From Realism to Complicity: US Policy and Egypt

Omer Taspiner  (Columnist of Turkish English Daily Today's Zaman) The clash between realism and idealism is the oldest classic divergence in international relations theory. Machiavelli, Bismarck and Kissinger are often used as textbook examples of staunch followers of realism. In addition to the primacy of power and the importance attached to the state as the source that exerts military, economic and political power, realism is primarily defined by two factors. First comes a clear definition of national interest and second a pragmatic evaluation of context. Both endeavors require a great deal of flexibility unencumbered by rigid, uncompromising principles. Rigidity is the strongest sign of ideological commitment. In turn, ideological commitment is the strongest evidence of idealism -- the nemesis of realism. Woodrow Wilson is probably the most typical example of idealism. His commitment to principles such as self-determination made the use of his name almost synonymous with idealism. When realists criticize one another, nothing is more hurtful and insulting than charges of drifting towards the paradigm of Wilsonian idealism. Today, the American policy debate about Egypt is once again driven by the clash between realism and idealism. Washington is once again torn between its national interests and its ideals. American ideals are often on the side of democracy, human rights and freedom. Yet, the Arab world creates a big exception because of oil and the security of Israel. America's relationship with Saudi Arabia is a clear example of this Middle Eastern exception. For 30 years under the dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak, Washington had to similarly compromise its democratic ideals in the name of realism and a pragmatic pursuit of national security interests. Egypt's peace with Israel was probably the most important factor that helped create this compromise between American ideals and national interests. With the emergence of a popular protest movement that toppled the Egyptian dictatorship and paved the road for electoral democracy, America's dilemma appeared to be solved. The arrival of the Muslim Brotherhood to power was initially perceived as problematic for American interests in the region. Yet, the Mohammed Morsi government did not challenge the status quo and even helped broker an agreement with Hamas in early 2012. Morsi was no Jeffersonian democrat, but he was a democratically elected leader whose management of Egypt showed clear signs of incompetence. Under normal circumstances, he would have been ousted in the next elections. When the military decided to topple him, Washington once again returned to its old dilemma. The decision not to call what happened a military “coup” was a typical attempt to balance security interest and ideals. Washington hoped that by doing so it would maintain some leverage over the generals for a quick return to democracy. Otherwise, if Washington had acknowledged what happened was a coup, the military aid would have had to stop and Washington would have had no economic tool to influence the situation on the ground. Now, a month after the coup, Egypt is on the brink of civil war. The military decided to crush and uproot the Muslim Brotherhood sit-ins in Cairo and more than 1,000 people have been killed. Postponing a joint military operation, Washington has still not decided to cut its military aid. This is simply too late to influence the situation on the ground. Imagine what would have happened if Morsi had done what the military is doing now? What if the Morsi government had reacted with brutal force and killed hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood opponents who decided to camp at Tahrir Square in protest? I think the reaction in the West would have been much stronger against the “Islamist government crushing pro-democracy forces.” Now that the military is crushing the Islamists, there is anger in the West, but Washington is still reluctant to cut its military assistance. After what happened in Egypt last week, we should no longer question why Islamists hate the West. As the Washington Post puts it: “Through its continued support of the Egyptian military, the United States is complicit in these acts of violence.” American foreign policy and the Islamic world deserve better.