A first sign that the Obama administration will accept the military coup in Egypt was a mealy-mouthed statement from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta last Friday, June 16. Panetta said he had called Egypt’s real ruler, Field Marshall Tantawi, and “highlighted the need to move forward expeditiously with Egypt’s political transition, including conducting new legislative elections as soon as possible.”
Panetta did not even make a veiled warning about cutting off the $1.3 billion the U.S. gives the Egyptian military every year. What’s more, Egypt does not need “new legislative elections;” it already has a working parliament – I watched lines of Egyptians voting for it in Cairo last December – which was doing just fine until the Supreme Court, a military tool, dissolved it.
The Obama administration could have demanded that this already-elected Parliament be restored. But, no. Once the military saw it could get away with this first stage of its coup, it seized even more power. So even though Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate, almost certainly won the just-completed presidential balloting, the Egyptian journalist Sara Khorshad writes in today’s New York Times that, “Mr. Morsi will be a toothless figurehead under the thumb of an authoritarian military council that doesn’t seem likely to relinquish power anytime soon.”
The U.S. government had already gone along with earlier anti-democratic moves to keep the Muslim Brotherhood from power. The Brotherhood’s first candidate for the presidency, Khairat El-Shater, was a prominent businessman with recognized broad appeal. But back in April, the ruling armed forces council barred El-Shater on the grounds that election rules require that candidates must be released from prison for 6 years before they can run.
How do you say Catch-22 in Arabic? The Mubarak regime had imprisoned El-Shater for 4 years, until 2011, even though he, like the Brotherhood itself, had never used or advocated violence. So his reward for being a nonviolent political prisoner under the old regime – in all, he was jailed for 12 years — was that he was disqualified from running, and the Brotherhood had to replace him with the colorless Morsi. Washington made no noise about this injustice. Contrast this non-reaction with, say, how the State Department would pipe up if someone it doesn’t like, such as Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, used a similar maneuver to sideline a popular potential opponent.
What’s ironic here is that the Muslim Brotherhood is no threat to American interests at all. The movement is a conservative advocate of capitalism. What’s more, the Brotherhood is on the front line in the battle against Al-Qaeda and other violent extremists.
The Brotherhood has suggested that it would review the Mubarak regime’s close collaboration with Israel, even though it says it will maintain the peace treaty. Could the Israel lobby explain why the Obama administration is letting the Egyptian generals overturn a peaceful, democratic revolution?
“Could the Israel lobby explain why the Obama administration is letting the Egyptian generals overturn a peaceful, democratic revolution?” Without a doubt. Hey it was the reason for allowing Mubarak to stay in power for decades. Not hearing anyone in the MSM talk about how individuals in the Egyptian military profit from that 1.3 billion.
Mubarak in a cage on trial and the same folks in control. While U.S. war criminals write books go on talk show and interfere in our elections. Real change Obama real change
Have been looking for articles and statements from former President Carter and El Baradei about the latest turn of events the last few days. Not finding much
link to guardian.co.uk
Leading figures including the Nobel laureate Mohamed ElBaradei and the novelist Alaa al-Aswany, have confirmed they will boycott this weekend’s presidential runoff. ElBaradei told the Guardian that the court’s decision to dissolve parliament had left Egypt in a total mess.
Muslim Brotherhood website
link to ikhwanweb.com
Yeah, there’s not much. I found this but all it says is that Obama had Hillary waive the earlier congressional stance a few months ago that renewal of foreign aid to Egypt at that time was conditional on Egypt’s transition to a democracy: link to worldnews.msnbc.msn.com
The article says Obama renewed the aid to Egypt before it was clear if Egypt would be a democracy, and he cut that condition because, he said, aid to Egpt was important for America’s security. No mention in the article at all re Israel’s security–the real main purpose of our aid to Egypt.
I heard a tiny mention of Carter and the Egyptian election on NPR today. Bet Carter will be making a statement soon
link to aljazeera.com
ahramonline: Revolutionary forces call for mass protest against ‘coup d’état’: Egypt’s revolutionary forces prepare for ‘million-man’ march Tuesday to condemn addendum to constitutional declaration reducing powers of incoming president:
Egypt’s Tahrir Square sees mass protests against ruling military: Protesters converge on Tahrir Square as Egypt’s political crisis deepens:
Nothing odd, the USA is against the MB because Israel is against it. SCAF control means Israel doesn’t have to worry about that side of its border. Apple pie–with its current Zionist crust.
This is a strange question.
It is rather hard to find a military coup that USA did not like.
Best I can come up with is HAMAS–oh, yeah, that was the result of an objective and monitored election.
Surely that are more examples, but we agree that those are “special situations”. Just most recent examples. There was a coup in Haiti by thugs that invaded from Dominican Republic, so it is hard to see how US could overlook the preparations. Then US joined in “restoring civilian government” but not before making sure that the elected president Aristide (a) goes to exile (b) stays there. A coup in Honduras was approved by Obama after some initial reservations. Most recent coup in Mali is a bit of a headache: the military should restore order in northern Mali where suddenly a new state appeared, with al-Qaeda sympathizers not exactly in control, but pretty close. A swath of Sahara of the same size as Afghanistan. A vexing problem, so USA says absolutely nothing.
In Egypt at least it is a constitutional coup, using methods copied from USA: Supreme Court adjusts the law to the preferred political outcome. In Mali, it is an official military takeover shutting down constitutional government, authority based on guns alone.
SOMETIMES there are leftist military coups or revolutions and USA is opposed. Clearly, nothing of the sort happened in Egypt.
but a 2000 supreme court judicial coup..that flies. Oh if we could only go back before that presidential selection.
“Could the Israel lobby explain why the Obama administration is letting the Egyptian generals overturn a peaceful, democratic revolution?”
————————————
No, no it couldn’t. Unless “the lobby” is also responsible for official US support of other military coups, from Chile to Indonesia over the last century (we could go back further as well). The support of tyranny is a time honored tradition in amerian foreign policy.
I disagree. The U.S. actually supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt during the 50′s and 60′s in order to combat Nasser and Arab nationalism. The Brotherhood has long been, in economic, social, and even foreign policy terms, a conservative force.
The U.S., without the influence of Israel, would be supporting this military coup if there was an impending threat of Marxist revolution, left-wing Arab nationalism, or Soviet influence. None of these forces are at work – Arab nationalism didn’t even make it to the run-off in the presidential election. What is at work? Well, the same foreign policy dictate that forces American taxpayers to subsidize the participants to the Camp David accords.
This is the kind of response that drives me nuts. So, in the 50′s and the 60′s there was a different pretext for supporting tyranny, and now there is another. What is the constant? US support for tyranny. Why cant we just say that? Oh, because this is mondoweiss where everything wrong with US foreign policy is mindlessly blamed on “The Zionists”
Egypt is a long standing US Client State – you can say “arab nationalism” or “marxist revolution” but you leave out the MOST IMPORTANT aspect of both, if they were to materialize: Policy Making Independent of the US.
That is what is unacceptable to the US. Uncle Sam only cares about commies if they aren’t in the fold.
I dunno, Dan, are you saying the Cold War, which actually began before Berlin was captured by Stalin’s army, was just an American pretext? If so, for what, exactly? Stalin should not have been feared, you imply? No matter what a regime calls itself, or in fact is, if it goes along with what the US top 1% desire, it will be supported by America? I don’t see anyone arguing against that here on MW. Who, for example? Aren’t you reading too much into what Ranjit Suresh says?
What I am saying is, look at the constants. If a certain behavior is constant for a very long time, but over time the impetus for that behavior changes – what is more important to focus on? I would say the behavior. If you look at it that way, you can say “here is nearly a century worth of consistent policy, though some of the specifics, the finer details, have changed” — Then we could have a serious conversation about what US policy looks like in the rest of the region (that goes mostly untouched here) and the rest of the world. But if we are going to look at nearly a century of support for tyranny and only comment on this latest so-called “zionist influenced” period (or whatever you want to call it post cold war), we are in the words of norm finkelstein being “so unserious”
@ Dan,
Do you ever actually study periods and historic US relations with countries you talk about?
Egypt has only been a client state since 1979, US aid to Egypt was a condition imposed in the Camp David Accords by Egypt in return for making peace with Israel. It was also a ‘requirement by Israel that Israel also get aid.
Back in the 50′s Egypt sought aid from the US but the US refused, seeing no need to ‘own or control Egypt at that time –BUT… then the Egyptians went to Russia and got economic and military aid from them. That is when the US took an interest in Egypt because Egypt was a leader in the Arab world and the Cold War was on.
Still the US, specifically Eisenhower’s adm, took Egypt’s side when Israel, France and Britain tried to take over the Suez.
All of this history and is available to you ‘if” you look for it.
The only two indisputable things the US has an interest in in Egypt is their peace treaty with Israel and Egypt’s position as a country with major influence on the rest of the ME.
American says:
June 19, 2012 at 5:19 pm
@ Dan,
Do you ever actually study periods and historic US relations with countries you talk about?
——————————–
Its amazing you would think someone would actually answer a question posed this way. Gotta love you anonymous tough guys. What a joke. See ya later.
Ike didn’t just pressure Israel in 1956, it also happened in 1953, towards the start of the Eisenhower administration. Stephen Green recounts in his book Taking Sides how Ike’s administration cut off all U.S. government aid to Israel and, as a result, within a few months, Israel backed down over the cause of the dispute, whereupon aid to Israel resumed.
not that you care, but it didn’t sound to me like he was being tough on you at all. he sounded like he was using kid gloves.
it also doesn’t appear as tho you are bailing on the conversation because he is tough, it sounds like you can’t answer his pts, which are good ones. you want tough? how bout this:
“This is the kind of response that drives me nuts….Oh, because this is mondoweiss where everything wrong with US foreign policy is mindlessly blamed on “The Zionists….you leave out the MOST IMPORTANT ”
etc etc. you can shove it out but then get all cranky when someone calls you on it.
Sorry, Dan. There is no constant support of tyranny. It is more precise to note that the American support is not related in any way to democratic forms and practices of a government. If a country ends dictatorship and remains in the “Western camp”, we can event support and praise. But if there is a coup that brings a country to the “Western camp” then we support even more, and if it involves killing of a half a million of leftist and putting a similar number in concentration camps, then well, CIA can consult the military with suggestions who should not be overlooked in that process (Indonesia 1964).
There is no constant support for tyrannies around the world from the United States Government? WOW.
Your statement here piotr couldnt be more false:
It is more precise to note that the American support is not related in any way to democratic forms and practices of a government.
——————————
There are endless state planning documents that say just the opposite. But why look there when you can just count the american military bases all over the world (over 800). I guess they are there to “prop up” democracy……. Or we could just harken back to the days before the arab spring (where the support for tyranny fell out of favor, for a bit) and remember that our support for tyranny around the world was a “necessary evil” – the dictators we supported were the “devils we know”.
to clear up something – i was talking about american policy generally, not specifically in regards to egypt. American was right to be confused by what i posted. my point is that we see a uniformity in US policy toward the developing world, the non whte world, the resource rich parts of the world. While there may be a israeli/zionist component to the case of egypt, in the grand scheme of things, its rather insignificant, because if we look at the policies in their totality, we find that while the specifics change in each country or region, the support for authoritarian regimes is constant.
link to books.zcommunications.org
The problem I have Dan is that you don’t seem to really do the work. You announce something is true and say it applies to “everything” the US does without any example or back up. To my knowledge none of the ‘anti zionist here even claim that ‘everything’ the US does in the ME is for Israel. What we do say and point out is what the US ‘does do and has done” strictly for Israel with absolutely no benefit to us and in a most case actually ‘against’ our interest both financially and in terms of relations with other ME countries.
You have one answer for everything—US imperialism –—and then you insult anyone who points out what you’ re saying aint’ always so….and on top of that you never offer any evidence of why you are right and we are all wrong.
I was serious when I ask do you ever do your own research on what you’re talking about.
Let me give you an very small example without going into a long explanation, you can read the whole deal at the link below.
Back in 2004-6 when WTO was about to end the quota system and Egypt was looking at higher duties thereafter for their cotton export industry, a major job provider industry for Egyptians. The US could have done what it in fact did, allowed QIZs for Egypt that gave them duty free access to the US markets.
BUT….that wasn’t ALL the US did…the US ONLY allowed Egypt to have that duty free access IF they gave Israel a piece of the action….iow all Egyptian import to the US had to have a certain % of Israeli made goods.
The NYT celebrated this as ‘cooperation” between Israel and Egypt…however there was no celebration in Egypt because that 11-12% of the action given to Israel knocked a large number of Egyptians out of jobs because the Israeli goods (button and tape to be exact) closed down some Egyptian companies that had previously supplied those items to Egyptian cotton and cotton clothing manufactures. If anyone had read the overseas paper they would have know the celebrations weren’t celebrations but labor riots over the lost jobs.
To put in plainly, the pussy whipped US was commanded by the Israel firsters and aided by their many minions that populate our trade, treasury and every other agency in the US government with the sole purpose of seeing what they get for Israel in all US business and policy, to let the Israel mafia dip their beaks into someone’s else’s business and profit just like the Mafia rackets of old.
Now if you can spin this and hundreds of other examples exactly like this regarding the US and Israel into just US tyranny and imperialism against brown people by the US instead of what it is and shows about US-Israel… go ahead. Engaging you on this is not worth my time and effort any more.
link to meria.idc.ac.il
On December 14, 2004, Egypt signed a landmark trade agreement with Israel. Although the U.S. Trade Representative presided over the signing ceremonies, the negotiations had been essentially bilateral in character.1 The Qualifying Industrial Zones (QIZ) Agreement allows Egypt to gain non-reciprocal, duty-free access to U.S. markets for products containing at least 11.7 percent Egyptian and 11.7 percent Israeli components.
For the Egyptian government, the agreement came just in time, ahead of a World Trade Organization (WTO) mandated liberalization of the textile quota system. The termination of the 30-year-old quota system meant that Egypt faced the prospect of duties as high as 35 percent in certain textile manufactures in the place of generous bilateral agreements with trade partners in the industrialized countries. With 150,000 jobs in the private sector textile industry—which represent nearly 27 percent of industrial production and 25 percent of manufacturing employment in Egypt—on the line and $558.3 million in exports (or over 10 percent of non-oil exports) at stake, Egypt had little alternative but to sign.2 In essence, Egypt was motivated to sign the QIZ Agreement out of fears of a genuine opening of the global trading system to comparative advantage.3
Although the agreement sparked heated debate in the Egyptian parliament with 3,000 demands for official explanations, President Husni Mubarak effectively muted parliamentary objections when he personally vouched for the protocol.
“While there may be a israeli/zionist component to the case of egypt, in the grand scheme of things, its rather insignificant, because if we look at the policies in their totality, we find that while the specifics change in each country or region, the support for authoritarian regimes is constant.”
Definitely agree that US policy is criminal even without Zionism, historically speaking Anglo-American policies have been cruel and vicious. Particularly following the Cold War, Zionism has played a vital, nay major and critical, role in America’s Mid East policy. Read Bernard Lewis, a human illustration of that. This is not “insignificant”. In fact Zionism offers the US the clearest modern connection to the old European colonialism that is visited on the Middle East, and it also has messianic undertones. It is like coerced seduction by Israel but one the US establishment has learned to tolerate and some like Hilary Clinton even enjoy it as long as they have their regal gown on. This is one very unhealthy relationship.
Thanks for sharing that info, American. The very conservative Monica Crowley was just on IMUS pushing her new book. She said Mubarak and Gaddafhi were good for the USA, and she said she warned us all ages ago that Mubarak had it right when he told the US that if it didn’t support him, they’d get the Muslim Brotherhood, which is a self-declared intense enemy of the US. Imus responded by saying US foreign policy has not changed in ages, and our record shows we support dictators continuously. Crowley then conceded that was true, but it’s always a case of if we don’t support the tyrants, we get something much worse, like the MB.
Something to consider when putting one’s finger to the winds of change in the current Middle East, for example, this article saying it’s reasonable to ask, will we being going to war in the ME sometime over this summer? And, the article lays out three powder keg scenarios, involving different aggregates of players–with the only common denominator being Israel: link to jordantimes.com
American,
I think we are talking past each other (again) – I really dont need a history lesson.
I am at work most of the time when I post, so yeah – I generally make declarative statements, but you can go through my archive and find posts with multiple links and citations, and I would think that after several years of commenting here you would have a sense that Im pretty well informed on these topics. Or maybe not. Im the guy who put you on to Jackie Rose after all. I do read, and I read a lot of original source material. Jstor is great.
Once again (with feeling) I KNOW Israel plays a large role in egyptian/us relations. My point was to say, rather than being an outlier (israel is the reason we support tyranny in egypt, when we support democracy in the rest of the world); israel is just another pretext, one of hundreds, used by the US planners to justify supporting authoritarian rule. That is so uncontroversial a statement, there is nothing more to say. North asked is israel the reason we support the new tyranny, my response was “No.” If Israel wasnt there, there would be another reason. And there is. Saudi Arabia. Independent secular arab nationalism in Egypt is a non starter for the house of saud. And there are others. thats my point, there is always a reason, always pretext etc for the US to do what it does. And having been a Marine, as you know, your goddam right I blame US Imperialism, Ive seen it first hand, I know what it looks and smells like.
link to therealnews.com
The 1953 dispute had to do with Israel stealing water from the Jordan.
Revolutionary secular mideasterners would agree wid ya Dan – in fact I’ve heard them say EXACTLY that.
SISTER TAXI TO MY RESCUE!!!!
OT, they’ve announced on RT television that Julian Assange is in the Ecuadorian embassy in London and that he has requested political asylum in Ecuador.
UPDATE: Now MSNBC is reporting the story: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange seeks asylum in Ecuador.
Look at the comments beneath this article in the Ecuadorian newspaper El Comercio: Julian Assange pide asilo político en embajada de Ecuador en Londres. Most of the commenters — Ecuadorians, presumably — say Assange should be granted asylum.
Article sympathetic to Assange in the Sydney Morning Herald: Mother applauds Assange asylum bid.
Another rather sympathetic article in The Age: ‘Persecuted’ Assange seeks asylum in Ecuador after taking refuge in embassy.
So at least the non-Murdoch press in Australia does not seem hostile to Assange.
JAMES NORTH- “Why is Obama winking at the military coup in Egypt?”
Winking? More like supporting, perhaps even insisting upon.
“Once the military saw it could get away with this first stage of its coup, it seized even more power.”
Are you serious? Do you really believe that the Egyptian military is sneaking behind Uncle Sam’s back? A more realistic assessment is that the military coordinates its actions with the US, their paymaster. They more or less work for the US and more or less do what Uncle Sam wants. They are a client state without a powerful lobby. The Egyptian “revolution” contained, the “Arab Spring” exploited, and the empire on the offensive.
Speaking of the empire on a roll, back on 6/15/12, I made reference to a movie trailer concerning a CIA hostage rescue from when the American embassy in Iran was seized. link to mondoweiss.net
The timing seems suspicious to me. Now along comes Danny Schecter saying much the same thing. We differ in that he attributes the release primarily to the profit motive. Not me. Hollywood is an integral part of the imperial propaganda system. It establishes the mythology and ideological preconditioning which shapes the environment within which the ‘news’ is evaluated. The timing is worrisome. This appears to me part of a massive propaganda offensive to justify imperial aggression in the near future.
link to zcommunications.org
That awful Pearl Harbor movie opened May 25, 2001.
24 premiered shortly after 9/11, but it had been in production months before.
A final rant. Good old George Clooney is involved with this. I believe that he was also involved with the KONY 2012 propaganda video. Now this ‘liberal’ war monger is producing this. Shades of the Yugoslavia assault when liberal war mongers gave Bill Clinton full support demonstrating that Democrats can make war more effectively than Republicans. Now here we go again. This is shaping up to be a propaganda full court press. Jeez, how I wish these liberal war mongers would choke on their own hypocrisy.
Authentic democracies can’t be allowed to exist next to a state like Israel.
The thing is, it may sound odd to say, but authoritarian leaders can be held accountable for their actions. They can be isolated, threatened, bullied into submission. Witness all the concessions Qaddafi was forced to make over the years since the Lockerbie bombing. Whatever their drawbacks, you can ‘get to’ an authoritarian regime — assuming you’ve enough power, of course. ‘He may be a bastard, but he’s our bastard’ has more than a grain of truth to it.
The same can’t be said for a democracy. The people are irresponsible. Want to threaten them? Good luck. They’ll just elect leaders who promise to stand up to you. Witness the results of the one election held in Palestine. Hamas won — and why? Because it promised it would stand up to Israel. Never mind that it COULDN’T. That’s not the point.
So since Israel habitually attacks, invades, and otherwise bullies all who have the misfortune to be adjacent to it, it’s obviously going to create problems if an actual democracy — of any complexion whatsoever — emerges in one of Israel’s neighbors.
Israel may not put it quite like this, but she understands this well enough. And since she’s able to dominate Obama, he’s not about to insist that Egypt become a democracy.
Totally agree with Colin. US military aid to Egypt is just ‘be nice to Isreal’ money. If the Muslin Botherhood has power, one of the first things they’ll do is open the border to Gaza and Isreal definitely doesn’t won’t this to happen.
Here’s some recent input from PBS show All Things Considered, about the MB candidate (winner?) and the MB generally, here characterized as a proponent of politicized moderate Islam: link to npr.org
Sure is different view than the US TV cable News shows, which characterize the MB as a very dangerous organization, virtually the epitome of evil a la Monica Crowley.
Obama ain’t ‘winking’, he’s got a nervous tick.
And frankly, neither obama nor israel know what to do ’bout Egypt.
The Egyptian army, Nasser’s brainchild, is holding the hate-the-west-and-israel card close to it’s chest.
The Egyptian Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna’s brainchild, is holding the hate-the-west-and-israel card close to it’s chest too.
Who is better for Egypt?
Neither.
But without the army in control, there will be blood on the streets of Egypt.
Egypt braces for confrontation with military and Israel calls up reserves link to bit.ly
The truth is there survives a long outdated 18th century notion that individuals and nations ought to aim for some abstract sort-of-stoic, sort-of-Christian standard in their relations one with another. This is an illusion; there is nothing to compel or even encourage them to such a purpose. Neither Israel nor the US give two figs what others think or say; the one is too strong to care while the other readily exploits the protection provided by a relationship not uncommon in male prisons.
On the Diane Rehm show one of the guest just said that Israel would like to see the Egyptian military maintain control. Whoa someone telling the truth on the MSM.
Israel is not a democracy and does not support democracy. Forget the Egyptian voters when they vote for the Muslim Brotherhood….Israel supports the military coup. Serves their purpose
Show on Egypt going on right now
link to thedianerehmshow.org