Egypt, America and a Crisis Between Allies

The recent crisis between the United States and the Egyptian Supreme Council of the Armed Forces embodies a policy that America has employed repeatedly: threatening to cut off U.S. aid to Egypt. The U.S. uses this tactic whenever the Egyptian state’s behavior fails to rise to the temperament of the politicians and congressmen in the United States.

Egypt paid a high price to attain this aid, which came with the peace agreement ratified in 1979 between Egypt and Israel. This accord made Egypt the first Arab state to establish peace with Israel, and it also made Egypt one of the largest recipients of American aid. Some believe that this aid came to act as a source of American influence on Egyptian society.

We can say that while the Egyptian people appear to be in need of this aid, the Americans are also in need of this influence. This is especially true in light of the enormous political transformation and the fall of a regime that had been a strategic ally for the United States, as well as the victory of the Islamists, many factions of which reject the peace agreement with Israel, according to their stated policies.

America’s aid to Egypt has come to be threatened today because of Egypt’s investigation into non-governmental organizations, which has led to the indictment of 43 activists, at least 19 of whom are Americans. We are seeing a major crisis in the relationship between Egypt and America, which will have numerous repercussions that won’t stop simply at the cessation of aid to Egypt. It will lead to a reconsideration of the peace agreement with Israel, as America’s commitment to giving aid was the price for the continuation of the accord and of the peace between the two countries. Stopping aid would be tantamount to a violation of one of the conditions of the agreement, which would give Islamist parties in Egypt justification for reconsidering it.

Then there are the statements of Mr. Essam al-Arian, vice president of the Freedom and Justice Party, the political branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and the largest block in the recently-elected parliament. He said, “Aid was one of the obligations between the parties who signed the peace agreement; if one party violates it, that would give the other parties the right to review the agreement.”

It should be noted that this crisis is more than just the suspicion that civil society and rights organizations received foreign support. Some people say that the crisis is political and was contrived by the Egyptian Supreme Council of the Armed Forces with the goal of busying public opinion with foreign affairs to cover their mishandling of domestic issues since 11 Feb. 2011. During this time, there have been numerous human rights violations against the Egyptian youth without the perpetrators being held accountable.

On the other hand, through another reading of the situation, we find that the Egyptian Supreme Council of the Armed Forces is using this crisis to pressure the U.S. to lighten the U.S.’s pressure on the Egyptian Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, specifically the American demand for the military council to more quickly open the space for the election of a civilian president by the end of June this year, to hand power to civilians and to end military rule.

However, despite this, Cairo cannot take this crucial decision to turn its back on Washington.

Therefore, Egypt must try to find an alternate economic and strategic ally. Perhaps it should turn toward Asia: perhaps Japan or China, two countries that could fill America’s place in Egypt without the bargaining or pressure.

In all cases, the main loser in this crisis will be neither Egypt nor America; it will be the human rights and civil society organizations, which the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian Supreme Council of the Armed Forces discovered they didn’t need as their hold on power is guaranteed. By leveling accusations regarding their funding and by spreading a conspiracy theory already strong in the Arab citizen’s belief structure, the Egyptian Supreme Council of the Armed Forces and the Islamists will avoid the effects of these organizations’ activities on the upcoming stage in the lifespan of Egypt’s democratic experiment. Some of these organizations want to be free from the demands for human rights, as well as the concepts of freedom, transparency, respect for others and peaceful coexistence.

However, we want to say that civil society and its organizations are some of the most important requirements for democratic transition. This hostility toward them must be reformed, and they must be given a real chance as a phenomenon newly-arrived to the Arab scene. They must have a larger role in spreading new concepts and values and educating society about the need for democracy to be comprehended in all its detail. Doing so, we can build a civil society that will act as a watchdog of the state and help the operation of democratic, economic and social reform. This is what the forces of the youth leaders of the revolution demand.