Montana Politics

A Real Strategy in Egypt

As the Egyptian Army refuses to crush the current unrest, it becomes clearer what the US needs to do about the situation, and what I believe we have already done.

The real kingmaker in Egypt is still the army – in choosing to stand down, they have shown that they have lost faith in Mubarak. They have shown another thing as well. Mubarak doesn’t control them – the US effectively does. The Egyptian military relies on the US for most of its weapons systems, so when Obama says ‘don’t use force’, it turns out his words mean something – probably more than Mubarak’s. He more than any Egyptian general or president has leverage over the Egyptian army, because he controls their access to the weapons they need to feel safe right next to Israel. This may be seen as an imposition on Egyptian sovereignty, but it also may be seen as a key factor in keeping these protests from becoming a massacre.

So the next step? Make it clear to the military that under whoever wins democratic elections, military aid will continue undeterred as long as human rights are respected and the truce with Israel is upheld. This will remove any incentive the army has to interfere in who becomes the next leader – any ideological preference they might hold is not likely to be stronger than their desire to keep receiving advanced weaponry (and, perhaps more acute, the need to keep receiving parts and support for the weapons it has). Best case scenario is probably a situation like in Turkey, where the army has a more active role than anyone would like to acknowledge but cannot suspend Democracy for any significant length of time because it in turn depends on the US and NATO. And compared to the status quo, that’s a pretty good best case scenario.

The last thing to consider – precedent. If the American-funded Egyptian military stands down in exchange for continuing its supply of goodies, the possibility opens up of the same occurring elsewhere. In the grand scheme of things, it is safe to assume that a stable, peaceful, human-rights respecting state will be better off than a similar state that is undemocratic and lacks respect for individual rights. Thus, in the long term, if the US pressures armies with which it is aligned not to get in the way of democratic movements, those countries will be better off than countries like Uzbekistan that choose to align with China and Russia so as to continue with their sovereign right to massacre their citizens.

If you appreciate an independent voice holding Montana politicians accountable and informing voters, and you can throw a few dollars a month our way, we would certainly appreciate it.


Click here to post a comment

Please enter an e-mail address

  • gee Wolf, do you have anything to substantiate your claim that Obama controls the Egyptian military? or do you think it's all about money, that our providing aid is the only thing keeping the military from slaughtering their countrymen?

    and that link you provided, trying to negatively frame countries that align with russia and china–do you not realize that well over a hundred protestors have been killed in Egypt? who do you think fired those shots?

  • "or do you think it’s all about money"

    I don't know, lizard. It's a lot of dollars. It's about 20 percent of Egypt's military budget, as well as access to state of the art technology equal to their biggest rivals. I can't prove that that is what is motivating them. But it's hard to imagine that that hasn't crossed the minds of the military leaders who have thus far decided not to enforce Mubarak's orders. And if Obama hasn't explicitly linked continued assistance to a peaceful end to this crisis, he ought to. It's the strongest card in our deck.

    "do you not realize that well over a hundred protestors have been killed in Egypt? who do you think fired those shots?"

    Well I'd say that the the internal security of Egypt fired those shots – policemen and others, who significantly don't receive 1.3 billion in US aid annually. Notably, the military has not been cracking down.

    "trying to negatively frame countries that align with russia and china"

    It's not hard to negatively frame a country that shot, in one incident, hundreds of protesters, executing injured people on the ground, and then encouraged its neighbors not to let those fleeing the massacre asylum. Moreover, China and Russia placed the blame squarely on – the protesters. I understand its hard for you to believe that a country besides the US could be so callous as to encourage trapping massacre survivors in their country and defend the governments actions, in the name of stability and security, but both Russia and China did. The US reaction wasn't nearly as harsh as Uzbekistan deserved, but it was enough to get our air force kicked out of Uzbek bases.

    I know it is a standard narrative that countries align with China to get out of the neoliberal system enforced by the IMF et al. That is partially true. But it is also true that countries align with China because China will never harass them about human rights, even in the most egregious cases that make even the US think twice about associating with them.

0 /* ]]> */