The American Administration is still placing its bets on the Muslim Brotherhood, which it has chosen as an ally in the coming stage. New American Secretary of State John Kerry came to Egypt with a bunch of tricks under his hat to support the new allies that have so far been embarrassing Americans one time after another ever since they seized power in Egypt through doing their best to be in full control regardless of the resulting crises and their impact on national security. What is more important is that this exclusionist policy adopted by the Muslim Brotherhood unravels the big American lie of supporting democracy and summons up incidents from modern American history that confirm this lie. For example, Saddam Hussein was not a democratic ruler in the 1980s when he was supported by the United States and did not suddenly become a dictator afterwards when the United States turned against him. The same applies to all countries supported by the United States and which primarily cares about its interests rather than democratic principles or the will of the people.
That is why the United States supported the transformation in Egypt from day one and Americans tried several times to rescue their allies from the damage they are causing whether through advice or warning, yet in both cases the current Egyptian regime remains their ally and they will never abandon them unless they become an unbearable burden or in case another alternative is made available. Until this happens, it is wrong to count on the role of the United States in any desired change in Egypt.
Kerry’s last controversial visit is, therefore, another lifebuoy that the Americans are offering to their allies to save them from their own deeds. They are not asking for a lot in return, but are merely calling for an embellishment of the reality they want to impose. From there emerges expressions like “middle ground,” “the democratic option,” and “ballot transparency.” Even when Obama talked to Mursi, he asked him to guarantee fair representation in the upcoming elections and they both overlooked all the events that preceded those elections.
Before Kerry came to Egypt, he secretly sent one of his prospective aides to meet with the different parties involved and according to the information I obtained several parties actually tried to meet this messenger who knows nothing about Egypt more than the fact that he got a good profit from buying a share in one of the private banks and which he later sold and who seems to have been one of Kerry’s supporters in the presidential elections. A man who knows nothing about Egypt came, therefore, to pave the way for Kerry’s visit. This raises a question about the logic behind the choice of this man. Is it ignorance of the situation? Or is an underestimation of the situation’s gravity on the part of the American Administrations?
Cairo and the IMF
Kerry tried to use the economic situation to put pressure on the opposition and the people and this was obvious in statements made by an American official who was described as “high ranking” and who said that Kerry would urge for an agreement to be reached between all political faction about drastic economic changes required for obtaining the IMF loan.
He said that Kerry would stress that an agreement between Cairo and the IMF has to be endorsed by all political factions in Egypt and that if Egypt approves the 4.8 billion dollar loan, that would open the door for the flow of money from the United States, the European Union, and Arab countries and that all this is not possible without a national dialogue. This might sound acceptable if viewed from an abstract perspective, but on the practical level it would mean putting pressure on the opposition to accept what is unacceptable. If all political factions in Egypt agree to the required economic changes as this official says, then the opposition, which now rejects engaging in a dialogue under the Muslim Brotherhood’s terms and American supervision, will be held accountable for the subsequent suffering of the Egyptian people. It is obvious that the American Administration is also trying through its secretary of state of talk the opposition into taking back its decision to boycott the elections.
Regardless of any remarks about the performance of the National Salvation Front, Kerry’s choice to ignore dealing with it as a whole entity and to deal, instead, with a few of its leaders individually, proves that the United States is biased towards the Muslim Brotherhood and does not want to upset its ally.
The United States is doing its best to support its ally through pushing for the establishment of a dialogue between the regime and the opposition but in accordance with the regime’s own concept of a “middle ground” and on which its insists despite of everybody’s will.
The United States is driven by its interests and which now lie with the current regime until it becomes no longer useful. Only then will the American Administration work on replacing or destroying it like it did with Saddam Hussein and his likes. And the reason remains the same: supporting democracy.
Abdel Latif al-Menawy is an author, columnist and multimedia journalist who has covered conflicts around the world. He is the author of "Tahrir: the last 18 days of Mubarak," a book he wrote as an eyewitness to events during the 18 days before the stepping down of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Menawy’s most recent public position was head of Egypt’s News Center. He is a member of the National Union of Journalists in the United Kingdom, and the Egyptian Journalists Syndicate. He can be found on Twitter @ALMenawy