American officials announced yesterday that the United States is withholding a large portion of military aid scheduled to be delivered to Egypt in light of military crackdown on Muslim Brotherhood protestors. The Brotherhood, which supports ousted President Mohammed Morsi, has been engaged in street protests against the military regime for over a month, protests that have cost hundreds of lives. The July ouster of Mr. Morsi, when the military stepped in to remove him, has been met with mixed reactions in the United States. Mr. Morsi's performance as president was obviously unsatisfactory, but this kind of breakdown of the democratic process is dangerous in itself. Even if the United States disagrees with the policies of a leader, is it prudent to allow the democratic process dissolve through a military coup? After three months of inaction, the United States has finally decided to take a stand by cutting off funds, but is this action too little too late? What could have been gained by cutting off aid earlier? Or not at all?
3 comments:
As the article notes that "...in explaining their specific steps [in withholding aid], American officials sounded as if they were reaffirming a valuable relationship rather than delivering a rebuke," it seems that the U.S.'s actions carry less weight than what might be perceived. It doesn't seem like cutting the funds earlier would have much effect either, given that the U.S. continued to provide military and economic aid to Egypt for many years despite questionable democracy and government activities under President Mubarak. I feel that the U.S.'s "friendly" tone in part reveals that it lacks the leverage over Egypt that it implicitly asserts in such actions; the U.S. ultimately hopes and needs to maintain its "friendly" relationship with Egypt to prevent conflicts in the Sinai Peninsula. Israel's concern with the aid further alludes to this; that Israel seems more concerned about whether or not the military aid is withheld compared to Egypt, the country that actually receives or doesn't receive the aid, though, is a bit worrying.
There is a critical piece of US law that makes it illegal for the US to give military aid to a government that has taken power through a military coup. As such, American diplomats have been very careful not to use "coup" to describe the current situation in Egypt; they want to make sure we can continue to offer the interim government money, money that can be used for leverage (aka the "non-missle option").
I think the fact that not all the money is being held back shows that this is more of a slap on the wrist than any action made to produce serious changes in the interim government's actions. I think the US is hesitant to support any side in this fiasco: Egypt has been and will continue to be a key ally in the region, and the US doesn't want to risk being on bad terms with the country's government, no matter which government that is.
In situations in which the United States attempts to help maintain political stability in another country, it's easy for the government's action to be perceived controversially by both US citizens and other countries involved. Every potential misstep can be blown out of proportion, and as Elkana said, disturb the currently "friendly" relationship that the United States has with Egypt. That being said, the US needs to tread especially carefully with the fragile Egypt situation. Perhaps the best course of action may have been to cut off aid earlier, but such a move could potentially have worsened the situation.
Post a Comment