They were celebrating in
Cairo the arrival of four new U.S. F-16s and the likelihood that the
United States would give $2 billion in aid to Egypt this year.
Yet
given the ongoing violence in Egypt and the Islamist regime’s
declaration of a state of
emergency in three governates—a policy it and other opposition groups
always rejected under the previous government—it is reasonable for the
United States to postpone military gifts of F16s, advanced tanks, and
other weapons to Cairo.
Regarding
the state of emergency—and the state of democracy in Egypt--Mohamed
Al-Kholi, a member of the upper house of Egypt’s parliament that
approved the proposal, tweeted,
“It is clear the Islamist-dominated council rejects listening to any
kind of opposition and that it is just interested in rubber-stamping
Morsi’s authoritarian measures.” Emad Gad, a political analyst for the state-controlled al-Ahram newspaper,
warned, “The mobilization of [the] Shura Council [upper house of
parliament] to endorse Morsi’s authoritarian measures offers renewed
proof that the council exists solely to rubber-stamp
Morsi’s decrees and promote the interests of the Muslim Brotherhood.” That was especially brave, by the way, since Gad knows the Muslim Brotherhood will soon be choosing his new boss [see below].
And
here's another point that to my knowledge hasn't been used in Congress
yet. Last November, the International Monetary Fund suspended
discussions on a $4.3 billion loan to Egypt for two months because of
the unrest in the country. The talks are now being renewed but the loan
still
hasn't been granted. If the IMF can suspend negotiations over domestic
repression in Egypt--and in that case it could be argued that a delay
hurt ordinary Egyptians--the United States can certainly do likewise in a
situation where no Egyptian citizens will be hurt by a delay in
providing planes and tanks to the military.
What are the arguments raised in Congress so far for stopping the arms' transfer? Senator Rand Paul remarked:
“I
think it is a blunder of the first proportion to send sophisticated
weapons to a country that allowed a mob to attack our embassy and to
burn our flag….I find it objectionable to send weapons…to a country that
allowed a mob chanting ‘death to America’ to threaten our American
diplomats.”
This makes sense but is still a marginal position in Congress.
Senator James Inhofe added a second argument:
“For
decades, the U.S. has had a good relationship with Egypt, training
their troops and working together to maintain peace and stability in the
region… Under Muslim Brotherhood President Mursi, this relationship has
come to a halt. We need to continue to support the Egyptian military,
which Mursi and the Muslim Brotherhood have currently distanced
themselves from. Egypt’s military is our friend—Mursi is our enemy,”
A
third argument is one regarding Egypt’s stance toward Israel but the
Egyptian government can argue that it formally maintains the peace
treaty. There are other signs of trouble, for example the government
prosecutor’s office has now claimed that Israel has created a massive
conspiracy to destroy Egypt’s economic facilities.
Fourth,
military aid--Egypt gets $1.3 billion a year--and gifts of
advanced weapons are given to countries that actually do something for
the United States. It is clear that Egypt's new regime will not support
U.S. policy toward Iran nor promote the Arab-Israeli or
Israel-Palestinian peace process. The main thing that the Egyptian
regime did for the United States was supposedly to help broker an
Israel-Hamas ceasefire. For this, the Brotherhood government is
endlessly praised by Obama Administration officials including Kerry in
his confirmation hearings.
Yet
all that this amounted to was Egypt saving its Hamas client from a
worse drubbing by Israel. As for Egypt cooperating in blocking arms from
reaching Hamas over the
Egypt-Gaza border, this cooperation remains to be seen.
And
then there are the statements by President Mursi and other top Egyptian
leaders evincing antisemitic and anti-American hatred. What is
especially noteworthy is the remarks of Fathi Shihab-Eddim, a top regime
figure who—no less!—is responsible for appointing the editors of
state-run Egyptian newspapers and made—no less!—on January 27, Holocaust
Remembrance Day. Shihab-Eddim said:
“The myth of the Holocaust is an industry that America invented.”
Note
that he did not say it was a Zionist-invented industry. The statement
is thus a direct attack on the United States, to be linked with Mursi’s
saying a few hours earlier that Jews controlled the American media, to
be linked with Mursi saying that Jews were the offspring of pigs and
monkeys as well as other things he and Muslim Brotherhood leaders have
said.
This
is not just rhetoric but their political analysis: Evil, subhuman Jews
bent on world conquest and destroying Islam are running the United
States but at the same time America is the centerpiece of the conspiracy
to destroy Islam.
The
truth is that there is not a lot of difference between the political
concepts of Iran’s leaders and those of Egypt’s leaders on this point.
The difference is that the Brotherhood is
much smarter at using the United States whereas Iran’s rulers continue
to antagonize it. This strategy works so well that the U.S. government
in effect protects the Brotherhood regime in the Gaza Strip from being
overthrown and is about to put the Brotherhood regime into power in
Syria.
It
would be easy to compile many pages of profoundly anti-American
statements made by Brotherhood leaders and media over recent months and
years yet such things don't seem to appear or at least to be factored
into the American debate. For instance, the Brotherhood consistently
supported
terrorism against American forces in Iraq and leaders frequently speak
about America's decline as a reason for advancing the jihad to more and
more places.
All
of these points perhaps should be but are not sufficient to stop the
sale. But are their additional arguments that validate doing so? Events
in Egypt have now provided such a rationale.
It
is, of course, vital to maintain good relations between the United
States and Egypt and especially with the Egyptian military. As Inhofe
suggested, though, these two things are not identical. While there is
less hope of the army blocking the Muslim Brotherhood government than
many outsiders think—its top priority is its own economic well-being;
there are Islamist sympathizers in its ranks; the Brotherhood will
eventually appoint the top command—that possibility still exists.
At
this moment, the Brotherhood wants the army to intervene to put down
opposition demonstrations and riots. The armed forces is reluctant to do
so even though the top general warned that the country’s future
stability was at stake. For the United States at this moment to postpone
weapons’ sales would send a signal to the army that it cannot count on
unlimited U.S. backing if it does the Brotherhood’s bidding. The
generals will think: These idiots in our government are messing things
up to the point that we might not get more American goodies. Why should
we send forces into the streets to shoot down citizens for such leaders?
There
is another good rationale that can be used. While the president is
elected and a constitution has been adopted, parliamentary elections
must be held again for the lower house. It could be argued by the U.S.
government that until the full parliament is in place, Egypt will not be
fully democratic and the provision of weapons can be postponed until
then, in a few months.
And
here’s one more. What do U.S. intelligence reports say about the
security of weapons provided to Egypt? Is there a danger of their
falling into the hands of Salafist, including al-Qaida-linked,
terrorists, including soldiers?
Remember
the assassination of President Anwar al-Sadat in which members of the
Egyptian military participated. While terrorists are not likely to take
off in an F16, other weapons are more vulnerable. And then there’s the
possibility of the theft of technology that might wind up in the hands
of America’s enemies. This should be a real consideration and I’ll bet
there
are some very interesting reports about such things in the Pentagon.
-----------------------
We
need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA
Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button:
http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of
IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC,
116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
Please be subscriber 32,022 (among about 50,000 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
------------------------
Because
of recent events, then, the postponement of sales—which a month ago
seemed a mission impossible--becomes a possible realpolitik American
response when before this point it was arguably against U.S. interests.
With the Obama Administration proclaiming its allegiance to human rights
and democracy that added point should affect the thinking of
congressional Democrats.
Will
the sale be stopped? Almost certainly not unless there are more
dramatic events. The president generally gets what he wants in foreign
policy and most Democrats are simply afraid to cross Obama even if they
disagree with him.
Nevertheless,
a credible attempt should be made to postpone the sale if for no other
reason than that would lay the basis for a possibly more
successful effort the next time, when the Egyptian government’s
radicalism will be even more visible.
A
second reason for this effort is to show the Obama Administration that
there is a price for its policies and that the strategy it is following
undermines U.S. interests. If it is going to back the Brotherhood then
the contradictions in this position should be exposed to the American
public and members of Congress should be forced to take a stand.
Democrats on Capitol Hill who back the White
House on other issues might well realize that they need to curb it on
foreign policy lest it damage both America and their own political
careers.
Of
course, the White House will not change course, just as it didn’t do so
when demonstrators were being repressed in Iran. Having just pointed an
all pro-Islamist team, Obama has doubled down on his policy. But he
should have to pay for such behavior in public opinion and the loss of
congressional support.
Barry
Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs
(GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International
Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.
Professor Barry Rubin, Director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloria-center.org
The Rubin Report blog http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/
He is a featured columnist at PJM http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/.
Editor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal http://www.gloria-center.org
Editor Turkish Studies,http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t713636933%22
--
No comments:
Post a Comment