The Controversy in US-Egypt Relations Over Aid

Despite the fact that there has been an agreement between Washington and Cairo since 1998 stating that there is to be a gradual reduction in economic aid that the former provides to the latter, there have been no such revisions to the military aid included in American aid to Egypt since 1979. This military aid is to the tune of $1.3 billion annually and comes in the form of equipment, tools, maintenance services and training. This makes Egypt the nation that receives the second largest amount of U.S. military aid after Israel.

A Partial and Temporary Drawdown

For perhaps the first time ever, American aid to Egypt became an active controversy after Obama’s announcement July 3 that the entire aid package was subject to review.

The hotly contested issue ran its course through the corridors of American power, predisposed towards disagreement, indecision and evasiveness regarding this topic in particular. Afterwards the Obama administration was obliged to a temporary and partial drawdown of both the economic and military aspects of the overall package of assistance presented to Egypt annually.

The drawdown does not encompass every single aspect of that assistance. The secretary of state and secretary of defense have confirmed that Washington would continue financial assistance for that which serves the vital security goals of both countries, such as countering terrorism and weapons proliferation, border security and security in Sinai. At the same time Washington has actually begun to suspend provision of some military systems such as tanks, warplanes, helicopters and rocks, along with $260 million worth of monetary aid.

Washington will also distinguish between two categories of aid: The first includes direct aid to the Egyptian authorities as well as offensive weapons and equipment for the army. The second is comprised of that which goes to nongovernmental organizations or to nonmilitary applications such as education, health, environment and human development.

As for how long the drawdown will last, it will last until Washington is sure that Egypt has returned to the path of democracy and ensuring respect for human rights.

While the Obama administration has never released a statement calling the Egyptian Army’s ouster of the democratically elected Mohammed Morsi a full-fledged “coup,” they have been condemning what they are witnessing as suppression of the rights of Morsi’s supporters, insisting on the need to end the state of emergency (temporary according to the Egyptian authorities) and insisting on steps toward presidential and parliamentary elections in 2014.

Building on that, in his September 24 speech to the United Nations, Obama confirmed that some military aid will be contingent on the temporary government’s taking additional steps toward democracy.

It was in this context that the AFP quoted State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki as saying Washington will halt the delivery of some heavy military equipment to the Egyptian government as well as a portion of the financial assistance as they wait for Cairo to complete credible steps toward a democratically elected civilian government.

Psaki was quoted as saying “The United States wishes to see a successful Egypt,” adding that “We believe the U.S.-Egypt partnership will be strongest when Egypt is represented by an inclusive, democratically elected civilian government based on the rule of law, fundamental freedoms, and an open and competitive economy.”

She added that the United States would continue blocking some military systems and material assistance until Egypt achieves “credible progress toward an inclusive, democratically elected civilian government through free and fair elections.” Psaki added that Egypt must stop what she defined as a pervasive campaign of repression leveled by the government against supporters of ousted president Mohammed Morsi and that the “temporary” state of emergency must be raised.

The Obama administration did not stop there. They have asked Arab Gulf countries, which have promised to provide Egypt with $20 billion worth of aid in total, to hold off on giving aid to Egypt until Cairo releases a detailed political road map, confirms its compatibility with democratic standards, ceases to exclude the Islamist movement, refrains from measures infringing on the civil liberties of anyone and everyone across the political spectrum, and provides a clear plan assuaging concerns over the fate of foreign investment in Egypt.

The American Calculus

With the adoption of this temporary and partial reduction, Washington has realized a carefully considered balance between the views of the idealists and the position of the realists within the administration.

The partial freeze of military aid came as a result of what happened last July 3, which Obama has avoided defining as a military coup. The freeze meets the expectations of the idealists, who believe in the need for Washington to support and promote Democracy and human rights, as well as the expectations of those haunted by concern and doubt regarding the method and circumstances of the overthrow of the first civilian elected president in Egypt’s history and the resulting political fallout.

In a conversation with CNN, Obama reiterated that “We must exercise caution with Egypt so we don’t seem like we’re encouraging behavior that opposes our core values.” He then stressed the need to review his country’s relations with Egypt overall and to take practical steps to punish Cairo, such as the cancellation of the joint Egyptian-American military “Bright Star” exercises which had been slated to take place in Egypt in the middle of that August.

In the same context Obama reversed the previous month’s decision to provide four F-16 fighter jets and 12 new Apache AH-64 D helicopters. The administration also announced that it is considering the suspension of upwards of $585 million in military aid until a comprehensive review of its relations with Egypt has been conducted.

From The New York Times’ point of view, the decision to reduce aid to Egypt sends a strong warning to the transitional government authorities in Egypt. In an October 11 article headlined “A Warning to Egypt’s Generals,” the Times expressed the opinion that the American president’s decision to cut but not completely halt the aid given to Egypt represents an attempt to balance the protection of American interests in the restive area with questions raised regarding the extent of the Obama administration’s commitment to supporting democracy.

The New York Times sees the decision as carrying two messages: The first is that the relationship between the two countries remains critical to the realization of regional stability. The second is America cannot turn a blind eye to the behavior of the Egyptian Army in their dealings with the opposition, its use of violence or its gradual attempts to raise the level of repression. This is according to what The New York Times reported.

So there has been a continuance of the aid specifically for the struggle against terrorism, security in Sinai, the prevention of weapons proliferation, landmine clearance, monitoring the international drug trade and organized crime. This continuation of aid, in addition to backing training the police in the respect human rights as well as law enforcement, satisfies the realist camp that values American interests over American values.

In terms of the desires of the realist camp, the retention of some American aid protects Washington’s interests in the Middle East and attempts to do so without negatively affecting related issues such as Israel’s security, maintaining freedom of navigation through the Suez Canal and cooperation in the realm of counterterrorism.

Even more important, is the realist camp’s realizing great gains through its relations with Egypt. These include instilling obligation to the democratic approach in the current transitional administration and ending the marginalization of Islamists. Moreover, realists will undermine Egyptian efforts to diversify their sources of arms, thus ending their total reliance on the United States for weapons.

Jay Newton Small, an American writer for Time magazine, sees three reasons that prevented the American administration and Congress from completely cutting off aid, particularly military aid.

The first reason is a “deep and profound partnership” between the Pentagon and the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces in Egypt, particularly in matters relating to counterterrorism in Sinai. The second reason is the permission for American planes to fly in Egyptian airspace, along with the priority given to American ships in passing through the Suez Canal. Additionally, America is the only country in the world whose ships have permission to carry nuclear weapons through the canal. The rest of the world must send this type of cargo around the Cape of Good Hope. The third reason is the relation between American aid and the preservation of peace between Israel and Egypt via the 1979 Camp David Accords.

It was for those reasons that Obama, in his last speech before the United Nation’s General Assembly, confirmed his country’s intention to continue aid to Egypt.

The question of America’s aid to Egypt was explored in a telephone conversation lasting over 30 minutes held by American Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel with General Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, who is the commander in chief of the armed forces, first deputy prime minister and defense minister. It was assured that a review of American aid does not signal a necessity to cut it off forever.

Israeli Concern

There can be no doubt in Israel’s hostility toward Egypt or Israel’s relentless attempts to spoil or reformulate U.S.-Egypt relations in such a way that maximizes Israel’s advantage over Cairo. Despite this, Israel does not support any move by America toward cutting military and economic assistance to Egypt regardless of the fact that Tel Aviv understands America’s reasons for such a decision, such as the undemocratic implications of what Cairo has been witnessing since last July 3.

Perhaps Tel Aviv is not prepared to shoulder the consequences of halting Egypt’s struggles to fight terrorism in Sinai. Despite Israel’s enthusiasm for the depletion of the Egyptian’s Army and Police against a backdrop of increasing armed conflict due to jihadi and terrorist groups scattered throughout Sinai, Israel also understands that a faltering of American aid to Egypt could hinder the Egyptian army’s efforts to suppress rising jihadi activity in the Sinai Peninsula. The terrorist activities of those jihadis constitute a credible threat to both countries’ national security, not just one or the other, and they undermine the stability of the region as a whole.

Likewise, Israel fears the potential effects of a cut in American aid to Egypt on the American-sponsored 1979 peace treaty in place between Cairo and Tel Aviv. They especially fear this because of two separate provisions attached to the treaty wherein America outlines its military and economic obligations to Egypt and Israel. In a letter to Israel, the acting Carter administration pledged to respond to Israel’s economic and military aid requirements.

Likewise in a similar letter, then Secretary of Defense Harold Brown confirmed his country’s preparedness to enter into a broad security relationship with Egypt, to include sales of American military equipment and services as well as financing.

As soon as the months between the official start of the Camp David negotiations and their resolution had passed the United States presented a total of $7.3 billion to both Cairo and Tel Aviv in 1979.

How strenuous those efforts expended by Washington’s Zionist lobby in partnership with Tel Aviv must have been to convince Washington to maintain that aid in its current amount and present conditions.

In its economic aspect the aid serves the interests of Washington more than those of Egypt, and not just because the money eventually makes its way back to America. Rather it is because it guarantees continuing and pervasive influence in Egyptian political decision making at a low price.

As for the military assistance, that ensures Israel’s ability to obtain Egyptian military secrets via Egypt’s sole source of weaponry, or whichever president is in Washington at the time. Even better, it prevents Egypt from gaining the ability to find other sources of weapons. This is especially important after official Egyptian sources stated that, for the first time, Cairo is re-evaluating and thinking seriously about walking away from the aid Egypt receives from America and envisioning ways guaranteeing diversity in suppliers of arms.

This matter guarantees that Washington and Tel Aviv’s ceiling limiting Egypt’s military capabilities will remain in place alongside a vast gulf in strength and weaponry to Israel’s advantage.