The opposition and outside groups such as Amnesty International and Freedom House have rightly described the amendments as the greatest setback to freedom in Egypt in a quarter-century. Yet the Bush administration has barely reacted. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who is visiting Egypt this weekend, said Friday that “it’s disappointing” that Egypt hasn’t proved to be a leader of liberalization. But the State Department is downplaying the constitutional amendments. While acknowledging some “concerns,” a spokesman said last week that “a process of political reform has begun in Egypt” and that “you have to put this in the wider context.”
Here’s the wider context: The Bush administration used its considerable leverage over Egypt to force some initial steps toward democratic change two years ago. Then it slowly reversed itself and now has come full circle, once again embracing a corrupt autocracy. It’s a shameful record, and one that Egyptians — who, then as now, mostly despise their government — won’t quickly forget.
They also have a story about Rice’s trip to Egypt and the Egyptian reaction to her mild criticism.
Andrew Exum and Zack Snyder of WINEP call the US “a willing accomplice” of the Mubarak regime:
The United States is the only external power that can exert any meaningful pressure on Egypt, but, to do so, Washington must grasp the significance of these inherently antidemocratic amendments to the Egyptian constitution. Should the administration issue strong, forceful statements in opposition to such purported “reforms,” it will help the cause of civil society groups across the Middle East. On the other hand, should it continue to maintain this indifference toward a fundamental assault on key political rights, it runs the risk of inviting Congress to weigh in on the issue. Most opposition parties in Egypt are not, it must be said, friendly to U.S. interests in the region. But they — like the Egyptian government — closely follow the statements that come out of Washington. So too do democracy activists in the region, and it is for them as much as anyone that the United States ought not allow this encroachment on political freedom to go unchallenged.
Last week the Financial Times called Mubarak misguided and called for military aid to be leveraged:
The regression in Egypt, the Arab world’s most populous country, is part of an attempt by despots across the region to regroup and consolidate their power. With the US giving up on the freedom agenda and reverting back to its old policy of backing autocratic regimes as long as it likes their foreign policy, the first stirrings of democracy witnessed two years ago are fading.
But the US has leverage: it provides $1.3bn every year to Egypt’s army, for example, the backbone of the regime. It should use this influence to end, rather than promote, repression. The European Union too should raise its voice, particularly after having recently agreed with Cairo an aid package ostensibly tied to political reforms.
Western governments might be entertaining the fantasy that weakening Egypt’s Islamists would open more space for secular parties to prosper. But Mr Mubarak’s scorched earth record towards all dissent, secular or Islamist, shows he will brook no challenge. Not long ago his government’s main target was the liberal al-Ghad party, whose leader ran against him for the presidency and now languishes in jail. Egypt’s western friends should by now know that Mr Mubarak’s moves are likely to backfire, radicalising the Islamists and boosting their popularity.
If the opposition in this country is going to get serious, then it may be time for it to start a campaign for all US military aid to be converted to civilian aid. It’s an approach that would find much support in the US Congress and would place Cairo in a position where it would have to refuse this aid or accept wherever USAID wants to spend it. Aside from democracy-promotion programs, there are plenty of work they could still do in infrastructure development, health and education. The question is whether the US military and US arms companies that sell to Egypt (one of the US’ best customers) would be happy with that. But there would be a clear moral appeal to such a campaign, and it could focus attentions both in Egypt and the US as well as involve the last interest group the Mubarak regime wants to have involved in politics: the military.
What’s going on at WINEP, supporting the MB and all? Something in the water….
Very good Op-Eds, all of them. I wonder if they’ll make any difference, and if Condi’s most recent mild rebuke will stop the regime from cracking down heavily on tonight’s protest against the amendments as it has announced it is going to do.
Much more likely than the path you describe is the “Lantos Amendment” — whereby all U.S. foreign aid is tied to democratic reform. The administration has resisted this, but I have a hunch this is what Exum and Snyder were going on about when they spoke of Congress getting more involved unless the State Department changed its rhetoric.
Actually, the Lantos Amendment to which I think you’re referring is something different. In 2004, Lantos proposed an amendment to the foreign operations bill that would have converted $157 million of Egypt’s $1.3 billion annual military aid to economic aid. It was voted down by the House. In 2005, Rep. Chris Smith introduced an amendment to the State Department authorization bill (with strong support from Lantos) to convert military aid to economic aid, make economic aid contingent on meeting economic reform benchmarks, and place some constraints on military aid financing. It too failed. In 2006, Lantos proposed increasing funding for Darfur and HIV/AIDS by $50 million each, via an offset of $100 million from Egypt’s economic aid (clever, since these are popular causes in Congress). This also failed. But the debates each year revealed rising levels of congressional criticism of Egypt for a bunch of reasons, among them Mubarak’s authoritarian rule.
Now that Lantos chairs the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and David Obey, who’s also argued for cutting aid to Egypt, chairs the Appropriations Ctte, it is certain that the House will try again to cut Egypt’s aid. Majority leader Steny Hoyer has also been critical of Egypt. The Senate position is less clear; the defense industry remains a powerful lobby to protect Egypt’s military aid. But the issue is not going to go away, and the Constitutional reforms mess and all other negative developments only give Congress more ammunition to target Egypt’s aid and complicate the Administration’s efforts to defend Egypt.
While these are good op-eds, they come a bit too late. They should have started (in terms of recent activity), when Egypt started clamping down on bloggers and free speech. You cannot, cannot have a health democracy when a State can trot out the old “you insulted the dignity of x” whine ( a patently ridiculous accusation to begin with), and get away with it. This Administration has no commitment to democracy as we sort of understand it in the US, in other countries because they have no commitment to it here. It’s a great idea to commute military aid into civilian aid, but when, in the history of liberation movements and democracy movements in the Maghreb + Egypt has the US ever done that? Never, because the US feels a population which the US secretly deems as in a pre-democratic state and barely sentient, that can speak it’s mind and vote anyway it pleases, is a danger to the geopolitics of the US in general, and to this current Admnistration in particular. I am sorry, but I do not see it happening to any degree within the next two years, nor do I believe that a significant shift will occur in the next Administration, which will likely be Dems in AIPAC clothing.- or at least wearing AIPAC ties.
Amy H, you rule. Thanks so much for those details. You’re right, of course: the specific amendment Lantos proposed was to convert some of the military aid to economic aid. More broadly speaking, the idea is to put the aid package on the table as a way of exerting pressure on the regime to reform politically.
Alas, I am not as sure as you that Congress will pass such a change. Not just the defense industry but the State Department and the DoD will lobby hard against it. What has changed, though, is that this administration and the State Department is really on the defensive here. (I, for one, was shocked and happily surprised by the WaPo editorial this morning.) And I think what they risk is that someone in Congress gets more heavily involved in the process, saying in essence, “Okay, if you don’t want to say or do anything about this, we will.”