Non -interference and confusion

In February 2008, in the midst of the presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton released a video on the air, which began with a touching picture of children peacefully sleeping in her beds and pajamas of children. The image was black and white, as if the bedrooms were lit by the moon. The camera glided over serene faces, and behind the scenes against the background of "epic" music sounded the dictator's penetrating voice and anxiety:

• Three o'clock in the morning, your children are calmly sleeping. But the phone calls in the White House ... (A distant, but persistent phone call.) Something happened in the world ... (Alarm is growing.) Your voice will decide who will remove the phone of this phone. Will it be the one who is already familiar with world leaders, knows the armed forces, the one whose willingness to lead in this dangerous world withstood the test? .. (Pausa, the phone call is calmed down. The mother is restlessly in the bedroom - everything is in order.) Three o'clock in the morning, your children are calmly sleeping. So who will answer the call?

In the frame there was a photo of Hillary with a telephone pipe at the ear. Behind the scenes a calm, confident voice:

• I am Hillary Clinton, and I approve of this appeal.

The next day, Obama answered the opponent with his video. There were the same children and the same concoct, but already on the third phrase the announcer deviated from the text:

• ... Your voice will decide who will remove the phone of this phone. Will it be the one who was the only courage to oppose the war in Iraq from the very beginning? The only one who understood that the real threat to America is al -Qaida, and it comes from Afghanistan, and not from Iraq? ..

• I am Barack Obama, and I approve of this appeal, ”the candidate’s confident voice was fastened.

Republican candidate John McCain did not make a video in response, but he said verbally that he should be removed at three in the morning, because he was the only candidate who personally fought for American interests.

And now the first two have the full opportunity to respond to external challenges. And both were not ready for the wave of popular indignation, which overwhelmed the Arab world.

In June last year, the White House celebrated the anniversary of the Program Cairo speech Obama as a report on the work done. The certificate listed programs and initiatives to develop small business in Oman, Bahrain and Tunisia, the elimination of children's labor in Indonesia "through explanatory work and economic development", environmental protection and other cosmetic decorations of authoritarian regimes. In January of this year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton traveled around the Persian Gulf countries and in the tour of the tour made a speech in the capital of Qatar Doha, in which she listed some of the socio-economic problems of the "Great Middle East" and warned that "in many respects the foundations of the region were drowning in the sands." In order not to drown completely, she continued, leaders must immediately start building a more strong foundation: to create jobs, respect the rights of minorities, encourage private entrepreneurship and carry out political reforms in order to provide young people with a significant role in the lives of their countries.

Today it is already known that Clinton’s speech was the result of a report prepared by a group of experts led by a subtle expert of the region, adviser to the president Dennis Ross. The report indicated the weakest links in the US strategic allies chain: Jordan, Egypt, Bahrain and Yemen.

The Dokhia speech of the Secretary of State was late: she was uttered on January 13, when he was in full swing in Tunisia, and on January 14, President Ben Ali fled the country. Moreover: hoping that the “domino effect” would not work, the administration made it clear that she would not use the Tunisian precedent to provide pressure on other countries of the region. Meanwhile, Washington experts confidently predicted that Egypt would become the next knuckle, and called the date - January 25, the national police day, because by this moment calls to participate in the protest rally had already received a mass response of the Egyptians on Twitter.

The forecast was more than confirmed, but the US president made a statement about the events in Egypt only for the third day after their beginning, and later the originally appointed time. It was said that the delay is explained by disagreements between the main presidential advisers. “I hope that when President Obama finally speaks, he does not use the word“ stability, ”said Stephen Cook, a prominent red -wing specialist, did not use. However, the idea that Washington will support any non -violent measures to resolve the crisis, even if the regime does not change, was easily read in subtext.

That the administration is trying to sit on two chairs was obvious. As another expert put it, Robert Danin, “during the first year of the administration of this administration, the inertia of a kind of strict love in power, that is, the indulgence of the regime to reforms under the threat of problems - this inertia seems to have dried up,” and “everything that was called the“ agenda of the Liberty Day ”is now called the“ desire for democracy ”.

This drift to global conformism did not go unnoticed in the Arab and Muslim world. According to the latest survey of the Pew Research sociological center, a negative view of the United States prevails there, and Obama’s personal rating falls. Last year, in Egypt, it was higher than in any other Arab country - 27 percent, and today I lost as many as 10 points - this is the lowest indicator in PEW surveys since 2006. The popularity of the President is also reduced among Muslims as a whole.

The phrase "The future of Egypt will determine the Egyptian people", of course, is correct, but is the position of non -interference, neutrality for the United States? Is the support of honest elections really the only form of influence that the only superpower in the world can afford? A survey of the same PEW, conducted in December last year, showed : in Egypt, 82 percent of the population consider it fair to beat women in the punishment for marital treason, 77 percent of the Egyptians approve of the cut of hands for theft, 84 percent - the death penalty for transition from Islam to another faith. Only 27 percent of Egypt citizens call themselves supporters of modernization, and 59 percent - fundamentalists. It is easy to foresee what the majority of the country sees is the majority.

The reaction to events in the Middle East is a special case of a general paralysis of the will that hit Washington. It is associated with a series of foreign policy failures and crushing failures, each of which has its own specific reasons. The last successful international project, which did not get out of control and did not turn into a golem, was the proclamation of the independence of East Timor in 1998-1999. Its implementation was possible after a thorough preparation of world public opinion, including the award of the Leaders of the East Testorskoye Resistance of the Nobel Prize of the World for 1996, forced to take the rest of the President of Indonesia in 1998 and a referendum on the department organized and conducted by Western diplomats. No wonder Barack Obama told his advisers to write a report on possible scenarios in the Middle East based on the experience of popular uprisings in Latin America, Eastern Europe and not alien to Indonesia.

This position is even more clearly Laissez -Faire - “what will happen” - appears when meeting with the last annual message of the president to Congress “On the Regulation of the Country”, which he said just on the day of the Egyptian police. There are only two phrases about the events in Tunisia, one of which is completely meaningless: "The United States of America stands shoulder to the shoulder with the people of Tunisia and support the democratic aspirations of all people." About the unrest in Egypt, about the likelihood that the fire will spread to other countries of the region, not a word. But even more indicative, Obama’s internal political plans. In the bold picture of the future he painted, the word to compete flashes - “compete”, “compete”: America should do this and that (give its children the best education, update the infrastructure, encourage innovations) - otherwise it will lose to other countries.

She must catch up and overtake! There is no question of leading. With such a national agenda, it is natural to resolve the powers of superpower.