Empowering The Silent Majority With Conditional Aid To Egypt
Since I last posted here, the U.S House of Representatives voted to conditionally hold back $200 million in military aid to Egypt, dependant on progress made by the Mubarak regime concerning democratic reforms and human rights abuses. This measure has been the subject of much debate for a while now, in light of Egypt’s rapidly deteriorating credibility on rights and democracy. The numerous arrests of political opponents, cyber-dissidents and successive failures to hold legitimate elections have caused some to challenge the real-politik view that funding autocratic regimes in the Middle East is in the interest of America and the world’s power structure.
However, that’s not what the Egyptian government will have you believe. Speaking to MENA, Egyptian Ambassador to Washington Nabil Fahmy said that “the aid which the United States gives to Egypt is not a gift but it is (based on) a U.S. assessment that it serves the U.S. interest… In other words, this aid is an investment for U.S. interests in the Middle East (link)”
An investment is right; Egypt has recieved over $60 billion in military and economic assistance over roughly 3 decades. I myself have benefited from USAID first hand, making use of educational resources at the AUC such as laptops and equipment donated from such aid progams (we were constantly reminded of this by the big red and blue stickers attached to everything). However one wonders if the recipient of this aid truly believes that what they are recieving is in the interest of the other, will the political status-quo ever change?
Thus, with this additional measure of accountablity in this years’ foreign appropriations bill we are seeing the reaction of a country that has for too long been praised as being a model of stability (which without progress becomes stagnation) and rewarded as such. Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit reacted angrily earlier this month to a remark by President Bush at the recent Prague conference, in which he called for the release of Ayman Nour. Ambassador Fahmy called the last 3 weeks “not pleasant days” in regards to relations with the U.S.
The fact of the matter is Egypt, and the regime ruling it is extremly dependant on U.S support, which they have maintained through the illusion of the Muslim Brotherhood as the main political opposition. Secular parties are banned from forming or even gathering, charged with fabricated accusations of crime and effectively marginalised, yet to much less media fanfare than news of Brotherhood members being arrested. This is not unintentional, and as democracy activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim said in a recent interview (asked about the Brotherhood being the largest opposition group link:
We could not organize rallies, we could not organize marches or demonstrations because of emergency laws. Emergency laws have been in effect since 1981, since the assassination of President [Anwar] Sadat. So for the last 26 years, these emergency laws have prevented secularists from going out and organizing and mobilizing.
On the other hand, the Muslim Brothers have the mosques, and that is an advantage that is without design probably by the regime, but it has played in their favor. Meanwhile, I do not like to exaggerate their constituency because despite the fact that they have freer space to move in, still their share in the last Egyptian parliamentary election was 20 percent out of the 20 percent [of registered voters who actually voted]. So, 77 percent of the registered voters did not like to vote for them, nor to vote for the regime. And that is a 77 percent that I consider to be the silent majority, the potential constituency for liberal-democratic parties whenever liberal-democratic parties are allowed full freedom to operate.
So if we are to view the stipulations tied to U.S foreign aid as the medium through which democratic reform can be pressured upon Egypt, then shouldn’t other stipulations include the empowerment of that silent majority? Or perhaps some money could be tied to decreasing the acceptance of anti-semetic language in society, or the empowerment of religious minorities who feel discriminated against. The point is these measures should be welcomed, and implemented, even to the chagrin of the Egyptian government.
In the years leading up to the next Presidential election in Egypt, it is the empowerment of the masses that will determine to what degree the next leader will be representative of his people, and to what degree the country will remain ’stable’. The U.S has an opportunity now to discipline a regime which it has given political credibility and good standing in the international community, and perhaps genuinely turn it into the regional leader it already claims to be.
(Visit my blog Outsider On The Inside)
del.icio.us
BlogMemes
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Google
Reddit
Facebook
TwitThis
Mixx
Loading ...
The aid that the UNited States gives Egypt is purely for its own political interests, they couldn’t care less about human rights and democracy in the MIddle East.
THe UNited States accepts hundreds of billions of dollars of investment money from Saudia Arabia. In addition, it makes millions of dollars selling the Saudis sophisticated expensive weaponary. The Saudis don’t even have the qualified personnel to use these weapons, that is why when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the Saudis had to ask the United States to defend Kuwait and Sausia Arabia.
That’s true, but in that context, isn’t it in the political interest of the United States to tie conditions to the aid it gives these countries, so that reform can take place? A Middle East with governments that respect human rights and make progress towards democratic reform is better for the United States, especially in countries like Egypt where many institutions of democracy exist but the political culture is weak.
This is SUCH a crucial point! Which is exactly why I find US interests in cases like Kareem Amer a bit threatening … I mean, the state department is on our side, and are sharing our full support, but at the end of the day I ask myself why? Because they care? Please…
I find it very alarming that many U.S-based organizations contacted us wanting to adopt our Free Kareem campaign as their own. How come this attention is not put in other campaigns fighting for similar reasons? As far as I know these U.S-based orgs have neither aided nor cared about any other campaign that fights for political prisoners, despite many existing cases that are far worse than Kareem’s.
Yaman’s post regarding the West’s interests in Kareem’s specific case is turning out to be correct despite my initial disagreements.. and with right-wing American bloggers focusing solely on the case of Kareem and making anti-Islam statements regarding it, the U.S’s “human rights” stance is all the more alarming!
The pickup of Kareem’s case by right wing bloggers is disturbing and while observing that things are often not as they seem when dealing with the US, it is worth noting that USAID does not work as a sort of gift scheme. The actual workings of AID are usually skimmed over making everything seem like a gift, but that is not the case. In fact, AID provides low interest loans to companies, organisations, and governments to buy American goods. It doesn’t pay for the goods. It just provides low interest loans. AND the goods and services MUST be American, so the ultimate beneficiary of AID is the US. If the recipients of AID did not accept it, there would be a huge problem for the givers who would then lose orders for goods and services.
The ultimate beneficiary is the U.S, but if the American ‘goods and services’ include building health clinics in rural areas, who cares if the U.S benefits?
The fact that an equipped clinic exists now where it once did not is beneficial anywhere, no matter who may or may not profit, or what the intention of building it was. Its still a clinic. And Egypt is a developing country, with a hell of a lot of developing to do.
USAID also funds programs that help educate people on democracy and governance, which is an education they would not have gotten without these programs. Again, it is to the U.S’s benefit to do this, and while we look at the intentions of the governments funding these programs, we shouldn’t forget that there are actual people carrying out these programs, and actual Egyptians helping who DO care and ARE making a difference in people’s lives. Even if that means it’s to the U.S’s political advantage.
[…] Read the rest of the post here. […]
The saying is, “By their fruits ye shall know them.” Not by their intentions.
Jack Kessler,
Why don’t you look at the fruits that the United States has given in the form of using depleted uranuim in Iraq. It has bloomed into deformed babies, higher cancer rates, and contaminated land. Syria and neigboring Arab countries has seen the fruits becasue they are getting the millions of refugees pouring out of Iraq.
Look at the fruits the United States has given Lebanon in the form of cluster bombs and weapons suppllied to Israel to kill ands destroy property.
Karim,
The amount of money the U.S, gives is nothing compared to the money it gets out of the Middle East. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be spenig all this time in the MIddle East.
THis is true of Africa, as well. The amount the U.S. and other Western countries gives in aid, is nothing compared to what they gain from exploiting the diamonds, minerlals, oil and labor.
One of the most horrible ways of making money is by selling weapons to fuel wars. The Untied States makes much of its money selling weapons. Sometimes it sells weapons to both sides of a conflict. It has done that in the Congo and did it in the Iran-Iraq war.
Randall Jones, you have forgotten to mention the troops of Laotian cannibal mercenaries the Americans sending to Iraq. And the death rays that incinerate whole villages from satellites in space. You forgot to mention the American gay bomb that irradiates Iraqis with estrogen and turns them into sissies, and the brainwashing techniques that makes them think they are old English ladies and too polite to fight back. You have also forgotten to mention the time travel machines the Americans are using to disrupt Iraqi history and undermine their sense of cause and effect. There are many other atrocities too. Like the aerosol sprays of neurotoxins that disrupt the speech centers in the Iraqis brains so that they all speak Arabic with Australian accents, so as to humiliate them.
I learned about all these American atrocities from the same source from which you learned about the ones you wrote about.
RandallJones Says:”The aid that the UNited States gives Egypt is purely for its own political interests, they couldn’t care less about human rights and democracy in the MIddle East.”
Unlike who? By all means, Mr Jones, tell me about the vast commitment of the French to democracy in the Middle East. They ruled half of it for 50 years didn’t they? They must have created, oh, dozens of democracies? How about Britain? What did they did in the Middle East to create human rights and democracy? Perhaps you think all the West is evil? How about the Chinese? The Soviets? Let’s hear about every other country’s wonderful record on human rights and democracy. When you come down to it, even though the US is not perfect, it has the best record for supporting human rights and democracy of any country in the world. Because the Americans tend to think that peaceful democracies will support them and their own interests. As they do.
RandallJones Says:”THe UNited States accepts hundreds of billions of dollars of investment money from Saudia Arabia. In addition, it makes millions of dollars selling the Saudis sophisticated expensive weaponary. The Saudis don’t even have the qualified personnel to use these weapons, that is why when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the Saudis had to ask the United States to defend Kuwait and Sausia Arabia.”
Accepts? This is a crime why? So what if the Saudis want to keep their money in American banks? The whole world does. So what if the Saudis want to buy weapons? Where’s the beef here?
RandallJones Says:”Why don’t you look at the fruits that the United States has given in the form of using depleted uranuim in Iraq. It has bloomed into deformed babies, higher cancer rates, and contaminated land. Syria and neigboring Arab countries has seen the fruits becasue they are getting the millions of refugees pouring out of Iraq.”
Perhaps because these claims of deformed babies are utter and total lies? There is no evidence that the rate of deformities has gone up at all and the evidence from Yugoslavia is that DU is mildly toxic but otherwise harmless. It is true that the countries that are sending Jihadis to Iraq are getting a lot of refugees back. So?
RandallJones Says:”Look at the fruits the United States has given Lebanon in the form of cluster bombs and weapons suppllied to Israel to kill ands destroy property.”
You mean the fruits of Hezbollah terrorism.
RandallJones Says:”The amount of money the U.S, gives is nothing compared to the money it gets out of the Middle East. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be spenig all this time in the MIddle East.”
Sorry but what does the US get back from the Middle East exactly? The oil there is worth precisely nothing to the Middle East. They can do nothing with it but sell it to the West (or East Asia) and caulk their boats with it. The West has found a use for it and the West is so enormously productive that they can pay the Middle Eastern countries a fortune for it - because the West turns it into something of greater value. And unlike every other Empire in history, the West pays, it does not take. As it could without any trouble at all.
RandallJones Says:”THis is true of Africa, as well. The amount the U.S. and other Western countries gives in aid, is nothing compared to what they gain from exploiting the diamonds, minerlals, oil and labor.”
Nothing is “exploited” in Africa. Diamonds are also worthless in the ground - indeed it is only the artificial Western De Beers monopoly that gives them any value at all. Labor? What labor? Africa is poor because the West can find nothing much to buy from them and no reason to invest.
RandallJones Says:”One of the most horrible ways of making money is by selling weapons to fuel wars. The Untied States makes much of its money selling weapons. Sometimes it sells weapons to both sides of a conflict. It has done that in the Congo and did it in the Iran-Iraq war.”
The US makes very little money selling weapons and the majority of people it does sell weapons to are its close Western allies. Who tend not to use them. The Wars of the world are fuelled by Soviet, (and now Russian) weapons and knock off copies made in places like China and Egypt. You look at Congo and you see AK-47s not M-16s. You look at the Gulf War and you see T-55s, not M1A1s. The US sold 0.5 percent of Saddam’s weapons to him and nothing to Iran after 1979. Of all the countries in the world, the US has the best record for not dealing with warring thugs.
But of course none of this will dent the self-righteous hatred of so many, will it Mr Jones?
Karim (Egypt/Lebanon) Says:”A Middle East with governments that respect human rights and make progress towards democratic reform is better for the United States, especially in countries like Egypt where many institutions of democracy exist but the political culture is weak.”
That is the assumption of the Bush administration but is it true? Iraq seems to suggest otherwise. In any event, I can’t see anyone in the West trying to support democracy for a long time. Dictators are preferable to chaos and to the Islamists.
Esra’a Says:”This is SUCH a crucial point! Which is exactly why I find US interests in cases like Kareem Amer a bit threatening … I mean, the state department is on our side, and are sharing our full support, but at the end of the day I ask myself why? Because they care? Please…”
Well I expect they do, but if they don’t, so what? No doubt the Muslim Brothers are also concerned about Kareem. Presumably everyone has an interest in this issue - a personal interest at that. But somehow only the Americans are untouchable? Why are you so concerned about their interests? Isn’t it enough they are supporting what you want?
Esra’a Says:”and with right-wing American bloggers focusing solely on the case of Kareem and making anti-Islam statements regarding it, the U.S’s “human rights†stance is all the more alarming!”
And why it is alarming at all? Why is it that so many people behave as if anything that comes from an American hand is poison all of a sudden? If America does not help you, who do you think will?
Maryanne Stroud Says:”The pickup of Kareem’s case by right wing bloggers is disturbing and while observing that things are often not as they seem when dealing with the US”
Of course it is not what it seems because it is all a plot is it? Why is it disturbing that “right wing” bloggers care? Because they are right wing? Because they are bloggers?
Maryanne Stroud Says:”it is worth noting that USAID does not work as a sort of gift scheme. The actual workings of AID are usually skimmed over making everything seem like a gift, but that is not the case. In fact, AID provides low interest loans to companies, organisations, and governments to buy American goods. It doesn’t pay for the goods. It just provides low interest loans.”
So it is a gift. The difference between the loan rate that America offers and the market rate is a gift from the American tax payer to the people of the Middle East. There is nothing to skim over here at all.
Maryanne Stroud Says:”AND the goods and services MUST be American, so the ultimate beneficiary of AID is the US. If the recipients of AID did not accept it, there would be a huge problem for the givers who would then lose orders for goods and services.”
You mean if I decided not to give all my salary to you on the condition that you bought dinner from me, but kept it all myself, I’d be bankrupt by the end of the week? Tell me what would happen to those loans if America did not grant them? Do you think that perhaps that money might have been spent in America? By Americans? On American goods and services? Or perhaps even not taken from American taxpayers and given to people in the Middle East? You know, left in America? How does your shell game work exactly - to make money America has to take it from people who earn it and give it to people half the world away who don’t so that they can spend it on things made in America? Why not cut out the terrorist-producing middle men?
Hei Gou,
But you assume that the only options in the Middle East are dictators and Islamists. Remember, under the logic of keeping dictators for ’stability’, we still arrived at the mess we have today. And as long as these illegitimate dictators and their regimes stay in power, the Islamists will have all the excuses in the world to rebel, and will gain more support. This has been happening for the past few decades, and is one of the reasons why many of these Islamist ‘movements’ draw initial support, pretending to be a democratic party oppressed by the state. Who is to say that, with an offering of legitimate, organized, liberal oriented political parties in open free elections, that Egyptians would still turn to Islamists?
It is illogical to think the United States is better off with dictators ruling the Mid East, because quite frankly these dictators have created most of the problems that exist today. Iraq is not an example to be equated with Egypt; the United States went into Iraq with military, and in the case of Egypt the U.S is heavily funding a regime that takes away my rights and the rights of other Egyptians. They are two countries whose political landscapes are completly different, and the U.S did not send $2 billion a year to Saddam, as they do with Mubarak.
So if the U.S supports a regime like Mubarak’s, at the expense of Egyptian citizens’ rights, do you think that will result in peace? Or no more chaos? Or no more Islamists? I’m sorry to tell you, that’s very wishful thinking, and as an Egyptian I can assure you I will do my part to make sure that my country is not run by a dictator, despite these fantasies of ’stability’ and ‘no chaos’ under autocratic regimes.
Karim,
The doctrine that the Western countries should try to foster democracy rather than support dictators or acquesce to Islamist regimes, is called Neoconservatism. It is the foreign policy of the Bush administration. Neoconservativism is decried and denounced, has become a curse-word to label opponents everywhere on the left, on campuses, among journalists, among Europeans. Neoconservatives are accused of being Zionists. Everybody is too sophisticated and realistic to think that freedom and democracy are of such great value. Everybody “knows better”. But people like you, who actually suffer from a lack of freedom and democracy, maybe know better than they do?
Karim (Egypt/Lebanon) Says:”But you assume that the only options in the Middle East are dictators and Islamists.”
I don’t assume that. I go looking for Liberal Democrats and find none. I go looking for friends of peace and human rights. And apart from some bloggers who may be pulling my leg for all I know, I find none. I search history - there never have been any Liberal Democrats in the Arab world, and the closest it has ever come was 70 years ago and those Parties (the Wafd for instance) are mostly moribund, unpopular and confined to a small elite. The Arab world looked at Liberal Democracy and chose a different path. I do not think those two are the only options, but I do think that most of the Arab population will support any Party that wants to kill Westerners. When Fatah did it, they supported Fatah. When Fatah stopped, they turned to Hamas. The only people worth dealing with are the corrupt, repressive regimes made up of former would-be Westerner killers. Like Egypt.
Of course I may be wrong and I claim no special knowledge of the Middle East. Where outside Lebanon and Israel is there a large democratic party waiting to take power? Where is the exception to my rule? I’d love to find one.
Karim (Egypt/Lebanon) Says:”Remember, under the logic of keeping dictators for ’stability’, we still arrived at the mess we have today.”
True but think of the messes we avoided. Think how much worse it could have been. By and large the people the West has helped to keep out of power have been worse than the people in power.
Karim (Egypt/Lebanon) Says:”Who is to say that, with an offering of legitimate, organized, liberal oriented political parties in open free elections, that Egyptians would still turn to Islamists?”
Because the MB is the only significant opposition party. Because all the other parties have been trying for years to win support and have got no where - their message clearly does not resonate in the Arab public’s mind like the MB’s message does.
Karim (Egypt/Lebanon) Says:”It is illogical to think the United States is better off with dictators ruling the Mid East, because quite frankly these dictators have created most of the problems that exist today.”
Really? When the Arabs invaded Spain where were those dictators? When the Ottomans sacked Constantinople and went to the gates of Vienna, where were those dictators? Which problems do you have in mind? Poverty? Illiteracy? These were hardly better under the Ottomans.
Karim (Egypt/Lebanon) Says:”They are two countries whose political landscapes are completly different, and the U.S did not send $2 billion a year to Saddam, as they do with Mubarak.”
True and so the rule seems to be that democracy cannot be exported and it is a hell of a lot cheaper and more effective to find some local dictator who will keep order than trying to bring human rights to anyone. America tried this in 1979. The Shah fell but the situation was not improved.
Karim (Egypt/Lebanon) Says:”So if the U.S supports a regime like Mubarak’s, at the expense of Egyptian citizens’ rights, do you think that will result in peace? Or no more chaos? Or no more Islamists? I’m sorry to tell you, that’s very wishful thinking, and as an Egyptian I can assure you I will do my part to make sure that my country is not run by a dictator, despite these fantasies of ’stability’ and ‘no chaos’ under autocratic regimes.”
It is working so far. In the Middle East the best we can hope for is keeping all the balls in the air - maintaining stability for tomorrow and leaving next week for later. There is only chaos. No doubt the Islamists will win in Egypt as they will elsewhere, but we can delay them, we can contain them to some extent and perhaps if we can keep it up long enough, as with the USSR, Islamism will die as an ideology before we are murdered. I accept that is no comfort to you because they will probably get around to you a long time before that. But there is no alternative I can see. We tried it in Iraq.
HeiGou wrote, “Let’s hear about every other country’s wonderful record on human rights and democracy. When you come down to it, even though the US is not perfect, it has the best record for supporting human rights and democracy of any country in the world.â€
I know there are other countries that don’t have great human rights. The topic posted is about the United States giving aid, so I am discussing the United States.
HeiGou wrote, “Accepts? This is a crime why? So what if the Saudis want to keep their money in American banks? The whole world does. So what if the Saudis want to buy weapons? Where’s the beef here?â€
The United States is always announcing sanctions against countries that have terrible human rights violations, so why would it accept money from a country that has a terrible human rights record?
HeiGou wrote, “Perhaps because these claims of deformed babies are utter and total lies? There is no evidence that the rate of deformities has gone up at all and the evidence from Yugoslavia is that DU is mildly toxic but otherwise harmless. It is true that the countries that are sending Jihadis to Iraq are getting a lot of refugees back. So?â€
No they are not “utter and total lies.†There have been plenty of reports of American soldiers who have babies who are deformed due to their exposure to depleted uanium in Iraq. SO can you imagine how worse it is for the Iraqis who have to live, eat, and sleep in the contaminated land for the rest of their lives?
HeiGou wrote, “You mean the fruits of Hezbollah terrorism.â€
Israel and the United States are responsible for more deaths and destruction of property, than Hezbollah and any other Muslim group, put together.
HeiGou wrote, “Sorry but what does the US get back from the Middle East exactly?â€
First let me point out that the United States buys more oil from Canada and Mexico, than Saudi Arabia. But the United States does not get as much investment money from these two countries as it does from Saudi Arabia. The Saudis invest hundreds of billions (maybe trillions) in the U.S.
HeiGou wrote, “The US makes very little money selling weapons and the majority of people it does sell weapons to are its close Western allies. Who tend not to use them. The Wars of the world are fuelled by Soviet, (and now Russian) weapons and knock off copies made in places like China and Egypt.â€
There you go again making up facts as you go along. Here is an article that discusses U.S. weapon sales.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/11/13/us_is_top_purveyor_on_weapons_sales_list/
It says “According to the annual assessment, the United States supplied $8.1 billion worth of weapons to developing countries in 2005 — 45.8 percent of the total and far more than second-ranked Russia with 15 percent and Britain with a little more than 13 percent.
Arms control specialists said the figures underscore how the largely unchecked arms trade to the developing world has become a major staple of the American weapons industry, even though introducing many of the weapons risks fueling conflicts rather than aiding long-term US interests.â€
HeiGou wrote, “Nothing is ‘exploited’ in Africa. Diamonds are also worthless in the ground - indeed it is only the artificial Western De Beers monopoly that gives them any value at all.â€
Those interested in getting a better understanding of what is going on the Congo, should read this http://zmagsite.zmag.org/JulAug2006/snow0706.html
Randall Jones,
This is an ignorant but common thing to say. The great wars in the Middle East have been the Iran-Iraq War and the Afghanistan wars. More people were killed in any one of a dozen individual battles in the Iran-Iraq War than have died in the entire history of the Israel-Arab Conflict (generally estimated to be around 70,000 total). The wars in Afghanistan have killed and injured millions.
The conflict between the Arabs and the Jews produces far more headlines and angry opinions than other conflicts, not more casualties.
Jack Kessler.
When I talk about the deaths Israel and the United States are responsible for, I am not just talkling about the Israeli-Arab conflict. The United States has engaged in political and military interventions, not just in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Asia, and South America. While many think of Israel’s political and military interventions only in Palestine, Israel is an internation player, like the United States.
See books like Profits of War, Inside the Secret U.S.-Israeli Arms Network by Ari Ben-Menashe and The Other Side of Deception by Victor Ostrovsky.
Randall Jones,
If you want to demonize people you can. It is neither useful nor particularly intelligent but one can do it.
Your position seems to have been reduced to the proposition, “Israel is an international player”, for which we have only your bare assertion. The two noteworthy operations Israel has conducted away from the Middle East have been the Entebbe Raid when Israeli commandos rescued Israeli citizens held captive after their airliner was hijacked and flown to Uganda. The other was the arrest of Adolf Eichmann in Argentina. If you think Israel has anything to apologize about for either of those actions, you have another think coming.
Your demonization of Israel seems to be based on empty phrases like “an international player”. I doubt anyone find that persuasive who wasn’t persuaded in advance.
A portion of US/Aid to Egypt is for the sole purpose of expanding judicial reform, including crimical courts reform, legal education and activities to encrease access justice for women and disaventage groups. In the area of civil society and local governance, US/AID provides assistance to grassroots orginizations. Such efforts promote linkage between the citizens and the state, increasing transparency and accountability at the local level.
From 1975 to 2006 Egypt received $1.03 BILLION DOLLARS in US/AID for the sole purpose promotus of democracy and governance. If this isn’t happening (and we know it isn’t) them the USA goverment needs to hold Persident/Dictator Mubarak accountable. Did I write the USA goverment?? YES!
Hatered, bombs, and killings serve no useful purpose. Peace to all.
There is no doubt that America’s foreign policy, inlcuding aid, often does not align with its preachings of human rights and democracy. As a previous poster said, America is not perfect - but the US does have one of the best human rights records and the ability to influence other countries, whether or not your agree with how that influence is used. Just remember that many American citizens don’t always agree with current, past, or present Administration foreign policy either; so please don’t lump all of us into a broad “they” when talking about America.
It is true that most of the US military aid to Egypt gets re-invested into America because Egypt buys American weapons. Egypt, of course, is not the only country that purchases weapons in the US (regardless of any trade or aid agreements) and I am not about to get into the pros and cons of capitalism….suffice it to say that Egypt’s economy is much more dependant on the US than the American economy is on Egypt. Ironically, this is one of the goals of the US aid program: foster the Egyptian economy so that it can stand, independantly, and participate and compete in the global sphere.
As an American citizen and taxpayer, I am happy that my money helps to build health clinics, provides laptops to students, access to clean water, ect. I am also happy to support defenders of freedom of speech - even if it is only one person out of the 20,000 that is used as an example. Bringing press and media attention to one person is better than nothing at all, right? Of course, there is curroption and ill-intentions within this system - no system is without its flaws.
I am in full support of conditions that are attached to the military aid to Egypt for the FY 2008, as passed by the House of Representatives. It should be noted that as of 7/24/2007, this bill has not yet been passed by the Senate, which means that these conditions might not even become part of the aid package at all.
I have been following this aid to Egypt issue closely, and I simply do not understand why it hits such a nerve. I keep hearing and reading that people (not just the government representatives, but the average Egyptian) feel the conditions are an unwanted form of meddling in domestic affiars, but that’s the point - Egypt’s domestic affairs are a mess of violations of human rights.
It’s very obvious that no money comes freely, and all 3 of these conditions would be to the benefit of the Egyptian people, so what is all the fuss about? If these 3 conditions are put into place now, then maybe next year there will be more conditions, and pressure will continue to be increased until true reform takes place.
Ranting about American policy (that has nothing to do with US aid to Egypt) does not answer the question as to why judicial reform, stopping the smuggling of arms, and training a police force that is unfortunately so well known for violence and torture would be a bad thing for Egypt.
As previously stated, the Egyptian gov’t is dependant on US aid. Dependant - NOT ENTITLED. I believe that every tool possible should be used to try and promote democracy, human rights, and reform in Egypt - especially when that tool is as powerful as money.
Everyone should visit http://www.egypt.usaid.gov to see where the US aid money to Egypt is really going. Hopefully that will foster some true understanding of the intentions of US aid money.
goooooooooooooooooooooooooood
Given that the only effective opposition in Egypt seems to be the Muslim Brotherhood which seeks the destruction of the US and the West generally, why should the United States support their political claims to power? Given recent election results in Palestine and Iraq, is electoral democracy always such a good idea? The majority of Middle Eastern voters respond to whoever shouts loudest about religion. Those who speak of peace, reforms, and social improvement are drowned out or assassinated. There is no reason to think that whatever replaces Mubarak will be better.
[…] Here is a previous post of mine over at MidEastYouth, in which I expressed some of my reservations towards the Muslim […]
[…] is a previous post of mine over at MidEastYouth, in which I expressed some of my reservations towards the Muslim […]