For the first time in US history an American Government, to the applause of the vast majority of mass media, is backing an anti-American authoritarian movement. Here’s how the The New York Times explains it:
“The Obama Administration has begun to reverse decades of mistrust and hostility as it seeks to forge closer ties with an organisation [the Muslim Brotherhood] once viewed as irreconcilably opposed to United States interests.” Any serious foreign policy analyst should see some red flags in the above sentence.
First, of course the US Government must deal with Egypt’s Government, but that doesn’t mean it should publicly proclaim that the Brotherhood is a nice group and give what amounts to an unconditional endorsement of it.
Indeed, the Obama Administration and media are using a cheap trick. They confuse the proper, responsible policy of dealing with those in power while doing something quite beyond that: A self-destructive policy of rushing to insist that sworn enemies of freedom and the United States are really nice guys and there’s no problem with having them in power.
Doesn’t anyone remember that the Obama Administration has been apologising for all the bad regimes America supported in the past? Now US President Barack Obama is using the exact same argument: Claiming that we must be nice to them because they are in power. What’s the difference between that and the historic relationship to the Mubarak regime? At least the former Egyptian President, Mr Hosni Mubarak, supported US interests. These people don’t. They have openly supported murdering Americans, especially in Iraq!
Second, why should the burden of reversing “decades of mistrust and hostility” be exclusively on the US? Doesn’t the Brotherhood, which benefits from US engagement, need to do that also or even beforehand? Why is there no conditionality here, no hint that the Obama administration or The New York Times understands how hostile the Brotherhood has been and continues to be? If the US President won’t demand a quid pro quo (something in exchange for his concessions), who is going to look after American interests?
Third, by saying the Brotherhood was “once viewed as irreconcilably opposed to US interests,” the author suggests this is no longer true. We know that the Obama Administration thinks the Brotherhood has changed. Yet there is no evidence in terms of deeds, ideology, or statement made in Arabic that the Brotherhood has done so.
Thus, Mr Obama has given away all US leverage and assets beforehand, just as he did by announcing a year ago, during the revolution’s opening days, that he would be happy to accept a Muslim Brotherhood Government. So the Brotherhood’s moderation is assumed. The science is settled; the debate is over.
The reversal also reflects the Administration’s growing acceptance of the Brotherhood’s repeated assurances that its law-makers want to build a modern democracy that will respect individual freedoms, free markets and international commitments, including Egypt’s treaty with Israel.
And at the same time it underscores Washington, DC’s increasing frustration with Egypt’s military rulers, who have sought to carve out permanent political powers for themselves and used deadly force against protesters seeking an end to their rule.
This is nonsense. Of course, the military has used force, though rarely deadly force. But what evidence is there that the military wants “permanent political powers”? On two occasions it put forth some demands and then retreated within a few hours when pushed by the Muslim Brotherhood. Yet even when moderates protested in the thousands, the Army either ignored them or broke up the demonstrations. In fact, the Admin-istration has only criticised and pressured the Army, not the Islamists. It only took a year to figure that out.
In other words, Mr Obama isn’t just observing but is affecting events. Now, note how the Obama Administration avoids this issue: “It would be ‘totally impractical’ not to engage the ‘Brotherhood because of US security and regional interests in Europe,’ a senior Administration official” said. But we are not talking about holding talks, we’re talking about becoming apologists for Islamism, a position announced and defended in a detailed explanation by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It is entirely predictable that as the revolutionary Islamists take anti-American and dictatorial stances, the Western media will underreport them and the Obama Administration will ignore them, if only to defend the mistaken ideas they hold and the mistaken policy Mr Obama has staked out.
How do we supposedly know the Brotherhood is moderate? Because that is what it tells the Western journalists and diplomats. But that’s not what it tells the Egyptian people or its own members. And, of course, the Brotherhood would never lie to US officials in secret, easily deniable and non-binding chats that run totally contrary to the policies its leaders have advocated every day for decades (including the same week as this New York Times article appeared) and that fit its ideology.
