web analytics
January 30, 2015 / 10 Shevat, 5775
 
At a Glance
InDepth
Sponsored Post


A Reality-Driven Foreign Policy?

In the beginning, President Obama really thought he could change the world. And he had specific plans to do so, both here and abroad.

In the Middle East he resolved to bring the Arab countries into the 21st century by promoting democratic elections to rid the region of its despots. He ignored what he knew from his own experience as a community organizer and presidential candidate – namely, that elections go to the better organized – and ignored the lesson learned by his predecessor, George W. Bush, whose own vision of a Democratic Middle East was dealt a severe blow when the organized and motivated Hamas swamped the feckless Fatah in the U.S.-supported parliamentary election in Gaza in 2006.

In his Cairo speech a few months after taking office, Mr. Obama called for free and democratic elections and promised, as incentive, to retool U.S. relations with the Muslim world. The president’s words gained immediate traction, and within a year what became known as the Arab Spring was in full bloom. But it quickly became obvious that old dictators were being replaced by new autocrats obsessed with exercising power for its own sake and waging war on political rivals with scant attention paid to the wishes and needs of the people.

In Egypt, to cite the most pertinent example, Egyptian voters, after forcing Hosni Mubarak out of office through massive demonstrations and the assistance of the military, proceeded to elect one of the leaders of the radical fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, Mohamed Morsi, as president. Mr. Morsi thereupon proceeded to pack the government with members of the Brotherhood and sought to rule by decree. He also tried to ensure that the new constitution would be written by Islamists and he removed judges who opposed him.

The Obama administration’s careful and nuanced reaction to Mr. Morsi’s eviction from office last week at the hands of the Egyptian military suggests that President Obama has abandoned the simplistic notion that elections themselves necessarily result in governmental legitimacy. This is being played out in terms of whether the U.S. will cut off financial aid to Egypt until new elections are held.

U.S. law could not be plainer. Thus, Section 508 of the Foreign Assistance Act provides that

None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to this Act shall be obligated or expended to finance directly any assistance to any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree: Provided, That assistance may be resumed to such country if the President determines and reports to the Committees on Appropriations that subsequent to the termination of assistance a democratically elected government has taken office.

We note that there is no provision for a waiver of this provision.

Yet despite the very public role of the Egyptian military in the ouster of Mr. Morsi, President Obama has referred to U.S. support for “a set of core principles, including opposition to violence” and “a democratic political order with participation from all sides and all political parties.“

He also said the U.S. is “committed to the democratic process and respect for the rule of law.” But he studiously avoided characterizing the military’s role as a “coup,” saying only that “The United States is monitoring the very fluid situation in Egypt” and that given the recent developments, he had “directed the relevant departments and agencies to review the implications under U.S. law for our assistance to the government of Egypt.” He also called on the Egyptian military “to move quickly and responsibly to return full authority back to a democratically elected civilian government as soon as possible….”

When asked directly whether President Obama viewed the Egyptian army’s actions as a coup, White House press secretary Jay Carney said, “We are going to take the time necessary to review what has taken place. This is an incredibly complex and difficult situation.”

Clearly, Mr. Obama could have called the ouster of Morsi a “coup” and cut off aid. But he didn’t, choosing a more deliberate and measured response. Significantly, he called for a return to “a democratically elected civilian government” without mentioning Mr. Morsi in that context. Indeed, we are encouraged that Mr. Obama seems to have abandoned his earlier notions about the sanctity of elections regardless of context and seems instead to be trying to pursue U.S. interests regardless of labels.

At the same time, however, we cannot simply ignore U.S. law because it is inconvenient. We have seen that sort of thing in the Obama administration before with regard to immigration and national security issues, among others. There is, of course, precedent for presidential requests to Congress for enactment of special waiver power, as in the case of the military coup in Pakistan after 9/11. Given the lack of support for Mr. Morsi in Congress, such legislation may not be too difficult to achieve.

To be sure, Mr. Obama may have some wiggle room even under current law. While Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the budget committee that oversees foreign aid, has declared that “[the] law is clear: U.S. aid is cut off when a democratically elected government is deposed by military coup or decree,” there is an alternative view now emerging.

Some of Mr. Morsi’s opponents and members of Congress are arguing that what occurred in Cairo was not a coup as defined by the statute. They note that the military took action only after demonstrations by millions of Egyptians against Mr. Morsi’s policies indicated the extent of public discontent. “It’s not a coup because the military did not take power,” said Mohamed Tawfik, Egypt’s ambassador to the U.S. “The military did not initiate it. It was a popular uprising. The military stepped in order to avoid violence.”

In any event, we continue to be encouraged by the ongoing indications that President Obama seems to have abandoned his earlier, dangerously sophomoric, approach to the Middle East. This holds the promise of a more realistic U.S. policy for the remainder of Mr. Obama’s second term.

About the Author:


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

No Responses to “A Reality-Driven Foreign Policy?”

Comments are closed.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Current Top Story
Jeremy Bird, working for Israeli campaign outfit V15, shown at Ted Talk, May 20, 2014.
V15 US Political Operative Marinated in Hate-Israel Activism
Latest Indepth Stories
IRAN-US-POLITICS-MILITARY

An Israeli strike could theoretically damage Iran’s nuclear program; only US can terminate program

Israeli-flag

At some point we need to stop simply defending and promoting Israel and start living in Israel

Rabbi Berel Wein

“We Jews are the only people who when we drop a book on the floor pick it up and kiss it.”

Rabbi Sholom Klass

Though Zaide was the publisher of The Jewish Press, a big newspaper,I always remember him learning

Speaker Silver has been an extraordinary public servant since his election to the Assembly in 1975 and has been an exemplary leader of that body since 1994.

He spent the first leg of his daylong visit to the French capital at Hyper Cacher.

Drawing Congress into the Iran nuclear debate is the last thing the White House wants.

Great leaders like Miriam and like Sarah Schenirer possess the capacity to challenge the status quo that confronts them.

Obama’s foreign policy is viewed by both liberals and conservatives as deeply flawed

Many journalists are covertly blaming the Charlie Hebdo writers themselves through self-censorship.

Why does the Times relay different motivations and narratives for jihadists in Europe and Israel?

To defeat parasites-the hosts of terrorists-we need to deny them new people, potential terrorists

Combating Amalek doesn’t mean all who disagree with you is evil-rather whom to follow and to oppose

Desperate people take what they can, seizing opportunity to advance their main goal; the Arabs don’t

More Articles from Editorial Board

He spent the first leg of his daylong visit to the French capital at Hyper Cacher.

In this particular case, the issue was whether the Arkansas prison system could prohibit, for security reasons, a devout Muslim’s maintaining a beard of a certain length as a matter of religious practice.

According to Natan Sharansky, director of the Jewish Agency for Israel, France was the largest source of Jewish emigration to Israel last year and he believes as many as 15,000 French Jews may make aliyah in 2015.

Despite the president’s respectable anti-terrorism record, he doubtless has little interest in being identified with anything that might suggest, however tangentially, criticism of Muslims or Islam.

One wonders what connection that rejection has with turning to the ICC, which would allow the Palestinians to bring war-crime charges against individual Israelis and is certainly one more step away from seeking a negotiated settlement.

In the NPR interview, Mr. Obama said Iran could become a “very successful regional power” if it agreed to a long-term nuclear deal.

Thus, despite the increasingly serious problems for the mayor arising out of the current anti-police protests, Mr. de Blasio apparently will be cut no slack by those who seem to be aiming for a significant role in running the city from the streets and who will do whatever they can to prevent their momentum from ebbing.

Despite strong pressure to throw the book at the accused, Mr. Thompson allowed him to plead guilty to assault.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/editorial/a-reality-driven-foreign-policy/2013/07/10/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: