U.S. Foreign Policy And Morsi"s Ouster
The July 3, 2013, ouster of Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi by the Egyptian military raised some unique questions for American foreign policy.
Namely, was Morsi's removal a coup? If it was a coup, does that jeopardize U.S. foreign aid to Egypt? And, does Morsi's removal and the ensuing chaos in Egypt undermine Obama's unflagging support for democracy abroad?
Just as the United States was preparing to celebrate its own Independence Day, word came from Egypt that Morsi's government was in trouble, then toppled.
While it seemed sudden, the "transistion" (for lack of a better word) was perhaps not so surprising.
Morsi was elected Egyptian president after the Arab Spring of 2011 in which reformists across North Africa and the Middle East rose in reaction against tyrannical governments. (Arab Spring toppled Muammar Qadaffi in Libya, and it ignited the ongoing Civil War in Syria.)
Egyptians toppled the regime of Hosni Mubarak, who had been president since Anwar Sadat's assassination in 1981. To the U.S., Mubarak was acceptable because he continued Sadat's ground-breaking policies of conciliation toward Israel. Internally, however, Mubarak reportedly ran his government as a dictator.
Morsi, on the other hand, was backed by the Muslim Brotherhood which had direct ties to the radical Palestinian group Hamas. Since he was democratically elected, Obama's administration recognized Morsi as Egypt's legitimate president, even though Israel and many conservative Americans charged that simply aided their common enemies.
Obama has always responded that he supports global democracy -- the will of the people in a given country -- even though we may not like the results.
In late 2012, Morsi's stock in the U.S. went up when he negotiated a cease-fire in a Hamas-Israel fight over rocket attacks from the Hamas-occuppied Gaza Strip. He even shared the announcement of the cease fire with then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The next week, however, Morsi's stock plummeted when he unilaterally changed portions of Egypt's constitution. His power grab looked, well, dictatorial. Thus, his ouster some eight months later was perhaps not so surprising.
Now, was Morsi's ouster a coup, or was it not? Technically, a coup is a sudden overthrow of a government by an opposition government. While there can be bloodless coups, and coups that are led by civilians, most are led by military forces which may then form a military state or hand over power to favored civilian leaders.
While Morsi's overthrow, led by elements of the Egyptian military, certainly looked like a coup, Obama's White House has been reluctant to label it as such.
If Morsi's removal was a coup, then, legally the U.S. must suspend its military aid to the country. Egypt is one of the world's top recipients of both U.S. military and civilian aid, and that aid is one of the Obama administration's touchstones in its relations with Egypt.
Obama is not eager to sever that aid. No one from his administration has called the events in Egypt a coup, and, at a press conference on July 8, 2013, White House spokesman Jay Carney dodged the question by saying "What we don't believe is necessary is to hastily reach a determination when the right course of action in our view is to review this in a deliberate manner, to consult with Congress, to review our obligations under the law, and to, in the meantime, encourage the authorities in Egypt to hasten a return to democratic governance in that country, and to a democratically elected government."
In a statement about a conference between Obama and his National Security Council after the crisis in Egypt, the White House denied that the U.S. was attempting to manipulate events there.
The statement also said, "During this transitional period, we call on all Egyptians to come together in an inclusive process that allows for the participation of all groups and political parties. Throughout that process, the United States will continue to engage the Egyptian people in a spirit of partnership, consistent with our longstanding friendship and shared interests - including our interest in a transition to sustainable democracy.
"We urge all Egyptian leaders to condemn the use of force and to prevent further violence among their supporters, just as we urge all those demonstrating to do so peacefully. As Egyptians look forward, we call on all sides to bridge Egypt's divisions, reject reprisals, and join together to restore stability and Egypt's democracy."
Secretary of State John Kerry said much the same thing in his own statement.
A note on rhetoric and semantics. By saying Egyptians need to "return to" or "restore" democracy, both statements seem to admit that Egypt devolved into something less than a democracy. A coup, perhaps? Also, in the Lockeian philosophical context, people in a democracy are encouraged to rid themselves of a government that is not working and replace it with one that does. Thus then, is the method of overthrow (a coup, perhaps?) simply an extension of democracy?
Tough questions. Nevertheless, the Obama administration avoided the word "coup" itself.
Senator John McCain (R-AZ), always a critic of Obama's foreign policy, declared on July 8 that the events in Egypt were indeed a coup, and the U.S. should cut its military aid to the country.
"It is difficult for me to conclude that what happened was anything other than a coup in which the military played a decisive role. Current U.S. law is very clear about the implications for our foreign assistance in the aftermath of a military coup against an elected government, and the law offers no ability to waive its provisions. I do not want to suspend our critical assistance to Egypt, but I believe that is the right thing to do at this time," said McCain.
He counseled, "if millions of Egyptians come to believe that democracy offers them no opportunity to advance their goals peacefully, it will only fuel violence and extremism. That is a path to civil conflict."
Could McCain be correct? Could the Egyptian takeaway from the Morsi episode be that violence is a better alternative to democracy? If so, will foreign aid from the U.S. do anything to change that, or will it reinforce the supposed lesson?
As always, there are more questions than answers in a fluid situation, and that is why Carney was right in saying the White House was proceeding with caution.
There is no question, however, that foreign policy is complex and fully of semantics and interpretations. The situation in Egypt, July 2013, demonstrated that plainly.
Sources:
CNN. White House On Egypt. July 8, 2013. Accessed July 8, 2013.
John McCain Senate Website. McCain Statement On Egypt. Accessed July 8, 2013.
White House. Readout Of Obama's Meeting With National Security Council. Accessed July 8, 2013.
Namely, was Morsi's removal a coup? If it was a coup, does that jeopardize U.S. foreign aid to Egypt? And, does Morsi's removal and the ensuing chaos in Egypt undermine Obama's unflagging support for democracy abroad?
Background
Just as the United States was preparing to celebrate its own Independence Day, word came from Egypt that Morsi's government was in trouble, then toppled.
While it seemed sudden, the "transistion" (for lack of a better word) was perhaps not so surprising.
Morsi was elected Egyptian president after the Arab Spring of 2011 in which reformists across North Africa and the Middle East rose in reaction against tyrannical governments. (Arab Spring toppled Muammar Qadaffi in Libya, and it ignited the ongoing Civil War in Syria.)
Egyptians toppled the regime of Hosni Mubarak, who had been president since Anwar Sadat's assassination in 1981. To the U.S., Mubarak was acceptable because he continued Sadat's ground-breaking policies of conciliation toward Israel. Internally, however, Mubarak reportedly ran his government as a dictator.
Morsi, on the other hand, was backed by the Muslim Brotherhood which had direct ties to the radical Palestinian group Hamas. Since he was democratically elected, Obama's administration recognized Morsi as Egypt's legitimate president, even though Israel and many conservative Americans charged that simply aided their common enemies.
Obama has always responded that he supports global democracy -- the will of the people in a given country -- even though we may not like the results.
In late 2012, Morsi's stock in the U.S. went up when he negotiated a cease-fire in a Hamas-Israel fight over rocket attacks from the Hamas-occuppied Gaza Strip. He even shared the announcement of the cease fire with then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The next week, however, Morsi's stock plummeted when he unilaterally changed portions of Egypt's constitution. His power grab looked, well, dictatorial. Thus, his ouster some eight months later was perhaps not so surprising.
Coup, Or No Coup?
Now, was Morsi's ouster a coup, or was it not? Technically, a coup is a sudden overthrow of a government by an opposition government. While there can be bloodless coups, and coups that are led by civilians, most are led by military forces which may then form a military state or hand over power to favored civilian leaders.
While Morsi's overthrow, led by elements of the Egyptian military, certainly looked like a coup, Obama's White House has been reluctant to label it as such.
What Does It Matter?
If Morsi's removal was a coup, then, legally the U.S. must suspend its military aid to the country. Egypt is one of the world's top recipients of both U.S. military and civilian aid, and that aid is one of the Obama administration's touchstones in its relations with Egypt.
Obama is not eager to sever that aid. No one from his administration has called the events in Egypt a coup, and, at a press conference on July 8, 2013, White House spokesman Jay Carney dodged the question by saying "What we don't believe is necessary is to hastily reach a determination when the right course of action in our view is to review this in a deliberate manner, to consult with Congress, to review our obligations under the law, and to, in the meantime, encourage the authorities in Egypt to hasten a return to democratic governance in that country, and to a democratically elected government."
In a statement about a conference between Obama and his National Security Council after the crisis in Egypt, the White House denied that the U.S. was attempting to manipulate events there.
The statement also said, "During this transitional period, we call on all Egyptians to come together in an inclusive process that allows for the participation of all groups and political parties. Throughout that process, the United States will continue to engage the Egyptian people in a spirit of partnership, consistent with our longstanding friendship and shared interests - including our interest in a transition to sustainable democracy.
"We urge all Egyptian leaders to condemn the use of force and to prevent further violence among their supporters, just as we urge all those demonstrating to do so peacefully. As Egyptians look forward, we call on all sides to bridge Egypt's divisions, reject reprisals, and join together to restore stability and Egypt's democracy."
Secretary of State John Kerry said much the same thing in his own statement.
A note on rhetoric and semantics. By saying Egyptians need to "return to" or "restore" democracy, both statements seem to admit that Egypt devolved into something less than a democracy. A coup, perhaps? Also, in the Lockeian philosophical context, people in a democracy are encouraged to rid themselves of a government that is not working and replace it with one that does. Thus then, is the method of overthrow (a coup, perhaps?) simply an extension of democracy?
Tough questions. Nevertheless, the Obama administration avoided the word "coup" itself.
McCain's Take On It
Senator John McCain (R-AZ), always a critic of Obama's foreign policy, declared on July 8 that the events in Egypt were indeed a coup, and the U.S. should cut its military aid to the country.
"It is difficult for me to conclude that what happened was anything other than a coup in which the military played a decisive role. Current U.S. law is very clear about the implications for our foreign assistance in the aftermath of a military coup against an elected government, and the law offers no ability to waive its provisions. I do not want to suspend our critical assistance to Egypt, but I believe that is the right thing to do at this time," said McCain.
He counseled, "if millions of Egyptians come to believe that democracy offers them no opportunity to advance their goals peacefully, it will only fuel violence and extremism. That is a path to civil conflict."
Could McCain be correct? Could the Egyptian takeaway from the Morsi episode be that violence is a better alternative to democracy? If so, will foreign aid from the U.S. do anything to change that, or will it reinforce the supposed lesson?
As always, there are more questions than answers in a fluid situation, and that is why Carney was right in saying the White House was proceeding with caution.
There is no question, however, that foreign policy is complex and fully of semantics and interpretations. The situation in Egypt, July 2013, demonstrated that plainly.
Sources:
CNN. White House On Egypt. July 8, 2013. Accessed July 8, 2013.
John McCain Senate Website. McCain Statement On Egypt. Accessed July 8, 2013.
White House. Readout Of Obama's Meeting With National Security Council. Accessed July 8, 2013.