Friday 23 August 2013

The Failure of Western Diplomacy in Egypt

An anti-Morsi protest at the White House, Washington,
August 22, 2013. [Source: ThinkProgress]

An idealistic policy undisciplined by political realism is bound to be unstable and ineffective; 
political realism unguided by moral purpose will be self-defeating and futile.
– “Ideals and Self-Interest in America’s Foreign Relations”, Robert E. Osgood (1953).

The ousting of Egypt’s first elected president, Mohammad Morsi, has been quite a test for Western diplomacy, particularly in the European Union and the United States, both of which have invested significantly in the nation’s continued development.

Morsi’s regime had a problematic record on human rights. Thus, spectators might have been forgiven for thinking that an Egyptian regime more secularised, and so less intolerant of religious diversity, would have pleased the West. They could not have been more wrong.

Western responses to the way in which the Egyptian Authorities have dealt with both the Muslim Brotherhood protests, and associated terrorist links, demonstrate a self-defeating ideological blindness, which fails to address the realpolitik environment of the region, and patronises as much as it moralises.

This lack of diplomatic realism has merely reinforced an already pronounced diplomatic weakness.


Double standards at the European Union

The European Union issued a predictably strong response in the aftermath of the suppression of the pro-Morsi Cairo Sit-in protest. Three of the most senior EU officials publically threatened to cut off aid to a nation highly dependent on foreign assistance, whilst indicating a change to a more confrontational diplomacy, both at an EU and national member-state level:
Together with its member states, the EU will urgently review in the coming days its relations with Egypt and adopt measures aimed at pursuing” the goals of promoting an “end to violence, resumption of political dialogue and return to a democratic process.
The European Union stated that its 6.7 billion dollar aid package to Egypt was under review, just a few days after Morsi’s ouster. This rapid change in policy occurred after approximately 42 Egyptians died in clashes on July 8th. While the EU foreign policy mantra has been one of respecting human rights, democracy, etc., the sincerity of their commitment to such values can nonetheless be questioned.

The interim Egyptian government had publicly set out a timetable of reform for their Islamist constitution and the holding of democratic elections, one day before the EU expressed a change in its diplomatic policy toward Egypt.

The diplomatic fall-out worsened a week after the violent clashes of the 14th. EU foreign ministers decided to reduce military ties with Egypt in a special meeting on the crisis, and suspend export licensing for military equipment to Egypt. Provisions for security assistance would be up for review, with EU officials threatening further action if the situation in Egypt does not improve.

The ministers lambasted the crackdown on protesters but also criticized the violent acts by pro-Morsi elements, perhaps in an effort to appear balanced. However, blame was principally ascribed to the authorities. They demanded the freeing of prisoners and an end to the state of emergency. Such a stance indicates they did not seriously consider the challenges that the interim Egyptian government faces.

The EU agreed to pump 6.7 billion dollars into Egypt, in order to prop up its stagnant economy four months after Morsi’s election, at a time when problems had begun to emerge with his rule. A week later the intensive protests leading to his ousting began.

Furthermore, the EU’s annual 1.4 billion dollar aid package had become something of a moral hazard. A report noted that EU bureaucrats had systematically failed for years to ensure how the funds were managed.

Therefore, the timing of the EU’s diplomatic shift, and the very contrasting sanguinity it adopted over the intolerance of the Morsi regime, suggest EU policy tinged by pro-Muslim Brotherhood sentiment.

Notably Catherine Ashton was the first foreign official permitted to see Morsi after his ousting and detention.

A poster of ex-president Mohammed Morsi,Cairo,  July 5, 2013.


Divergent voices within the United States

The United States Administration avoided branding Morsi’s removal from office as a coup d’etat, a controversial move that has been subject to much criticism.

Senate Foreign Relation Committee leader, Senator Bob Corker (Republican Party), sounded a cautious note
Egypt is a very strategic country in the Middle East and what we need to be is an instrument of calmness.
The Administration sought out a bi-partisan cross-party consensus, due in part to its problematic record on Middle Eastern issues, including the Benghazi controversy, which has refused to go away. Two senior Republican Party Senators, John McCain and Lindsay Graham, travelled to Egypt a month into the crisis, at Obama’s request. However, the portents for the impending visit did not augur well. Before the trip Graham told reporters:
We want to deliver a unified message that killing the opposition is becoming more and more like a coup.
Rather than strengthening diplomatic links, and perhaps developing an action-plan to resolve the crisis, McCain and Graham pre-emptively decided upon a strategy prior to their meetings with the interim Egyptian regime. The visit angered the Egyptian Administration, a development that such experienced politicians should have envisaged. McCain later added that the US had no credibility left in the Middle East, thereby bringing bi-partisanship to a possible close.

Latterly, the US sharply condemned Egypt’s provisional government for its relatively uncompromising policy on protests. President Obama stated after the break-up of the Cairo camp:
The United States strongly condemns the steps that have been taken by Egypt’s interim government and security forces. We deplore violence against civilians. We support universal rights essential to human dignity, including the right to peaceful protest. We oppose the pursuit of martial law, which denies those rights to citizens under the principle that security trumps individual freedom or that might makes right. And today the United States extends its condolences to the families or those who were killed and those who were wounded.
President Obama also ordered the cancellation of joint US-Egyptian bi-annual military exercises, a symbolic act considering the context of relations between the two nations, which were strained to an atypical extent.


Incoherence, and an evolving foreign policy

Whilst Obama’s response was thematically in keeping with that of the EU, it still marked a significant deterioration in Egypt’s links with the West due to the close relationship the Arab State has with the US. By sharply criticising the protest crackdown, Obama may sound like he has adopted a position of moral rectitude to his Western audience. Yet an important question could be asked: what is he trying to achieve with these criticisms? Is he trying to please an electorate influenced by the pro-Morsi coverage in the mainstream media? Alternatively, is Obama attempting to get Egypt to tow-the-line politically?

To an extent, the Egyptians had already fallen out with representatives of the United States some days earlier. The Egyptian government’s increasingly strident response to foreign calls for restraint had already become apparent. Thus it seems probable that the strength of Obama’s criticism would only serve to alienate, and thereby make less likely the hearing of any appeals for greater moderation.

It has been suggested that there is significant pressure on the US Administration from “The Beltway” (an assortment of political voices, lobby groups and media influences) to cut off aid, supposedly to gain greater leverage in Egypt. Yet it may be that elements hostile to any moderating American influence in the Middle East are pushing this message.

However, there are some senior moderating voices in the US administration. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who is against pulling aid, asserts that the U.S. has “important and complicated interests” in Egypt. At the beginning of August, Secretary of State John Kerry suggested that the Egyptian military was “restoring democracy”, although he quickly backtracked.


Boxing oneself into a corner

Over time however, the US diplomatic position appears to be hardening. There are reports that the US has unofficially put a delay on its funding to the Egyptian government for economic programs. The US Administration also condemned the detention of Mohammed Badie, the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Supreme Guide”, on terrorist charges. A White House spokesman stated:
It’s certainly not the standard that the Egyptian people expect of their government in terms of upholding basic human rights.
Unfortunately, Western governments appear to ignore the involvement of the Muslim Brotherhood in inciting violence through the guise of legitimate protest, such as calling for a “Day of Rage” immediately after the high death toll of August 14th.

Neither have they alluded to the consequences of the Muslim Brotherhood’s use of sectarianism to further their cause. The staggering levels of violence against Christians ought to cause greater concern, should the organisation hold the reigns of power again. Yet western diplomats have said little of substance other than to continue demanding reconcilation talks, without seriously addressing the challenges involved.

This issue may of course be influenced by coverage of the crisis. The mainstream media has given tacit support to Morsi, his supporters, and the notion an outright coup d’etat occurred. Sections of the media have also ignored the Muslim Brotherhood’s associations with terrorism.

The behaviour of the provisional Egyptian government indicates that those ruling the nation are very sensitive to the issue of their legitimacy, and whilst it seems the Obama administration would be a bit more comfortable with the Muslim Brotherhood out of the ring, as indicated by Kerry’s inopportune utterance, the United States has merely succeeded in alienating both sides. Worse, it has alienated the present leadership of the nation, who in ideological terms would be their natural allies, far more so than the Muslim Brotherhood, who clearly would not.


Foreign policy: balancing idealism with pragmatism

The US sends 1.5 billion dollars in aid to Egypt each year, along with additional grants. Whilst not an inconsiderable sum, it is largely spent on advanced US military wares, thereby funnelled back into the American economy. After the Sadat-Begin peace accords, Egypt became a focal point of stability in the Middle East, a stability that served America’s interests as well as those of Israel and Arabian states.

Some commentators describe US aid to Egypt as a “bribe” to keep peace with Israel. However, the challenges oil-dependent Western nations faced with the pan-Arab and USSR-Arab axis some decades ago caused ripples of greater import to the West. This was an Arab world that Egypt led. Therefore, it would be self-defeating for the US administration to effectively abdicate upon relations with this nation, especially after endowing it with a particularly strong army over some three decades.

With the United Arab Emerites and Saudi Arabia so keen to assist Egypt economically, any attempt at incentivised diplomacy based on the threat of withdrawing aid only serves to antagonise the Egyptian authorities. The cost Saudi Arabia is willing to pay to keep the much-feared Muslim Brotherhood out of governance, must surely signify the great importance of Egypt’s position.

Withdrawing aid may also be harmful to the prospects of the Egyptian people in the long term. Egypt is currently a dependent on foreign aid. 40% of Egyptians are believed to live on less than two dollars a day, with around half of those living on less than one dollar every day. Critical wheat stocks are also reported to be running out. Egypt’s employment rate is no more than 32.5%, a rather shocking statistic for a nation so central to the region.

There is no question that Egypt is important to the US/EU. However, their diplomatic strategies are rapidly contributing to the loss of any sway they once had on the State. Regardless of the legitimacy of the crackdown, the West’s ability to soften Egyptian reaction to these protests has been a total failure.

Yet the US/EU pushes on blindly. It would appear that the West has inadvertently begun a process of turning a vital prospective ally into a potential foe of considerable significance. Even without a strong hand to play, diplomacy would go much further for both the West and the people of Egypt, if it was used to engage the Egyptian authorities sensitively and judiciously. However, leading Western bodies have contented themselves with playing the role of self-righteous ideologue, heckling at the sidelines.




Also published at Crethi Plethi.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well of course Obama and the EU are hesitant about Egypt. They have on one hand a democratically elected president who only managed to rule Egypt for a year and on the other a military coup backed by large masses of people. David Cameron had the best response to Morsi's ousting saying that you can't encourage a coup against an elected government.

The crackdown was quite brutal also as over 800 MB supporters were killed. You could try justify this by mentioning violent elements of the party but you would on one hand criticise those who protested Morsi's dismissal and support those who advocated it? That is a one sided approach to democracy.

Egypt is more or less paid to keep peace with Israel. Most Sunni countries are. In Lebanon and Iran Saudi Arabia is nicknamed Yahudi Arabia because of its lack of support for their Arab brethren. Lebanon also receives military aid to prop up its army. This money comes out of the US taxpayer's money. America has paid dearly for supporting Israel. Israel isn't really an ally but a parasitic leach. Not only does the US directly give Israel aid but it also funds their enemies to keep quiet. You will probably argue some examples of vague friendship now but the truth is Israel has on several occasions went against US interests. Suez Crisis, USS Liberty, Settlement construction, supplying Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, invading Lebanon in 1982, willingness to trade military technology to China etc.

Also how is Western democracy supposed to adapt to the East and Middle East? It is Western after all. There are those hoping that democracy will usher in a more liberal Arab world but as we've seen those people are delusional. Countries like Russia have found their own course to take without outside intervention.

Rob Harris said...

"They have... a democratically elected president who only managed to rule Egypt for a year and on the other a military coup backed by large masses of people."

I do not have a strong conviction on whether Morsi should have gone. It was a problematic action but he has gone and is unlikely to return. Like the bank collapse, he may as well be deemed ancient history.

There is no question in my mind that attaching the word "coup" to the events in Egypt is incorrect. A coup is a power-grab by a small section of a given society. Its polar opposite is a popular revolution. I will be writing more about the topic but a majority of the Egyptian electorate expressed extreme displeasure at his continuance in power.

The crackdown was brutal and it is mentioned in negative terms in the article. However, the authorities had repeatedly put it off because it was widely expected that any action would lead to a very large loss of life. That indicates the authorities did not go on a rampage to simply intimidate protesters.

I support legitimate protest. It is necessary for freedom. However, the violence that was used against by elements within the camp was unacceptable, and the camp was growing ever larger. It has been reported that eleven people were tortured to death at the camp.

I do however agree that the notion democracy in the region would grow along Western lines was misplaced.

What they label Saudi Arabia in Iran is of no consequence to the reality on the ground. It is a mistake to buy into the worth of politically-motivated sectarian views. the Sunni-Shia divide is of much greater import to conflict in the region than the existence of a small Jewish nation. The Jew-lover accusation is a par for the course, one each side labels their enemies.

The US was involved in the supply of arms via Israel to Iran. There is no consensus on the USS Liberty.

Anonymous said...

The Muslim Brotherhood won 45% of the vote the last time. Who is to say that he won't be reinstated as the organisation's leader and win any future election? That is if one is called however. The problem still hasn't fully de-escalated yet, deeming it ancient history is premature.

A coup is the ousting of government usually by a small segment of the population. It still fits the definition of coup. The military isn't democratically elected anyway. Who liked BIFFO's short reign? Regardless of displeasure, he was legitimately there in office (Morsi). You can't just start anarchy. The rule of law must prevail over the rule of the mob.

Putting off mass slaughter to a later death? How considerate of them.

The Shia-Sunni conflict is only a recent phenomenon in the ME. KSA which is bankrolled by Zionist America has long discriminated against its Shia minority. Saddam in Iraq did the same as do the Al-Khalifa family in Bahrain. All propped up by the US.The latter two having Shia majorities. Iran, Syria and Hizballah all are independent of US influence and are guided by principles. Hence the US, influenced by Israel are attempting to undermine them both diplomatically and militarily.

No consensus? Only the Americans would ignore an Israeli attack on their ships. Any other country and their capitals would be in flames. Israel has only gave the US enemies in the ME, no friends. If China could offer an aid package like the US Israel would hope on board in an instant. Fake loyalty.

Rob Harris said...

The issue specifically relates to Morsi’s winning of the vote. It was a fairly marginal win – 51% to 49%, where he was competing against an old figure closely associated with Mubarak. Morsi won with only 13 or so million out of an electorate of some 55 million. I am not advocating the removal of a democratically elected president but if there were intensive protests for seven months, if some 30 million took to the streets just before his unseating, and if 22 million eligible voters signed a petition to force his removal then sorry but that’s a populist revolution that the military merely facilitated.

Yes he may be reinstated as leader but I can’t see him win an election unless the military do something extremely shocking in the meantime. The Brotherhood have shown their true colours, and if there is one heartening thing about all this chaos then it is that the Egyptians have firmly said no to Islamism.

Re. Biffo, I will be addressing the divergent conditions of emerging democracies versus mature democracies, of which Ireland is surely one, despite its various faults.

The Shia-Sunni conflict was in fact a major source of trouble intermittently. It developed again with a gusto after the revolution in Iran. Most link it to a fall in pan-Arabism which was relatively secular, and a shift to the Islamic revival, which looks to Islam’s past. It is far more important today than Israel.

America is not defined by being “Zionist”. That is redolent of the ZOG conspiracies, which are more fitting on far-right forums like Stormfront. Moreover since when has Saudi Arabia been bank-rolled by the US? If anything it is the other way around. Of course Saudi Arabia hasn’t been kind to its Shia minority. Neither have the Shia been that kind to the Sunni or have you missed what’s happening in Syria, which is more an extension of the pogrom Iran conducted in Iraq after Saddam was pulled down.

I think you have been listening to too much propaganda by way of the Ayatollah! Maybe you should tell the parents of the tens http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=08a28e1c-6ece-4134-ba8e-e706d703401b of thousands of Basij child martyrs (who were sent to face Iraq’s forces with sticks, and walk over land mines to protect Iran’s military weaponry) about those guiding “principles”?

Re. the USS Liberty, there have been plenty of friendly-fire attacks over the years, which have been accepted. There have been ten reports on the Liberty, some requested by the victims of the attack, that have exonerated Israel. The loss of 30+ men in a ship perhaps spying on Israel at the time is regrettable but if the US authorities repeatedly investigated and exonerated Israel then that should be good enough.

Anonymous said...

Ok, let's discussion early democracy in Ireland. We had the Irish Army Mutiny in 1926. We were quite theocratic then too but Cumann na nGaedheal remained in power till 1932 without military intervention. How is democracy meant to flourish when a military prevents it from blossoming?

Yeah, the Saudi economy of 750 billion vs the US economy of 16 trillion. Clearly we know who controls who. Are Saudi troops based in the US? Nope. Are US troops stationed in KSA? Yup. And Bahrain and Iraq and Kuwait and Oman and Afghanistan.

Let us not forget who supplied this alleged monster then? Israel. Let us not forget the US and its Sunni puppets kept Iraq fighting for 8 years. Perhaps it's you who's indoctrinated! Iran is firmly anti Western and isn't corrupted by Western ideology.

Well Ofc they'd exonerate their masters.

Rob Harris said...

Ireland from 1922 wasn’t anything like Egypt is today thankfully. One of the significant points in cross-community tensions was the sectarian violence in West Cork when a number of Protestants were killed that year, and the political elite, including that of the IRA, rallied to their assistance. You must remember that Ireland did have elections before this point as well, even if it didn’t have home rule.

“How is democracy meant to flourish when a military prevents it from blossoming?” - I could turn the question around and ask how many states that started as democracies, merely used legitimate elections to institute a power-grab. You must remember that the military brought down Mubarak, and presided over a peaceful transfer of power to Morsi. That’s probably why the Egyptians accept the move.

Saudi Arabia is far more wealthy than America, all you have to do is compare their population sizes relative to revenue. Your 16 trillion US figure is based on dept I believe. The yearly budget is 4 trillion. One economist says http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/15/california-economist-says-real-us-debt-70-trillion-not-16-trillion-government/ the debt is much more. The US is in a lot of trouble, while Saudi Arabia has virtually no debt whatsoever. Hey I would live there if it wasn’t for the heat.

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on US-Israel relations. Israel is the weaker of the two by a huge margin. That’s why Obama can blast the place diplomatically, and nothing changes. One good example is the treatment of Jonathan Pollard. Israel has been pleading with them to release him since the 90’s. They refused, and moreover have imprisoned him for a far greater stretch than those that committed treason, something he did not do as he didn’t aid an enemy, nor did he hurt the US with the disclosure.

Israel only assisted in the US transfer of weapons hoping to appease the mullahs. Yes it was a wrong.

Anonymous said...

Ireland may have had elections but when mingled with Britain's constituencies we were just another minority party the liberals occasionally required. Also Ireland had re occuring violence throughout the third home rule period. The arms imports, the Easter rising, the War of Independence, The Civil War and then some political violence most notably the assassination of Kevin O'Higgins. Remember Ireland had about 5 million people overall at that stage, Egypt now has 90 million. Transition to true democracy brings violence. Egypt had phoney elections under Mubarak too.

The military kept Mubarak for all those years. The military threw Morsi out too. Military juntas aren't democracies .

KSA can't buy the US and the US debt is mainly to China. Per capita Saudis still fare worse. KSA is debt free but 750 billion wouldn't come close to bailing out 14 trillion dollars of debt. That is if they were to put their entire economy on the line in the first place.

Im not saying Israel is stronger. Im saying Israel is a leach. Parasites aren't stronger than their hosts, they just serve to weaken them. Lol, thanks for the example of Israel committing espionage against its 'ally'.

Israel did much more than that during the Iran-Iraq war.

Rob Harris said...

“Also Ireland had re occuring violence throughout the third home rule period. The arms imports, the Easter rising, the War of Independence, The Civil War and then some political violence most notably the assassination of Kevin O'Higgins.” – I think you are conflating two separate issues here. Seeking independence from Britain is not the same phenomenon as the civil strife today in Egypt.

“The military kept Mubarak for all those years.” – yes the military was integral to the rule of dictators in Egypt but in recent years it played an invaluable role in instituting reforms.

“KSA can't buy the US and the US debt is mainly to China. Per capita Saudis still fare worse. KSA is debt free but 750 billion wouldn't come close to bailing out 14 trillion dollars of debt.” – per capita issues aren’t really the point, we’re talking about a nation like Saudi Arabia assisting the US or influencing it with its big lobby which no one talks about. It has far more disposable income than the US, particularly as the vast swathe of money is in the hands of the rulers of the land, the royalty etc.

“Lol, thanks for the example of Israel committing espionage against its 'ally'.” – Israel didn’t get Pollard to spy on the US – Pollard actually volunteered to hand over information because he felt Israel was in danger without this intelligence. If you have the inclination please read about the Pollard case http://www.jonathanpollard.org/ without prejudice. No question he should have been punished severely but the sentence is extraordinary. Furthermore others like Yosef Amit have been found guilty of spying on Israel for the US. Wikileaks documents have also shown that Condoleezza Rice ordered a full spectrum mission to spy on Israel in 2008. I suggest you try to see both sides of the story.

Rob Harris said...

By the way, please identify yourselves in future as I have no idea to whom I am referring if everyone posts with an "anonymous" nic.

Hala said...

Ok, can do.

Im not the one who juggled the two together, you did. You counted elections under Britain as democratic so the violence from 1912 upwards is rather relevant. Many Egyptians feel like they're under foreign influence by proxy.

You support an undemocratic military who has few reservations about killing its people? Mubarak didn't go out on the streets himself and kill 800 people. The military did.

Well between Jews and irrational Evangelics, the supposed Saudi lobby you speak of is farce.

Well generally spying does carry the intention of aiding the country you work for.

Rob Harris said...

Hello Hala,

You wrote: “Im not the one who juggled the two together, you did. You counted elections under Britain as democratic so the violence from 1912 upwards is rather relevant.” - When I mentioned the elections before the British left, it was to point out that the experience of democracy was embedded to some extent in Irish society. My point about the rebellion against British rule is that it had little to do with an upheaval of democracy because it was about the legitimacy of one nation ruling over another. This is somewhat different to a rebellion within a democratic Irish state that was already established.

“Many Egyptians feel like they're under foreign influence by proxy.” – I suppose that was the feeling under Mubarak because he was an ally of the US? I recall many also saying of Morsi that he and the Muslim Brotherhood were less interested in Egypt and more focused on a sort of pan-Islamism.

“You support an undemocratic military who has few reservations about killing its people? Mubarak didn't go out on the streets himself and kill 800 people. The military did.” – the killing was unacceptable, and they were rightly criticised for it. My point in the article was that I felt the new Egyptian regime would be more amenable to moderating diplomatic influences if it felt less isolated, and more likely to transition to democracy if it didn’t feel cornered diplomatically. Also in the West it has not been acknowledged http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-quinn/west-must-stop-ignoring-the-plight-of-persecuted-christians-29521785.html how destructive the Muslim Brotherhood has been in recent weeks. If they get re-elected it will be disaster for Christians there.

Hala said...

My point was all fledgling democracies face quite serious issues when they begin to bud. I deliberately chose Ireland as an example because it is closer to home but Im sure there's plenty more places which have faced serious issues in their transition. No country is the same or has the same reasons for conflict but violence seems to be the reasonating ebb to young, immature democracies. I could very well argue democracy didn't exist at all until recently because women and the working-classes were excluded but it deviates from the point.

Older Egyptians have lived from King Farouk to Nasser and up until recently only one leader was there in office legitimately. The common denominator in all of those leaders was/is the Egyptian military. The military kept Mubarak, the Egyptian military killed anti-Mubarak protestors, the military ousted Mubarak, the military ruled Egypt itself for awhile, Morsi was freely and fairly elected, Morsi ruled for awhile, military ousts Morsi, military massacres Morsi supporters, military currently holds power. The fact that foreign aid is flowing into the Egyptian defence budget surely does raise eyebrows in Egypt as it is quite that they hold the balance of power.

You argued before that Morsi didn't win a majority. I don't know how you think democracy should work but you don't need a majority to win an election. Kenny received 36% of the votes yet almost had a majority. Luckily the UK doesn't use the PR system but if you look at UK elections you'll see no party has won over 50% in the last 50 years. The best example is the 1983 election. Thatcher won an absolute landslide majority with less votes, less voters and a smaller percentage of votes compared to her victory in 1979 where she had a greater percentage of votes and a larger number of voters but barely scraped a majority in parliament. Scrap the PR system and a divided opposition becomes the key to success. So arguing that Morsi's premiership was null and void from the beginning is a contradiction of many Western democracies.

Yes but actions speak louder than words and finally the West has stopped the gravy train of what seemed like unconditional money. I know what your point is but handing money and military equipment freely won't bring any gratitude as it becomes almost expected. Also there's no other meaningful way to punish the Egyptian military. The plight of Christians in Egypt is saddening and you're right to say the MB isn't their friend but neither is the military. I can't remember the name of the massacre but I do remember the Egyptian military killing over 20 Copts, including running over them with tanks. Not many political parties in Egypt are genuinely committed to a peaceful sectarian coexistence in Egypt so I don't see a solution coming their way anytime soon.

Rob Harris said...

Hala, here is my response - apologies again for the delays as my time for the blog is limited.

Hala: “My point was all fledgling democracies face quite serious issues when they begin to bud.” – yes I agree, that was my point too.

“The military kept Mubarak, the Egyptian military killed anti-Mubarak protestors, the military ousted Mubarak, the military ruled Egypt itself for awhile, Morsi was freely and fairly elected” – they kept Mubarak in power but that military tradition going back many decades had come from a time when there was either a king or a dictator. The two fundamental acts of the military in recent times were pro-democracy: unseating Mubarak, and holding largely fair elections.

“The fact that foreign aid is flowing into the Egyptian defence budget surely does raise eyebrows in Egypt as it is quite that they hold the balance of power.” It is fair to say they would surely hold the balance of power, no matter if aid was supplied or not, and in this instance most Egyptians appear to support the military over Morsi.

“You argued before that Morsi didn't win a majority. I don't know how you think democracy should work but you don't need a majority to win an election.” – I did not suggest such a thing because I believe Morsi won the election unless voter fraud allegations are to be believed. My point regards popular revolutions, as opposed to democracies. I stated that 13 million voted for Morsi in the second-round where it was just two candidates. This was the largest number of people that voted for him, and that contrasted with 22 million eligible voters signing a petition against him, and an estimated 30 million taking to the streets. Hence my contention that the unseating of Morsi was led by a populist revolution, rather than one initiated by the military so it is defined more as such than a military coup.

“Kenny received 36% of the votes yet almost had a majority. Luckily the UK doesn't use the PR system but if you look at UK elections you'll see no party has won over 50% in the last 50 years. The best example is the 1983 election.” – It is not a good idea to compare as multi-party election with that of a presidental run-off vote. Morsi only got 5.7 million voting for him in the first round but of course that was still the highest. Nonetheless the more moderate secular candidates led that election by a large margin in their combined vote. This explains the discontent over Morsi’s time in office.

“I know what your point is but handing money and military equipment freely won't bring any gratitude as it becomes almost expected. Also there's no other meaningful way to punish the Egyptian military.” But they can’t even punish them this way because the money is guaranteed elsewhere. Only time will tell whether the military act in good faith but I think there is a balance between being a critical friend and alienating them to a great extent – I believe the West crossed a line in this regard.

“The plight of Christians in Egypt is saddening and you're right to say the MB isn't their friend but neither is the military. I can't remember the name of the massacre but I do remember the Egyptian military killing over 20 Copts, including running over them with tanks. Not many political parties in Egypt are genuinely committed to a peaceful sectarian coexistence in Egypt”
Yes some military vehicles (lighter than tanks I believe) ran over a number of Copts during a protest near a TV station, and around 26 were killed. It was a shocking event but the Copts supported Shafik, associated with Mubarak/Morsi’s major opponent, despite that. Much of the ill-treatment after the fall of Mubarak was due to a power vacuum with an inability of the military leadership to quell Islamism, such as in the Sinai – it is more a case of Copts choosing the lesser of two evils.

Hala said...

You seem to frequently overlook the fact the military kept him in power well over 30 years or all the protesters it killed. The Egyptian military like most Arab militaries an regimes is bought off by Western money. Only Hizballah, Syria and Iran have resisted US influence.

In democracies you wait till the next election to oust a sitting government regardless of how much it is hated by the people. Clearly the brutal crackdown shows you that those who support Morsi can't even get a say or the right to express their anger. It is however extremely convenient for the Israelis now as Hamas is up shit creek because they are so isolated. No need to worry about a Pan-Islamic coalition if Assad is ousted either. In fact, the better it is for them if he is. The resistance in Lebanon would then end up like Hamas and Israel could hit Iran without worry of Hizballah resupplying itself.

The US is trying to buy peace in the Middle East but is only inflamming the situation. The Lebanese military receives US support and it is completely useless and incapable of properly defending Lebanon as a result.

Im no fan of the Muslim Brotherhood but they were fairly elected into office.