I see in the news that the US is now withholding some of the funds for Egypt. On Wednesday, the State Department said they would withhold deliveries of tanks, fighter aircraft, helicopters and missiles as well as $260 million from Egypt's military-backed government. The Egyptian military has been in charge of the government since July 3 when they ousted Mohamed Mursi, the first democratically elected leader of Egypt. The State Department said it would continue to allow military support for counterterrorism,
counter-proliferation and security in the Sinai Peninsula.
The US has been in an awkward position since the Egyptian military took over. On the one hand, the US wants to support a democracy. However, Mursi ramrodded through an unpopular constitution that favored the Muslim Brotherhood and was less than democratic.
When the military took over, the US was hoping for a quick return to a democracy with a better constitution. That is why the State Department was reluctant to call it a coup. That has not happened. The question then became whether the US should support democracy, in this case Mursi, even if it is flawed or support a military take over because it is in our best interest.
Decades ago, the US stopped promoting democracy worldwide and began looking out for our own self-interests (such as oil) http://clicktotweet.com/dcafe. It was a pragmatic approach rather than an ideological. We ended up supporting dictators and corrupt governments, which in the end worked against us. Eventually, people want democracy and we end up supporting the wrong side.
The case with Egypt is complicated because of treaty agreements on the use of the Suez Canal, Egypt’s treaty with Israel, and other political considerations. We supported the old Egyptian government even when we knew it was not democratic to help Israel. Now we are in this
awkward position.
counter-proliferation and security in the Sinai Peninsula.
The US has been in an awkward position since the Egyptian military took over. On the one hand, the US wants to support a democracy. However, Mursi ramrodded through an unpopular constitution that favored the Muslim Brotherhood and was less than democratic.
When the military took over, the US was hoping for a quick return to a democracy with a better constitution. That is why the State Department was reluctant to call it a coup. That has not happened. The question then became whether the US should support democracy, in this case Mursi, even if it is flawed or support a military take over because it is in our best interest.
Decades ago, the US stopped promoting democracy worldwide and began looking out for our own self-interests (such as oil) http://clicktotweet.com/dcafe. It was a pragmatic approach rather than an ideological. We ended up supporting dictators and corrupt governments, which in the end worked against us. Eventually, people want democracy and we end up supporting the wrong side.
The case with Egypt is complicated because of treaty agreements on the use of the Suez Canal, Egypt’s treaty with Israel, and other political considerations. We supported the old Egyptian government even when we knew it was not democratic to help Israel. Now we are in this
awkward position.
RSS Feed