Western Hypocrisy and the Blackmailing of the Egyptian Revolution
President Obama is attempting to cozy up to the American public, most of whom oppose a return to U.S. foreign military intervention. That opposition is unsurprising, given the complete failure of such interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan and the resulting disastrous negative fallout during the time of the neoconservatives. Among those disastrous results was the global economic crisis, which is why Obama is now sending Republican senators to Egypt, not Democrats. This may also be related to his desire to avoid being embarrassed in front of his opposition in the Senate and House should matters in Egypt significantly deteriorate in the view of the U.S. majority.
Disbelief, ambiguity and even hypocrisy currently dominate Western impressions of Egypt. Most Western nations are trying to adopt affectations of concern and tear-shedding over the deposed Morsi regime, supposedly because of their great devotion to democracy. Of course, the West was not so keen on democracy when Hamas, a group which many in the West accused of being terrorists, swept the elections. What the West is worried about in Egypt is its continuing influence there, the preservation of Israel’s security and other such things. The West is not that concerned about democracy; this would explain its convergent stances on Syria, and even Iraq and many other Arab nations.
Does the West truly want Brotherhood rule in Egypt, and if so to what extent? Is it because the Islamists came to power by way of the ballot box? Or because they adhere to the Camp David Accords? Or is it because some sort of understanding was reached prior to their coming into power back when Mubarak resigned?
What about the options of the Egyptian people, the majority of whom came out on June 30 and July 3 and made their choice clear? How is it possible to achieve stability as long as the Brotherhood refuses to participate in dialogue or in a new round of elections held under international supervision?
Statements issued by delegate Catherine Ashton in her press conference after visiting the removed president Morsi, as well as German, Russian and English statements that will be issued shortly by European factions, are all characterized by ambiguity and lack of objectivity: self-interested political projections, avoiding taking sides, and buying time in the interest of prolonging the unrest and instability. What occurred in Egypt was not a military coup; rather, the Army acted to preserve security and prevent greater strife. Military leadership had proposed multiple scenarios to Egyptian leadership (the Muslim Brotherhood) before removing them by way of popular demonstrations, taking into consideration the fact that the Egyptian people are also a source of power. During their rule the Brotherhood did away with the peoples’ power by coming down on Egyptian state institutions, rushing these organizations’ traitors and bringing them to their side. This did not sit well with the Egyptian public, which is why the Tamarrud movement was created.
Western interventions are all talk and no walk, intended to prolong the labor pains of the Egyptian state by gradually leading on the two opposing factions, encouraging one side and gaining favor with the other, while letting the Brotherhood, who the Egyptian public pushed out, maintain hope of staying in power.
The discourse in the West, and particularly in the U.S. and its followers, must come from a standpoint of dealing with the current reality in Egypt. It must concern itself solely with quickly bringing in the new rule, which came about via popular uprising, abetted by the Egyptian Army, under the condition of fair elections, and it must do so without selling more delusions or bartering between the sides. For continuing to talk about Morsi’s return, or referring to what happened as a coup or even a quasi-coup, and threatening the new regime with cutting off aid does not constitute a commitment to democracy in Egypt. This is especially important in light of the type of democracy that the West adheres to, particularly the U.S. in Iraq. It is an attempt to blackmail the new Egyptian regime into going along with U.S. schemes, presenting to them what they offered the Brotherhood under the table. Will these U.S. and Western pressures succeed, or will the Egyptian Revolution soon reveal the hypocrisy of the West?
Disbelief, ambiguity and even hypocrisy currently dominate Western impressions of Egypt. Most Western nations are trying to adopt affectations of concern and tear-shedding over the deposed Morsi regime, supposedly because of their great devotion to democracy. Of course, the West was not so keen on democracy when Hamas, a group which many in the West accused of being terrorists, swept the elections. What the West is worried about in Egypt is its continuing influence there, the preservation of Israel’s security and other such things. The West is not that concerned about democracy; this would explain its convergent stances on Syria, and even Iraq and many other Arab nations.
Does the West truly want Brotherhood rule in Egypt, and if so to what extent? Is it because the Islamists came to power by way of the ballot box? Or because they adhere to the Camp David Accords? Or is it because some sort of understanding was reached prior to their coming into power back when Mubarak resigned?
What about the options of the Egyptian people, the majority of whom came out on June 30 and July 3 and made their choice clear? How is it possible to achieve stability as long as the Brotherhood refuses to participate in dialogue or in a new round of elections held under international supervision?
Statements issued by delegate Catherine Ashton in her press conference after visiting the removed president Morsi, as well as German, Russian and English statements that will be issued shortly by European factions, are all characterized by ambiguity and lack of objectivity: self-interested political projections, avoiding taking sides, and buying time in the interest of prolonging the unrest and instability. What occurred in Egypt was not a military coup; rather, the Army acted to preserve security and prevent greater strife. Military leadership had proposed multiple scenarios to Egyptian leadership (the Muslim Brotherhood) before removing them by way of popular demonstrations, taking into consideration the fact that the Egyptian people are also a source of power. During their rule the Brotherhood did away with the peoples’ power by coming down on Egyptian state institutions, rushing these organizations’ traitors and bringing them to their side. This did not sit well with the Egyptian public, which is why the Tamarrud movement was created.
Western interventions are all talk and no walk, intended to prolong the labor pains of the Egyptian state by gradually leading on the two opposing factions, encouraging one side and gaining favor with the other, while letting the Brotherhood, who the Egyptian public pushed out, maintain hope of staying in power.
The discourse in the West, and particularly in the U.S. and its followers, must come from a standpoint of dealing with the current reality in Egypt. It must concern itself solely with quickly bringing in the new rule, which came about via popular uprising, abetted by the Egyptian Army, under the condition of fair elections, and it must do so without selling more delusions or bartering between the sides. For continuing to talk about Morsi’s return, or referring to what happened as a coup or even a quasi-coup, and threatening the new regime with cutting off aid does not constitute a commitment to democracy in Egypt. This is especially important in light of the type of democracy that the West adheres to, particularly the U.S. in Iraq. It is an attempt to blackmail the new Egyptian regime into going along with U.S. schemes, presenting to them what they offered the Brotherhood under the table. Will these U.S. and Western pressures succeed, or will the Egyptian Revolution soon reveal the hypocrisy of the West?
Previous article![]( "The Power of a Party")
