A beneficial friendship: Egyptian-US relations

Hilary Clinton’s visit to Cairo in mid July re-affirmed the United States’ support for a democratic Egypt. Clinton and President Morsi discussed, what she described as the “broad and enduring relationship” between the United States and Egypt, which has been mutually beneficial for both nations over the years. Egypt has, in recent history, been an ally of the US and has played an important role in protecting the US’ interests in the region. Clinton’s meeting with President Morsi covered a number of topics that are pivotal to the relationship between the two countries, including, democracy, stability and most importantly Israel. The uncertainty that arose from the toppling of Mubarak certainly would have worried US foreign policy makers. The aspects of the relationship have changed, the US is no longer dealing with an autocrat that can be controlled easily, but now they must deal with a democratically elected President who is charged with upholding the interests of the people he represents.

Many might take it for granted that maintaining a good relationship with the US is necessary, but in Egypt there are a number of reasons why the US might not be seen as a friend. The US has an image of being a meddler in Middle Eastern affairs, a view shared by many across the region. The strong and unwavering support for Israel serves to alienate much of the region’s population further, not to mention the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In addition to this the strong relationships with the corrupt and authoritarian regimes in the region puts the trust of the US at quite a low level in the Middle East. Why then, should Egypt maintain a relationship with the US if all they seem to do is cause trouble in the region? Why shouldn’t the Arab world return to fighting for the Palestinian homeland?

Money is the answer. Egypt is one of the largest beneficiaries of US spending, and much of this is reliant on the peace with Israel. Even if Egypt wanted to go to war with Israel they wouldn’t be able to afford it. Egypt’s domestic issues are desperately critical. Poverty is rampant throughout and the economy is in tatters. With many tourists being put off by the scenes of a violent revolution, one of Egypt’s biggest industries has been hit hard. It is clear that now, more than ever, that Egypt could benefit from some extra money in order to stabilise itself.  This was part of Clinton’s support package and it seems that Morsi has taken it and has since give assurance to his Israeli counterpart that he will work for a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The US believe that with Egypt secured as an ally, the region is stable as far as Israel is concerned, apart from the game of nuclear cat and mouse with Iran. At this point the interdependency between Egypt and the US is just as it always has been: necessary. If Egyptians were hoping for change then it will not occur in foreign affairs. It seems that some things cannot be changed by a revolution.

Theocracy to Autocracy: Iran's Sneaky Revolution And Why Its Got Everyone So Twitchy

Much ink has been spilt over Iran in recent months, largely concerning the daunting issue of a nuclear armed Iran. Since Iran's Islamic revolution the west has long considered Iran its cultural and political polar opposite. But where has this rise in tension come from? A quasi revolution is taking place in the Islamic Republic. In its wake it is leaving a less Islamic and a decidedly less Republican Iran. The one man band causing all this kafuffle is the charismatic and unassuming Admadinejad.

The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)  is currently investigating Iranian nuclear facilities, and so far the results look promising. With P5+1 negotiations (UK, US, Germany, France, China and Russia) to take place this week a resolution to the uneasy tension may play out. But why has Iran got everyone so nervous?

Contrary to its stereotype Iran has been gradually shedding its radical garbs since its Islamic revolution against the Shah in 1979. Internally the Supreme Council of Ayatollah's have overtime become increasingly cynical due to the inflexibility of theocratic governance. In the face of a growing sense of foreign economic inadequacy, international pressure to demonstrate political legitimacy and maturity with Israel, in addition to dire bureaucratic gout  have led even radical conservatives to yield to reformist governments. Resulting in recent decades of opening up of multi-party elections, freer media apparatus, and some lack lustre economic horizon planning.

The radical visions of Khomeini's 1979 revolution were curtailed by a secession of liberal reforming governments headed by Khatami and Rafansanji which reduced  political isolation and economic encirclement felt by Tehran. But with Iran's oil revenue propping up an under achieving economy, worsened still by sky high subsidies, the reformist results were agonisingly unimpressive, although admirable. Admadinejad represents a second generation of ideologues that believe Iranian failing's are due to the wavering from Khomeini's radical vision, the liberals have misguided the Surpreme Council off the righteous path. Admadinejad wants to bring back the good ol' radical days of yore, 1979.

Admadinejad, a relative unknown, swooped to power on a wave of military and insidious security service methods. Using underhand and undemocratic methods he regained the municipalities, the parliament and the presidency in 2003, 2004 and 2005 respectively. Regaining much of the executive and legislative power back from the liberal-reformer camp. Admadinejad's radical ideology is well-grounded in his self-appointed cabinet (average age 49), with military and security services echoing his radical fervour.  So much  so  the conservative Ayatollah's fell into begrudging submission, fearful of this new military heavyweight. Admadinejad marks a departure from theocracy and a shift into a more conventional military-based regime.

There has been a large popular opposition to Admadinejad. Since his election in 2005 the 'Green Wave' has been a mass movement opposing his incompetency to govern. He is renowned for installing likeminded inept ministers, and galvanising political patronage through hand-written letters in response to his peoples pleas, a few quid in an envelope, responding in a Jim'll Fix It fashion, without the fix it.

With Admadinejads election the EU-3 nuclear talks set up by his predecessor collapsed. Admadinejads support relies on fear and the heavy influence of Iranian security and intelligence. Not only does he gain populist support from some Arab supporters and radical elements for his anti-Israeli, anti-west rhetoric, but it also fuels Tehran-Washington tension. This tension - real or not - galvanises his military position, the threat of attack impels his conservative followers to want to reach the nuclear arms threshold quicker - The point at which Israel-US forces would refrain from attacking a nuclear armed state. Obama has told Iran that if it unclenches its fist, it will find an extended hand. Something the liberal forces in Iran advocate strongly, but without avail due to Admadinejads military influence.

It can be hoped that like many authoritarian regimes, incompetent and belligerent management will stifle the production of a working bomb. Incompetency Admadinejad has in abundance. The fear is that if he continues with bumptious rhetoric, bomb or no bomb, Israel may lose their patience. Israel can only rely to a certain extent on its Arrow-2 system and nuclear triad; air, sea and land, as it has practically zero strategic depth. An Israeli premptive attack may act to solidify Tehrans pursuit of nuclear arms. The short-term does not look good for Iran with Israel, in the long-term Admadinejad's current trajectory might spark a regional nuclear arms race, a particularly unstable one.

 Another hope is that the Green Wave movement can move from only being an anti-Admadinejad to an anti system movement, signs of which have been apparent since the dubious 2009 elections. But the broad spectrum of political forces in the Green Wave will need to agree to disagree in order to rid Iran of this charming  sabre rattler and his entourage. 

‘A liberal, a moderate and a conservative walk into a bar…’

So begins a joke in yesterday’s Financial Times; it ends with the barman looking up and saying ‘Hi Mitt.’ The candidate who is now all but guaranteed to challenge President Obama in this year’s election is well characterised by this feed line. Certainly the FT seem vindicated in its interpretation that Romney is a candidate unable to make up his mind; Romney has consistently backtracked and bungled his way through the Republican primaries, leaving a heap of ammunition for Obama’s campaign to cut into hard hitting adverts indicating his indecisiveness.

This is partly true, but in essence Romney’s dithering is reflective of a wider trend in American conservatism that has been evolving since before Reagan. The growing dominance of neo-Conservatism within the Republican Party and their support base is having a telling effect on Romney, who is instinctively a moderate. In effect Romney is being forced to adopt more Rightist policies than he would like since neo-Conservatism has triumphed in taking over the American right: As a result, social issues have been pushed to the fore in the primaries, and Romney has had to adopt a belligerent and aggressive foreign policy outlook based on American exceptionalism and the aim to bring American values to the world.

As the FT has highlighted, it is with foreign policy that he is most easily able to assert that he was a true conservative, since as Governor of Massachusetts he had no foreign policy and so has had no precedent to diminish his claims. This neo-Conservative influence has been guaranteed by his foreign affairs team, which contains less realists and less diversity than under George W. Bush.

However Romney is not a natural neo-Conservative, and his domestic record highlights this. Whilst labelling Obama’s healthcare plan (‘Obamacare’) as ‘socialist’, he pre-empted Obama’s plan by introducing something similar in Massachusetts. His domestic record also indicates his willingness to debate tax rises, and on the moral front, his Mormon faith does not sit well with many Christian voters.

Essentially, Romney is being pushed right by voters who are reacting to the black, ‘socialist’ Obama. However the propagation of moral issues and the right shift of the Republican Party, who on the face of it are just reacting to this public move, has been an agenda pushed by neo-Conservatives for over two decades.

The two American parties are further apart now than they have ever been but it has been the Republicans who have most vehemently pushed ideology over pragmatism. The use of brinkmanship tactics that ultimately resulted in the downgrading of America’s credit rating is one fiscal example. Perhaps more dangerously it has been the triumph of the radical-Right agenda in the social and foreign sphere that is forcing Romney to make promises he is not keen to keep, but may have to if he is elected. 

Francois Hollande – The Unknown President?

The Socialist candidate in the 2012 French Presidential election Francois Hollande received an official endorsement this week from his former rival, Presidential candidate and the mother of his four children Segolene Royal, as ‘official’ campaigning began on Monday ahead of the first round of voting on April 22^nd. Yet little is known about Hollande outside of France; if you asked most Europeans what they know about France’s potential leader, you would most likely be met with head scratching and listless shrugs. This is in part because Hollande carries negligible international experience, and as such has been largely ignored by key European leaders on his campaign visits to Germany and the UK. His measured campaign and lack of strong Presidential personality, so beloved in post-Gaullist France, has been criticised by some as a failing to seize the initiative on his significant early poll lead, allowing his more experienced and aggressive opponent Sarkozy to make up ground.

Inevitably, President Sarkozy has relentlessly attacked his adversary on this issue, questioning his governing credentials and lack of political identity throughout the period of unofficial campaigning. Can France be entrusted to a man who has never even commanded a government ministry? Indeed, were it not for the well publicised international scandal that engulfed Dominique Strauss-Khan last year, leading to the initial favourite for the Socialist candidacy having to step aside, Hollande may well have not been here at all. This kind of personal assault has been typical of Sarkozy’s assertive political style, as his campaign has attempted to cover up the fact that he was the first president in the history of the French Fifth Republic to be less popular than their Prime Minister (Francois Fillon) and had a ‘recovering’ approval rating of merely 34% as of November 2011[i]. By comparison Hollande has largely refrained from mentioning Sarkozy at all, most significantly in his keynote speech at Bourget in January.

In times of great political uncertainty for both France and Europe, what one can be assured of is that if Hollande is elected come April, Europe will have to welcome a vastly different character from Sarkozy, the ‘bling-bling president’, to the top table. Hollande has pushed his image as an everyman of considered intellect, in comparison to the flashy showmanship and often erratic outbursts which have characterised Sarkozy’s time in office. Hollande has cast financial capitalism as his enemy and thus looked to capture much of the energy and disaffection of what Occupy would have called ‘the 99%’. In this mode Hollande has also pledged to implement a 75% top rate tax on earnings of over €1m and promised to renegotiate the European Treaty should he be elected.

Controversial as these policies have been, they have been par for the course in what has been a fractious, values lead, discourse light campaign, as neither candidate has been moved to any genuine discussion about the French economy, the countries budget deficit or the loss of its triple A credit rating last year. Hollande still has a 55% 2^nd round poll lead[ii] but the gap is narrowing. Sarkozy has now overturned Hollande’s first round lead polling at 29% to Hollande’s 26.5%[iii]. If Hollande wishes to claim victory he may have to take the initiative, as passively allowing the wily Sarkozy and the far right to dominate the current discourse with predictable posturing over immigration and crime may leave him isolated. Unless he can redirect discussion and get serious on the economy, as well as answer some of his opponents and critics challenges by showing some Presidential character and coming out of his shell; Hollande may well find himself left in the wake of the Sarkozy show.

J.P. CHESHIRE                                                                                    

---

[i] OpinionWay, November 2011

[ii] IpsosFrance, 10^th April 2012

[iii] IFOP-Fiducial, Friday April 6^th.2012

Robert McNamara and the Fog of War

Highly recommended watching for anyone with the remotest interest in 20^th century history, politics, foreign affairs etc etc. In this documentary, former US Secretary of Defense (sic) Robert McNamara gives an illuminating and highly emotive glimpse into some of the most intense instances of the Cold War: The Cuban Missile Crisis and the Vietnam conflict. McNamara was one of the most influential men in the White House during both crises: His recollections give a fascinating account of the mentality of the US government elite as they succeeded in empathising with their Russia counterparts to prevent nuclear war, but were guilty of severe misperception and misunderstanding of the situation in Vietnam. The title is a battlefield reference to such confusion, when there are so many variables that it is impossible for a rational human being to take account of all of them.

The film expertly positions the crises within the Cold War context and traces their origins to the closing of the Second World War. This is both a very accessible and fascinating film that everyone (including myself) will benefit from watching!

The White Man's Burden: More on the Kony 2012 campaign

Our treasured national poet, Rudyard Kipling, infamously referred to the welfare and development of the African people as the 'white man's burden'; something that as a superior race, was an obligation to the white Europeans who were busy 'scrambling' for Africa 150 years ago.


As mentioned in my previous post, the Kony2012 campaign is not without a hint of neo-colonialism: Its liberal and altruistic motives are no different in many ways from the justifications used by British pro-imperialists during the inter-war period. Emerging from WWI as a declining industrial power and with souring unemployment, British policy makers advocated the development of the colonies in order to stimulate British exports and alleviate the depression. This was accompanied by a second, supposedly 'selfless' line of argument that formed Britain's 'Dual Mandate' policy. With the League of Nations' blessing, Britain framed itself as the 'benevolent imperialist' who would manage the development and civilising of these new states until they were ready to do so themselves.


Assumptions of racial superiority, prevalent in earlier colonial discourse, had certainly not faded entirely by this time. More generally such arguments were premised on the assumption that Africans were unwilling or incapable of developing themselves. To make a direct comparison between the Kony2012 campaign and European colonialism is perhaps unfair; the Invisible Children campaign are certainly not suggesting a general development of Africa in order to stimulate US exports and thus ease unemployment. However it is my suspicion that many of the celebrities endorsing the campaign (whether they are black or white) assume that the west is superior to Uganda and therefore that intervention there will be beneficial. 


As an example, the video makes no mention of the success Uganda has had in forcing Kony out of the country (I have already slandered the claim that the campaign's pressure caused Kony to 'change tactics' and go into hiding). By choosing to hide this fact, it has chosen to emphasise its own success over that of the Ugandans themselves, and thus only perpetuates the belief that Africa is incapable of its own action.


Moreover it seems to claim that its intervention would appear as some sort of magic bullet to the problems of those who have been affected. I am sure that many at the Kony2012 campaign have an intricate understanding of the complexities of such issues, particularly around development; so why sell it in such a simple fashion? Those watching the video might be fooled into assuming that the propagation of western influence is always a good thing. They might become convinced that Ugandans are helpless without their support.
They will therefore be disappointed to find that, like the most benevolent of the early Christian missionaries to Africa, that western development and welfare is not universally accepted as a panacea for improving quality of life.


To condemn too much is dangerous: The possibilities of popular pressure can be harnessed by noble campaigns; holding governments more accountable for morally bankrupt policies. But this is not the place to do it. Improving the terms of trade for Africa vis-a-vis the west, or tackling corruption there would have a far bigger impact to the welfare of Africa. But such issues are too divisive and complex for popular support to agree on a decision. Conflictingly, they would serve to undermine the interests of many ordinary people in the west; so what then? The answer apparently is to stick to the black and white issues.

Viral media has formed policy makers' out of the online community.

·         The Kony 2012 project is  sparking a debate on how much collective power, through social networking, can be used to influence or make policy.

Firstly,  it is only the threats posed by the method of the Kony 2012 that  is the danger, obviously not the honourable sentiment.

Objectivity and logic  are the champions of  policy making, but now the emotionally inspired zeitgeist of social networking is playing a bigger part. The argument is not that there is no need for this type of  emotional blackmailing,  policy making should have an overture of humanism. Even so, the choice to go to war should not be for mere  public consumption. This approach may see the beginnings of a slippery and dangerous path to lynch mob-ism. Before this is disregarded as overly cynical and bleak, let me explain.

The danger is that people could be coerced by emotion and not objectivity, by playing to our heartstrings. Out of the 30 million supporters of Kony 2012, did all of them read up on the poor credentials of Invisible Children, or delve any further into the Ugandan situation? Perhaps. But the sheer numbers would cry out that they did not. So here is the risk, the people have been emotionally urged to go on a crusade against evil for reasons unselfish and admirable, but without proper consideration.

The Invisible Children run under the banner of ending war,  yet the campaign is advocating  a kind of war, a war of policing the world. All the while, they help supply the Ugandan military, and pursue a cause that would inevitably  see more military intervention all over the world, and on a moral basis rather than the 'finite' reason of self-protection. As Gordon precluded, it smacks of neo-colonialism, in a  sense  a mandate, based on the idea that the relatively few have a moral authority over the rest.

And if it is a force for good, which I think Invisible Children is, then I think that is brilliant. Nevertheless, the power of viral media may have taken over from TV as the best  controlled indoctrination tool.  The internet audience must be ever self-vigilant and critical of what they experience online, especially if it concerns decisions as significant as going to war. It makes me grumble to think that people need to see the tragic events of  Jacob juxtaposed to a cute kid doing sand angels to appreciate the horrible situation in Uganda

The Invisible Children are false advertising; in reality they are not  anti-war; emotion has betrayed the audience from investigating this. This is not a slant on the Invisible  Children's integrity, I support their noble cause, and hope that Kony is punished. However, if one man's NGO can persuade people to put aside their objectivity , and indirectly and unknowingly insight  war because of emotional propaganda, this is  a danger. "The world is not ruled by reason, but by passion, and when a man is driven to despair he is ready to smash everything  in the vague hope that a better world may arise out of the ruins." Kock-Weser Foreign Affairs Journal.  When a war is for public consumption it can be as temperamental as its people are, if it is for public protection it has some limiting factors, the perceived parameters of self defence.

Whether for good or bad,  the internet has allowed for the privileges once only bestowed on  governments and authority's to decide to go to war, to everyone online. And this everyone can be blinded by emotional propaganda. The Kony 2012 project is a good use of this emotional propaganda, but it could be used for more sinister causes. The people are blinded by emotion in this campaign, this time it is a good thing; but the new collective power of the internet, combined with  good spin doctoring can lead to people putting aside their objectivity and  picking up their pitchforks.  

Why the 'Kony 2012' campaign is doomed to failure

The recent explosion online of Invisible Children's 'Kony 2012' video has brought to the fore the possibilities of social networking in changing the political landscape. The video links itself with the use of social networking in triggering the uprisings of the recent Arab spring and its ongoing use in Syria. But the American NGO has also come under much criticism for its lack of transparency in its allocation of donor's money.

There are perhaps bigger problems still. The cause itself is admirable, and the possibility that people power can influence the course of American foreign policy and therefore the world is optimistic: Its success in bringing the Obama administration to send a task force of 100 US special forces to help train the Ugandan military is creditable. But the campaign is doomed to fail and therefore also to disappoint the thousand that have gotten involved on the back of such a possibility. Half a decade ago Kony was forced from Northern Uganda into the impassable jungles of the DRC, one of the least governed and governable regions on earth. If he wants to remain hidden there, he will do. The video claims that it was its involvement that forced Kony to 'change tactics' and go into hiding, but in truth he has been in hiding long before the American military assistance was sent.

The DRC means little, currently, to America. Though its vast untapped mineral wealth may indeed bring it to prominence in coming decades, there is no chance, no matter how much popular lobbying power, that the US will involve itself in any larger military campaign there as the video has called for. The US has little regional interest there, no real allies, and no interest in stirring conflict in another part of the globe. What is more the DRC is significantly larger then Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq, and I doubt the US military will ever try to claim, as it has done historically, that it can win a campaign there. Such a likely failure is unfortunate and will only lead to the disappointment of those who have pinned on the Kony 2012 campaign their hopes of a more effective role for popular pressure in policy making.

Moreover the campaign asks broader questions as to where to draw the line in the sand. Kony is undeniably a monster who has earned his position at the top of the ICC's list. But a campaign asking for US government intervention smacks of neo-colonialism, albeit with liberal rhetoric. When the campaign fails, what then? Do you move onto number 2 (Sudan) or number 3 (Bosco Ntaganda, also at large in the DRC)? The chasing of these criminals is morally sound but technically impossible and not in America's wider interest. The Iraq war was first justified on the removal of a comparable monster, who not only murdered thousands of Kurds but was allegedly acquiring nuclear weapons. The more likely hidden explanation for the war, based ultimately on the threat Hussein posed to regional  oil, was far more within the American public's interest than the removal of Kony, who has no oil and no large conventional weaponry. My prediction is that many within the Invisible Children NGO (a charity motivated towards ending war) were against the intervention in Iraq.

Furthermore as one observer has pointed out (http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/03/07/stop-kony-yes-but-dont-stop-asking-questions/) the video makes not one mention of Uganda's president-come-dictator Yoweri Museveni, who came into power at roughly the same time as Kony emerged. Since then Museveni has succeeded in overturning Uganda's democratic system to keep himself in power. Perhaps if he was more accountable to the Ugandan people then he would have felt more of a need to ensure the safety of tens of thousands of children in the North of his country. American efforts could be far better placed in encouraging the re-structuring of the Ugandan democratic system. As P.Bryan will point out, such an end unfortunately is far more complex and un-emotive than the black/white picture painted by the Kony 2012 campaign (and is less effectively juxtaposed next to American kids making sand-angels.)