasing(although not so pleasing to the democratically elected President Zelaya, who was forced out of office under the pretext that he wanted to run for extra terms), Hillary Clinton was pleased to see that "stability" had returned to Haiti.

"Stability" in Haiti meant the return to power of the Families, the ten wealthy families who have ruled in ways that make both them and US transnational corporations stay rich and on top. "Stability" means the same in one Latin American country after another, although some have caught on and refuse to please us instead of helping their people.

In Egypt, I'm afraid it means that we can trust Mubarak to keep its border to Gaza closed as long as we honor our 1979 treaty by continuing to grant billions per year to it and Israel, the two top recipients of US military and economic aid.

In 2010, this aid amounted to $4.725 billion (Israel $2.775 billion, Egypt $1.300 billion; plus economic aid to each). We tie that aid to the purchase by both countries of the weaponry produced by Boeing, Lockheed-Martin and General Dynamics et al. (www.vaughns-1pagers.com/politics/us-foreign-aid.html),

Who wins if Egypt returns to "stability?" Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, General Dynamics et al., as I see it.

Middle East countries:

Algeria*, Bahrain, Egypt*, Iraq*, Iran*, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait*, Lebanon*, Libya, Morocco*, Oman, Palestine*, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan*, Syria, Tunisia*, Turkey, UAE, Yemen*.

11 of 21 of the countries having significant internal dissension or overthrow of government in the recent past. All of the remainder having incidents of terrorism or war that would be very significant if they occurred in the US (especially if they were scaled up in proportion to country population).

All of the countries located on a precarious balance influenced by oil politics, US support for Israel and Islamic fundamentalism. A super-majority of people of those countries living in poverty.

Not my definition of a stable past or a stable future.

Almost a demonic title...does the author support dictatorships that use force and torture while living like royalty?

Neal pretty much nails it.

The only thing I would add is that many of the children of the aristocrats in those countries go overseas to get their education. Meanwhile, the child of the average peasant or laborer gets bupkis.

I believe there are those in this country's economic and political aristocracy that drool at the prospect of doing the same thing to this country.

When Professor Sampson states "stability" we need to understand where he is coming from.

Do a Google search and u will see that he is a member of Jewish Community Action and speaks quite a bit on the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

Lot of Israelis/American's like Netenyahu loved the "stability" that Egypt provided. They could screw the Palestinians over, invite Mubarak for tea and pretend how they had the imprimatur of "moderate" Arab support.

Of course, all that is toast now.

Excuse me! I was speaking of Honduras in #6, not Haiti.

Haiti is a whole 'nother shameful story.