Washington and the Military Council Together against Egypt’s Revolution

The Egyptian Revolution put both the administration of American president Barack Obama, on one hand, and the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces on the other, in an unenviable position. The occurrence of the Egyptian revolution, and its continued efforts to end the dictatorship and legacy of authoritarianism and to achieve justice and freedom, did not come as good news either for the Supreme Council in Cairo or for the Obama administration in Washington. For the future brings naught but the waning of American influence in Cairo and a decrease in the Military Council’s influence and intervention in Egypt’s internal and foreign affairs.

For its part, Washington sees that the existence of a democratic, elected regime in Egypt does not necessarily mean the continuation of its relationship with Cairo’s rulers, especially in the area of military, security and intelligence cooperation. The administration in the White House for decades ignored the principles of democracy and freedom for the sake of serving its interests and strategic goals. Washington clung to the principle of “stability” as the most important mechanism for achieving its foreign policy goals in the Middle East and ignored the fact that the former Egyptian regime it was allied to was not democratic. It ignored the regime’s falsification of elections, it ignored its human-rights violations and it ignored its arrest of thousands of Egyptians without any legitimate claim.

Washington has not yet grasped what it regards as the shocking results of the first free elections in the history of Egypt, which resulted in the triumph of political parties with Islamist orientations like the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists. The free elections showed that it will be difficult for Washington to rely on its traditional allies among the liberals and secularists because their extreme weakness has become apparent. The results of the elections also showed that millions of taxpayer dollars that American organizations spent in Egypt during the last year did not yield the desired results.

Out in the open, Washington claims to support the process of democratic transition and the transfer of power to an elected government in Egypt. However, Washington puts conditions on that support, the most important of which is the preservation of Egyptian obligations to Israel and the continuation of cooperation between Cairo and Washington in the military and intelligence fields. Also, U.S. anxiety extends beyond Egypt, since the U.S. strategy in the Middle East relies on a durable alliance with Israel and on a special relationship with Saudi Arabia. It is worth noting that both of these countries, Saudi Arabia and Israel, see in the achievement of democracy in Egypt a real threat to their national security.

Egypt’s revolution brought forth hard choices for Washington, especially in light of the increasing sense of Egyptian nationalism and the perceived need to reclaim Egypt’s international standing, which the previous regime neglected. Washington realizes that it will face a different future in its relations with Egypt. In their relationships with Egypt’s rulers, the historical reliance of Washington’s Democratic and Republican administrations on the military and security establishments, not subject to oversight by the Egyptian people or its representatives, will have no place in democratic Egypt. Washington today has no alternative to communication with the elected Islamist leaders in Egypt despite the little that the two parties have in common.

For its part, the Military Council does not welcome what is imposed upon it by the democratic principles that modern nations follow with respect to their ministries of defense. Democracy is committed to supervision of every ministry’s budget, including the ministry of defense. Related to that is the disclosure of all activities that are not militarily sensitive, whether they are related to business, manufacturing, or services, or have to do with the rights to sell, acquire and administer state lands. Likewise, democratic principles represent a real and legitimate challenge to the behaviors and conventions adopted by the governing regimes since 1952. These range from the appointment of former generals, without any competition, to governmental leadership positions throughout Egypt as governors and district administrators, to their heading the largest public-sector companies and governmental establishments, all despite their lack of the necessary experience and skills.

A necessary condition for democracy is a free media that is able to raise questions and criticize any perverse practices without any red lines! Real democracy also requires greater transparency and would oblige the Supreme Council to submit to the jurisdiction and oversight of popularly elected authorities such as the People’s Assembly. This is what is completely incompatible with Egyptian military culture, which refuses to submit to any civilian authorities. The military establishment is busy defending its private interests against what Egypt’s democracy will bring. This preoccupation puts it in the position of resisting the inevitable shrinking of the size and nature of those interests, especially with the continued draining of the public support it previously enjoyed. The civilian nature of the state and the democratic nature of the regime will result in nothing but increasing pressures from the Egyptian political powers to push the army toward focusing on professional military work, protection of the borders and its conclusive distance from political, economic and investment affairs.

A wide range of historical experiences has proven that democracy and a people’s freedom strengthen the state: The people of democratic Egypt are much stronger than the people of undemocratic Egypt. It seems that this does not satisfy Washington and does not satisfy the Military Council.

It is fortunate that the Egyptian public does not need to obtain the White House’s support or the consent of the Supreme Council of Armed Forces to get what it wants. The Council and Washington have to realize that Egyptians have discovered the taste of true freedom and this is what makes Egypt a country of greater strength and significance, and most importantly, greater independence.

Historically, the “principle of stability” and the like has been the most important point uniting Washington and the Military Council, whose interests in stability far outweighed their desire for democracy. That takes me to a final remark from outside of Egypt concerning what is happening inside Egypt and related to the many demands for the return of stability and calm so citizens can carry on their normal, routine lives. Unfortunately, those calls for stability and calm are a legitimate right that is being used to deceive. A society whose people enjoy neither fundamental rights nor social justice is a society that deserves neither calm nor stability. Nearly 200 years ago Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the United States, said: “Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.”

We must not sacrifice liberty, which if we obtain it will last forever, in exchange for enjoying temporary security and stability that cannot possibly last. God have mercy on the martyrs of freedom and justice, the pious children of our people.