Washington Doesn't Know Where It Stands with General al-Sisi
Published in Liberté
(Algeria) on 24 August 2013
by Djamel Bouatta (link to original)
(Algeria) on 24 August 2013
by Djamel Bouatta (link to original)
Translated from
by Clare Durif.
Edited by Gillian Palmer.
The Egyptian crisis is exposing the dilemma of Washington, the White House, the Department of State, the CIA and the National Security Agency over what to do with General al-Sisi. Obama has shown himself to be torn between what he calls his attachment to democratic values and his desire to conserve his strategic alliance with a major power in the region, one which has made peace with Israel.
In actuality, pragmatic as it is when financial, economic and geostrategic interests are concerned, the United States has supported all of the authoritarian regimes, as long as they are complicit with, if not understanding of, Western conspiracies and can accept Israeli positions. It has been this way with Egypt for 35 years, under Anwar Sadat and then Hosni Mubarak — and even with Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose “democratic” election in the spring of 2012 was praised by Obama in person.
With regard to Qatar, Washington has contributed to the hold-up of the Egyptian revolution by the Islamists. Following the army’s ousting of Morsi on July 3 and the bloodbath of repression against his supporters, Obama didn’t get quite as involved as his editorial writers make out. Between morality and political realism, he quickly made his choice. The promotion of democracy and human rights was quickly sacrificed at the altar of “national security interests,” which include protecting the teacher's pet in the region: Israel.
And if the American president condemns the “appalling” repression of pro-Morsi demonstrations and calls for the return of democracy, they are only crocodile tears. General al-Sisi, for his part, has fully understood Washington’s predicament, to such an extent that, according to leaks, he did not receive a phone call from Obama at the height of the repression against the Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood]. Washington, who has carefully avoided describing the overthrow of Morsi as a “coup d’état,” accepted de facto the new regime put in place by the army, refusing even to talk of “civil war.”
In actuality, pragmatic as it is when financial, economic and geostrategic interests are concerned, the United States has supported all of the authoritarian regimes, as long as they are complicit with, if not understanding of, Western conspiracies and can accept Israeli positions. It has been this way with Egypt for 35 years, under Anwar Sadat and then Hosni Mubarak — and even with Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose “democratic” election in the spring of 2012 was praised by Obama in person.
With regard to Qatar, Washington has contributed to the hold-up of the Egyptian revolution by the Islamists. Following the army’s ousting of Morsi on July 3 and the bloodbath of repression against his supporters, Obama didn’t get quite as involved as his editorial writers make out. Between morality and political realism, he quickly made his choice. The promotion of democracy and human rights was quickly sacrificed at the altar of “national security interests,” which include protecting the teacher's pet in the region: Israel.
And if the American president condemns the “appalling” repression of pro-Morsi demonstrations and calls for the return of democracy, they are only crocodile tears. General al-Sisi, for his part, has fully understood Washington’s predicament, to such an extent that, according to leaks, he did not receive a phone call from Obama at the height of the repression against the Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood]. Washington, who has carefully avoided describing the overthrow of Morsi as a “coup d’état,” accepted de facto the new regime put in place by the army, refusing even to talk of “civil war.”