Less than 50 days out from a presidential elections is not a good time to have a reasoned debate about U.S.-Egypt relations. That said, I am mostly comfortable with the comments of President Mohamed Morsi despite his critiques of our foreign policy, our society, and his strong ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. He received a Ph.D from the University of Southern California in the 1980’s and he’s happy to say, “Go Trojans.” I feel better knowing that he has a real familiarity with our people and our culture, because I feel like a lot of folks who are in various Islamist movements don’t have that kind of knowledge, and it can lead to misunderstandings. President Morsi may not like restaurants like Hooters, but I can’t say that I am a big fan of them myself. Perhaps we dislike them for slightly different reasons, but his prudery doesn’t bother me.
I think President Morsi is correct when he says that the United States has a special responsibility to the Palestinians because we signed the Camp David Accords which called for a withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the establishment of a Palestinian state. As long as those commitments are not fulfilled, the terms of the treaty are under stress. This comment warrants more discussion:
He suggested that Egypt would not be hostile to the West, but would not be as compliant as Mr. Mubarak either.
“Successive American administrations essentially purchased with American taxpayer money the dislike, if not the hatred, of the peoples of the region,” he said, by backing dictatorial governments over popular opposition and supporting Israel over the Palestinians.
This is very similar to my critique of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, but it’s hopelessly lacking in nuance. In the case of Egypt, the U.S. did not install Nasser, or Sadat, or Mubarak in power. We didn’t squash any nascent democracy movement, as we did in 1953 in Iran. During the 1960’s and early 1970’s it was the Soviets who armed Egypt and dominated its internal politics. And when Jimmy Carter worked with Begin and Sadat to start a real peace process, it was Islamist radicals, not democratic freedom-fighters, who assassinated Sadat. Part of the reason that America supported Mubarak against organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood was because we were trying to protect the peace process that was originated at Camp David.
Things might have been different if Carter had had a second term to consolidate his gains and advance the peace process, but we got Reagan and the invasion of Lebanon instead. While conservative governments in the United States ignored the peace process, the settlers changed the facts on the ground and made both the Camp David Accords and the Oslo peace process much more difficult to implement. By the time President Obama arrived on the scene, the Palestinian government was split and basically Humpty Dumpty had fallen off the wall.
But it’s too simplistic to argue that America has been supporting leaders like Mubarak because we oppose democracy and Egyptians’ rights. The relationship started with Sadat in the context of the Cold War. It was built up in the context of Camp David Accords. And it later got entwined with anti-terrorism efforts after the first bombing of the World Trade Center.
America has substantial responsibility for its failure to see to it that the Camp David Accords were implemented as designed, but both the Israelis and the Palestinians have plenty of responsibility for that, too.
You can’t just look at the question of Palestine without looking at a larger picture. The U.S. intervened in Kuwait to protect the principle of sovereignty. They intervened in the Balkans to protect Muslims. They intervened in Libya to protect Muslims. And our current president has been treading over very treacherous ground to, as far as possible, support the democratic aspirations reflected in the Arab Spring.
One can point to the 1953 coup in Iran or the invasion of Iraq in 2003 or the pro-Israeli policies of the United States or to a number of other legitimate irritants to Arab and Muslim public opinion, but the U.S. isn’t responsible for every woe in the Arab world. That’s a cop-out.
Democracy in Egypt makes the U.S. nervous. The Muslim Brotherhood makes the U.S. nervous. But we actually have an opportunity to vastly improve the relationship between our people and our governments. If we learn to live with having less control and less predictability, and Egypt learns to do less finger-pointing and more responsible governing, we can overcome our fear and Egypt can overcome their resentment.
President Morsi will not be visiting the White House on this trip to the United States because Obama’s political opponents will politicize it if he does. That’s the fear talking. That’s what America has to work on. The Egyptians have their own work to do.
No, we didn’t install Nasser, but Britain, France, and Israel all tried to remove him from power; he might not have been elected, but he was and is probably the most popular political leader in the region.
Between the creation of Israel and their role in the Suez Crisis, most of this animosity is largely Britain’s fault, but our bribes to Egypt for them to keep terms of Camp David and giving Mubarak military power without any movement towards reconciliation didn’t do us any favors.
And there might not have been an Operation Ajax… but there was collusion with The Brotherhood against Nasser:
CIA Islamist Cover-Up
List of assassinations after 1948. Was a continuation of pre-independence terror, Jewish resistance to the British mandate by Irgun and Stern gang.
Read also: Lavon Affair: Operation Susannah. Egyptians do remember these historical facts.
If I were an Egyptian, whether a liberal or a member of the Brotherhood, I would have my grievances about U.S. foreign policy over the last (especially) thirty years. But all I ask is for a broader assignation of blame and a bit of credit, too, where it is due. A fair assessment.
But all I ask is for a broader assignation of blame and a bit of credit, too, where it is due. A fair assessment.
I think we have to look in the mirror a lot more than even you acknowledge. After all, our elected officials let AIPAC(see Friday night in the Senate for a great example) run our Middle East policy, despite them being a bunch of far-right, apartheid-loving, dipshit know-nothings.
Elected officials? Our populace seems to feel the same way. You can’t really change US policy to Israel because the American people think Israel is fantastic.
This.
How many pro-Israel political figures are actually sticking their necks out? As opposed to following the path of least resistance?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/22/sense-of-the-congress-with-bibi-over-obama.html
End the alliance.
Does incessant pandering that affects both domestic and foreign policy constitute “sticking their neck out”?
I don’t like religious conservatives, in this country or in the Middle East. I think that’s a dangerous way to approach politics.
But as LBJ said about J. Edgar Hoover, “It’s better to have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.” Supporting democracy means sometimes the other guy wins, and you put up with it.
I’ve been seeing the American right using the recent unpleasantness to chastise President Obama for being too “weak” to prop up Mubarak and other Arab Spring-deposed dictators, and for “appeasing” the masses in this country. I can’t tell how much of that is just opportunistic sniping at Obama, and how much actually represents a genuine belief that we should return to a pre-Obama, Cold War-ish foreign policy of backing dictators, because it takes a strong hand to keep the people in line. Either way, I’m glad we don’t have to put up with these neanderthals pretending to support Middle Eastern democracy anymore, like we did from 2002-2006. That was just nauseating.
“I am mostly comfortable with the comments of President Mohamed Morsi despite…his strong ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.“
Maybe it’s time for you to examine, and update some of your thinking about the Muslim Brotherhood. Could be that it is not “hopelessly”, but at least seriously “lacking in nuance”.
Some unsolicited thoughts from an Egyptian revolutionary:
“Here is what we know: A bunch of Muslim Brotherhood and Salafi figures started making an issue of this movie, which no one heard of before, a few days before the anniversary of 9/11. Both the Brotherhood and various Salafi groups called for protests at the U.S. Embassy on the anniversary of 9/11.
That day, a friend who works for the embassy informed me, the employees who left at 4 p.m. noticed that both the police and the army forces protecting the embassy had vanished, followed by the attack that you all watched on your plasma TV screens. Over the next few days, the Brotherhood would praise the attackers in the Arabic media and condemn them in their English language media.”
An Open Letter to the United States of America by Egyptian blogger named Sandmonkey.
Not sure how this relates to my comment, Oui.
I am also not very convinced by an unnamed supposed “Egyptian Revolutionary” citing an unnamed “friend who works for the embassy”. In fact, I am reminded by this that a certain “lesbian” blogger in Damascus was revealed to be not a lesbian, not a female, not a Syrian, and not in Damascus or any other part of Syria, so why should I buy this story?
Wow, you surprise me as I admire you for knowledge and fair views on the Middle-East and political change. You never heard of blogger Sandmonkey?
If you eliminate context by excising other parts of my potential concerns, you overemphasize my concern with the part that remains.
Further, you must know that when I write for an American audience which is highly politically engaged, that audience is being subjected to a constant drumbeat of concern and panic about the Muslim Brotherhood taking over Egypt. When I say that I am not that concerned about them, I am acknowledging some legitimacy in their fears. And it’s not just to be manipulative. The Brotherhood isn’t some pussyfooting group of pacifists.
My view of the Brotherhood in Egypt is that they are not a bunch of terrorists, but they do have an anti-American attitude, and they have ideas about women that are extremely problematic. But, then, the Saudis idea about gender are even worse. So, we can live with the Brothers, we can even broaden our understanding of each other while reducing our mutual fears. But we are not natural allies, so we will have to go forward carefully, on both sides.
I didn’t “overemphasize” anything. In fact, I didn’t emphasize anything at all. I commented on something that stuck out for me, largely because of the context of numerous previous remarks of yours about the Muslim Brotherhood, which are consistently significantly – though not hopelessly – out of date, and lacking in nuance.
I didn’t suggest you were being manipulative, so I have no idea where that remark came from. As for the Brotherhood not being a pussyfooting group of pacifists, neither are the overwhelming majority of American politicians – on the contrary, the United States government is orders of magnitude more dangerous than the least pacifistic factions of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Anti-American attitude in the Arab world is based on The behavior of the United States toward and in the Arab world, and is independent of religious persuasoin. If the United States cleaned up its act that anto-American attitude would begin to change surprisingly quickly across all segments of the population, including the Muslim Brotherhood.
Obama has nothing to offer six weeks before the elections, so he won’t meet with Netanyahu nor with Morsi.
Excellent post.