Footnotes on William Burns' Visit

After two weeks of conflicting indications coming from Washington and its ambassador to Cairo, Anne Patterson, the U.S. has decided to send Assistant Secretary of State William Burns to Egypt. This visit has spurred much speculation over its timing and purpose: Is it an attempt to understand, to subdue or to apologize? The U.S. Department of State issued a statement confirming that the goal of this visit is to emphasize U.S. support for the Egyptian people, as well as to put an end to all acts of violence during the transitional stage that will lead to the formation of a comprehensive, democratically elected government. In reality, there is a need for a true pause with Washington so that it can comprehend what has occurred in Egypt. Egypt has been liberated and has rid itself of the shackles of dependency. The Egyptian people did not seek Washington’s permission before their first or second revolutions; they will accept no dictates or threats. There must be either a balanced relationship that will serve the interests of both peoples or the U.S. will lose any stock it has not only in Egypt, but in the entire Middle East. The U.S. will repeat the same mistakes of the 1950s and ‘60s, when it attempted to twist Egypt’s arm. At that time Egypt expelled the U.S. not only from its sphere of influence among its decision-making circles, but also those of the Middle East and Africa.

U.S. stances during the previous phase have contributed to further complicating Egypt’s situation, whether via contradictory statements regarding its position on the Egyptian revolution or attempts to defame it by deeming it a coup, then subsequently going back on this and then demanding the release of the former president.

Who gave America the right to blatantly interfere in our internal matters? It appears as if they have not yet realized the immensity of the shifts that have occurred in Egyptian society in the wake of the January 25 Revolution and its eventual evolution into the June 30 Revolution. Thus U.S. Ambassador Anne Patterson’s stance was clearly an attempt to engender chaos; after a three-hour visit with Khairat el-Shater, she then sent messages to the opposition to deter them from going out on June 30 by insinuating that aid will be cut off, a repeat of what she did in Pakistan.

U.S. support of the Muslim Brotherhood is nothing new, but in all fairness this is not because the U.S. likes the Brotherhood. The fact of the matter is that since Sept. 11, it has decided to use various Islamist groups to combat one another; it has achieved results with this in Somalia, Yemen, Iraq and Libya. In its scheme, Egypt was the ultimate prize; by pitting a Sunni military against a Shiite one, America would thus rid itself of the threat of Islamist terrorism that it produced with its very own hand in the mountains of Afghanistan. Therefore, we can understand why the banners at Rabiyya Al-Adawiyya were written in English in large letters when it was broadcast that vessels from the U.S. fleet were approaching Egyptian coasts. If that does not constitute bullying, then what does?

Mr. Burns will state that the U.S. is committed to democracy, fair governance and human rights; this is a commendable commitment and an irreproachable orientation were it to be applied within its own borders. But on the international level — pardon me, but he who does not have democracy at home cannot apply it elsewhere. The examples of this are innumerable; anyone who wishes to know more need only to look back to the massacres the U.S. has committed on all continents in the name of democracy, from Vietnam to Chile to Palestine. Meanwhile, the U.S. government and various American think tanks ask themselves: “Why does the world hate America?” This is an utterly naive question, for only the most naive of people spend time wondering about such obvious questions.