ray

Ricky, thanks for the lecture. This is what I wrote on page 7 over 6 months ago

yes. you were right about Morsi.
Frankly i thought he understood the military better than he obviously has .... and would be more moderate, and inclusive, in order to placate the military.
By defying the military he has fractured the country ....

rickyp wrote:ray

Ricky, thanks for the lecture. This is what I wrote on page 7 over 6 months ago

yes. you were right about Morsi.
Frankly i thought he understood the military better than he obviously has .... and would be more moderate, and inclusive, in order to placate the military.
By defying the military he has fractured the country ....

Unfortunately I was right. You also saw the warning signs 6 months ago with some of your concerns about Morsi's actions.

However, where I am coming out differently than you, Dan, and Sass is that whatever wrongdoings were committed by Morsi, they pale compared to what the military has done. Sure Morsi overplayed his hand (and some of his supporters continue to do so), but that doesn't give license to firing on crowds and imprisonment without trial. Given the U.S.'s limited influence in Egypt anyway, why not take a moral stand and suspend aid? At the very least it will somewhat restrain the next Arab dictator from firing on his people. If we continue with $1.4 billion of aid, what message are we providing?

Not sure I've disagreed with you on: "whatever wrongdoings were committed by Morsi, they pale compared to what the military has done."

I don't see the coup itself as a positive step, but it was not very negative at first. The escalating violence (which has in part been fuelled by the MB and it's supporters, but that was predictable after a coup) changes that. Had the military stayed its hand, they could have won over the majority of the people to a process whereby they transitioned power back to a civilian government less dominated by the Brotherhood.

However, the events of the past week show that they have lost control, which is very dangerous.

The EU is considering the aid situation. Our Foreign Minister and that of France are talking about possible actions that could be taken. Egypt's government is not reacting particularly positively. Egypt condemns European Union threats to halt aid as death toll rises

ray

However, where I am coming out differently than you, Dan, and Sass is that whatever wrongdoings were committed by Morsi, they pale compared to what the military has done. Sure Morsi overplayed his hand (and some of his supporters continue to do so), but that doesn't give license to firing on crowds and imprisonment without trial. Given the U.S.'s limited influence in Egypt anyway, why not take a moral stand and suspend aid? At the very least it will somewhat restrain the next Arab dictator from firing on his people. If we continue with $1.4 billion of aid, what message are we providing

Unfortunately the Egyptian military has always had the license to do whatever it wants... It was constrained in the reaction to the original Egyptian spring, because many of the people demonstrating then were the anti-islamic factions.... And they tended to be where the military drew its own membership and support. Its hard to shoot at family members and former regimental comrades.
The MB supporters have always opposed the military's unique role and position in Egypt.

The question worth pondering is which route is a liberal democracy most likely to evolve out of? An Islamic nation or a secular nation ? Either is possible depending on the circumstance. But in Egypt, with the military, I suspect that any route to a true liberal democracy will have to respect the role of the military for some time. (The military is tied up in many businesses and is more like the military as imagined by Milo in Catch 22 than a normal military).
I doubt that anyone can actually influence the direction Egypt takes for the next while .... So, I agree with the symbolic gesture of ending aid. At least it represents a moral stand which won't go unnoticed in the Middle East... Realistically Egypt can find whatever aid or help it wants from regimes that are opponents of liberal democracy. But the pressure within Egypt to eventually model liberal democracies is going to force change at some point. And it would be better to be on the side of that cause without complicity in the current bloodshed. (However slight that complicity is ...)

However, where I am coming out differently than you, Dan, and Sass is that whatever wrongdoings were committed by Morsi, they pale compared to what the military has done. Sure Morsi overplayed his hand (and some of his supporters continue to do so), but that doesn't give license to firing on crowds and imprisonment without trial. Given the U.S.'s limited influence in Egypt anyway, why not take a moral stand and suspend aid? At the very least it will somewhat restrain the next Arab dictator from firing on his people. If we continue with $1.4 billion of aid, what message are we providing?

Foreign policy isn't all about making a statement. Everybody knows that the US are quite willing to back dubious regimes if it's in the national interest. You do it all the time, and so does every other significant player in global politics. A lot of people questioned why the US were willing to hang Mubarak out to dry in the first place given that he was a longstanding ally and that chaos was likely to follow, but I could understand that one because it was obvious his time was up and the US couldn't afford to be seen to be on the wrong side of history. It's less obvious that there's anything to gain here by engaging in gesture politics.

It's not that I necesarily disagree with you about the actions of the Egyptian army, but a President has to consider the wider geopolitcal considerations, with particular reference to what best serves the American national interest. The moral high ground has long since been vacated.

Apparently Israel isn't keen on the US or EU interfering, especially with problems in the Sinai.

By the way:
Almost all of the American Aid right now is in the form of military equipment purchased from American manufacturers .....
So cutting it would actually hurt the US..
Still, if wants to consider the right side of history..

US couldn't afford to be seen to be on the wrong side of history. It's less obvious that there's anything to gain here by engaging in gesture politics.

I wonder at one point one chooses sides? Abandoning Mubarak as the security forces march into the Palace isn't exactly credible...
Make the choice to be on the right side of history from the beginning.
I believe that the right side is in the growth of liberal democracies. Rather than investing in cynical investments to prop up dictators and authoritarian regimes I think more can be gained by using foreign aid to promote liberal institutions, education and family health that help propel nations along the evolutionary path of democracy.

In the main America is on the side of promoting liberal democracy, but they also have key strategic interests in Egypt, specifically the stability of the Suez Canal zone and the maintenance of peace with Israel. Supporting Mubarak served those aims admirably for decades. It's important to be realistic I think, no government ever acts entirely ethically on the world stage and sometimes you have to deal with bad guys.

sass

In the main America is on the side of promoting liberal democracy, but they also have key strategic interests in Egypt, specifically the stability of the Suez Canal zone and the maintenance of peace with Israel. Supporting Mubarak served those aims admirably for decades. It's important to be realistic I think, no government ever acts entirely ethically on the world stage and sometimes you have to deal with bad guys

In the post WWII history the decision to subvert ideals and actively support "the bad guys" has resulted in disastrous foreign policy more often than not. In Central America and South America, in Viet nam, in Iran,
I suppose one can't make the final call on foreign policy until a decade ot more after events ...but still, the ability to promote the institutions and ideals of liberal democracies is severly hampered when those ideals are continually subverted to commercial interests and "strategic interests".
Its always interesting to see how certain commercial interests become tied closely to "strategic interests" as well.... (Fruit importing and mining companies in Central America.. for example)
I remember that Reagan resisted the embargo on South Africa for a very long time because of "strategic interests". And yet when the embargo helped that rqacist system fall, Communism didn't march in.....
Especially in todays interconnected global economy, strategic interests and commercial interests have blurry lines... But the people marching in the streets of whichever country know who has been propping up their dictators ... These people are usually the eventual powers in their countries . And their attitudes towards foreign entitites are set by their experiences ... When a nation espouses one thing, freedom and democracy, but displays hypocricy in their actions, that is a betrayal. And that cements a attitude of distrust and resentment.
The Chinese, for example, don't tak out two sides of their mouth. Everything to them is "just business". Which might be why they are havign inroads in so many places where the US has aligned itself in the losing side for strategic reasons for so long...
Just a thought. But I think, walking the walk might go a long way to re-establishing credibility. And I don't think, in the long term, it harms strategic interests...

The Suez Canal is an important trade route... But its also a very important source of foreign capital for Egypt.