Egypt and realpolitik
14/8/13 23:40![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
nairiporter.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticshttp://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/egypt-needs-our-help-now-more-than-ever/2013/07/16/31d46a4a-ed6e-11e2-9008-61e94a7ea20d_story.html
This article written by former national security advisor Brent Scowcroft and former National Security Council member Eric D.K. Melby makes an eloquent case for the US focusing its aid to Egypt and its efforts in regards to the situation in the region on helping the biggest Arab country restore economic and political stability. The authors argue that such a goal is in the best interests of the US, regardless of the whole debate about whether the coup should be called a coup. Here are the excerpts that I find central to the argument:
"Debating what label to put on the recent events deters from the truly important task: developing a strategy to support the restoration of Egypt’s economic and political stability. President Obama’s call for a reassessment of U.S. aid should focus primarily on how we can help Egypt, rather than on whether we should help".
...
"Egypt remains the most important country in the Arab world because of its history, its population, its economy and its example. Helping it achieve its goals at this critical juncture clearly is in America’s interest and that of the international community. The United States is in a unique position — by virtue of its international influence and time-tested relationship with Egypt — to convene the relevant parties and to stimulate action. It also has a unique responsibility to do so".
I think from a Realpolitik standpoint, the stance expressed in this article makes a much stronger case than all those emotional appeals about encouraging freedom and democracy in Egypt (before the coup) and the calls for punishing the military for their undemocratic actions by cutting aid after the event. It is true that the US legislation stipulates that if an event in a country is called a coup, then technically US aid has to be stopped to that country.
The problem with these appeals to upholding the principles of democracy that America regularly claims to be "standing for", no matter the geopolitical cost and the long-term implications from such an action, is that they make the assumption that Egypt had already achieved democracy before the latest events, whereas it was nowhere near that point. And not only because democracy is a process, not an event.
In fact, what happened in Egypt after the Tahrir revolution was that there was an election, a president was elected, but then he retreated from the promised path to democracy, he refused to respect the separation of powers, he changed the Constitution to suit his interests by unilaterally overriding the country's high court. In the meantime, he put Egypt on a path to Islamization, something that ran counter to that nation's long-time tradition of a largely moderate and secular state (especially when compared to other countries in the region).
Regardless of all the semantic pretzels being made around the name of the event (and the painful and pathetic wriggling of White House press secretary Jay Carney as he danced around the term 'coup' without actually ever using it), the truth is that the US interest in the region is to play a constructive role and try to help Egypt through this difficult transition period.
But don't get me wrong. "Helping" Egypt does not necessarily constitute sending arms to its military. Of course just throwing money at a problem has never been a constructive approach - it has to be spent wisely and smartly, and where it would make a difference (hope springs eternal, doesn't it). But I guess the point I and the two authors are trying to make is, now is the time to show some wisdom and strength of will by resisting the temptation to surrender to emotional appeals that would jeopardize the US long-term interests, which are in fact much more compelling and important than, say, the situation in Syria.
This article written by former national security advisor Brent Scowcroft and former National Security Council member Eric D.K. Melby makes an eloquent case for the US focusing its aid to Egypt and its efforts in regards to the situation in the region on helping the biggest Arab country restore economic and political stability. The authors argue that such a goal is in the best interests of the US, regardless of the whole debate about whether the coup should be called a coup. Here are the excerpts that I find central to the argument:
"Debating what label to put on the recent events deters from the truly important task: developing a strategy to support the restoration of Egypt’s economic and political stability. President Obama’s call for a reassessment of U.S. aid should focus primarily on how we can help Egypt, rather than on whether we should help".
...
"Egypt remains the most important country in the Arab world because of its history, its population, its economy and its example. Helping it achieve its goals at this critical juncture clearly is in America’s interest and that of the international community. The United States is in a unique position — by virtue of its international influence and time-tested relationship with Egypt — to convene the relevant parties and to stimulate action. It also has a unique responsibility to do so".
I think from a Realpolitik standpoint, the stance expressed in this article makes a much stronger case than all those emotional appeals about encouraging freedom and democracy in Egypt (before the coup) and the calls for punishing the military for their undemocratic actions by cutting aid after the event. It is true that the US legislation stipulates that if an event in a country is called a coup, then technically US aid has to be stopped to that country.
The problem with these appeals to upholding the principles of democracy that America regularly claims to be "standing for", no matter the geopolitical cost and the long-term implications from such an action, is that they make the assumption that Egypt had already achieved democracy before the latest events, whereas it was nowhere near that point. And not only because democracy is a process, not an event.
In fact, what happened in Egypt after the Tahrir revolution was that there was an election, a president was elected, but then he retreated from the promised path to democracy, he refused to respect the separation of powers, he changed the Constitution to suit his interests by unilaterally overriding the country's high court. In the meantime, he put Egypt on a path to Islamization, something that ran counter to that nation's long-time tradition of a largely moderate and secular state (especially when compared to other countries in the region).
Regardless of all the semantic pretzels being made around the name of the event (and the painful and pathetic wriggling of White House press secretary Jay Carney as he danced around the term 'coup' without actually ever using it), the truth is that the US interest in the region is to play a constructive role and try to help Egypt through this difficult transition period.
But don't get me wrong. "Helping" Egypt does not necessarily constitute sending arms to its military. Of course just throwing money at a problem has never been a constructive approach - it has to be spent wisely and smartly, and where it would make a difference (hope springs eternal, doesn't it). But I guess the point I and the two authors are trying to make is, now is the time to show some wisdom and strength of will by resisting the temptation to surrender to emotional appeals that would jeopardize the US long-term interests, which are in fact much more compelling and important than, say, the situation in Syria.
(no subject)
Date: 14/8/13 21:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/8/13 22:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/8/13 03:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/8/13 16:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/8/13 04:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/8/13 15:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/8/13 22:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/8/13 22:18 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/8/13 22:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/8/13 21:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/8/13 16:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/8/13 01:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/8/13 03:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/8/13 07:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/8/13 09:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/8/13 10:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/8/13 13:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/8/13 08:08 (UTC)On the other hand, if military aid is abruptly stopped, or even drastically scaled down, that would inevitably alienate the Egyptian military and it would achieve two negative results: one, it'd make them weaker, feel more threatened, and resort to even more escalation; and two, it'd essentially torpedo the US influence in the region.
Abrupt moves in geopolitics are detrimental.
(no subject)
Date: 18/8/13 06:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/8/13 07:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/8/13 16:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/8/13 18:08 (UTC)Until very recently? It's not that the US didn't have some levers of influence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt%E2%80%93United_States_relations#Military_cooperation) in Egypt as a strategic (mostly military) ally.
And let's not forget who's pulling the strings in Egypt right now.
(no subject)
Date: 18/8/13 18:23 (UTC)It may well be that our influence—<a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/08/president_obama_should_end_aid_to_egypt_the_country_s_generals_act_on_their.single.html>or lack thereof—</a>will be the same, regardless of whether we keep aiding the Egyptian military. If it’s unclear what course of action will best serve U.S. interests, maybe that leaves a clear path to pursue U.S. values instead.</I>
(no subject)
Date: 18/8/13 18:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/8/13 18:27 (UTC)http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/08/president_obama_should_end_aid_to_egypt_the_country_s_generals_act_on_their.single.html
(no subject)
Date: 15/8/13 16:07 (UTC)BTW, the events in Egypt over the past few years resemble the events of the early fifth century when various sects in Alexandria were pitted against one another in violent street brawls.
(no subject)
Date: 16/8/13 05:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/8/13 13:56 (UTC)Yes and that's what it's all about. What's in the US interest. If it was in U.S. interests to promote another Pinochet in Egypt instead, they would do that.
(no subject)
Date: 18/8/13 16:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/8/13 18:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/8/13 18:18 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/8/13 18:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/8/13 21:32 (UTC)If nothing else, it might just be guilt for fucking the place over so bad during the international slave trade I suppose.
(no subject)
Date: 18/8/13 21:49 (UTC)And I do mean it really depends (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1640002.html).
(no subject)
Date: 18/8/13 22:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/8/13 05:48 (UTC)http://www.worldfinancialreview.com/?p=1273
(no subject)
Date: 19/8/13 13:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/8/13 14:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/8/13 03:35 (UTC)does the US pursue policies that are in its own national interest? of course we do, just like all other nations. are we ultimately better served when we pursue policies that benefit more than one party? absolutely.
(no subject)
Date: 20/8/13 05:50 (UTC)So, as predicted, it was more of a semantic quibble. OK.
(no subject)
Date: 19/8/13 05:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/8/13 13:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/8/13 14:20 (UTC)