SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi at the Presidential Palace in Cairo, Egypt, on July 22, 2014. (Photo: US Department of State)
In a piece about Secretary of State John Kerry's efforts to build a coalition to support the attack the Islamic State fighters in Iraq and Syria, Time magazine's Michael Crowley (9/18/14) made a curious assertion about the US government's position on Egypt:
When Kerry appeared with Egypt's foreign minister later in the day, the Egyptian seemed to set a price: increased US assistance against Islamic radicals within Egypt and in neighboring Libya. And Kerry was forced to respond gingerly when asked about local human-rights abuses, a longtime US concern in the repressive country, saying Egypt would take steps "on an appropriate schedule that is controlled by Egyptians, not by me."
The idea that the United States is being forced to suspend any "longtime concerns" about Egyptian human rights is hard to square with reality. For several decades, the United States considered brutal dictator Hosni Mubarak an ally; the initial US government response to the 2011 uprisings that would remove him from power was supportive (FAIR Media Advisory, 2/1/11). The New York Times noted (1/27/11) that "Mr. Obama praised Mr. Mubarak as a partner but said he needed to undertake political and economic reforms," while Vice President Joe Biden challenged the notion that Mubarak was a dictator at all (FAIR Blog, 1/28/11).
And WikiLeaks cables showed that the Obama administration was backing off even making public criticisms of the regime's human rights abuses; the New York Times (1/27/11) reported that the documents
show in detail how diplomats repeatedly raised concerns with Egyptian officials about jailed dissidents and bloggers, and kept tabs on reports of torture by the police.
But they also reveal that relations with Mr. Mubarak warmed up because President Obama played down the public "name and shame" approach of the Bush administration. A cable prepared for a visit by Gen. David H. Petraeus in 2009 said the United States, while blunt in private, now avoided "the public confrontations that had become routine over the past several years."
Of course, the Egypt story didn't end with Mubarak's ouster. Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Morsi won presidential elections in 2012, only to be removed by a military coup a year later. It is believed that as many as 2,500 were killed by Egyptian forces following the coup (The Nation, 5/8/14). The United States did not condemn the coup, and would eventually welcome former military leader Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi, who in elections staged by the coup regime this year won an incredible, Mubarak-like 96 percent of the vote.
US leaders occasionally issue statements about their concern for human rights in a given country. But when judging a government's actual position, the clear, decades-long record should be matter more than the rhetoric-especially to journalists.
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
In a piece about Secretary of State John Kerry's efforts to build a coalition to support the attack the Islamic State fighters in Iraq and Syria, Time magazine's Michael Crowley (9/18/14) made a curious assertion about the US government's position on Egypt:
When Kerry appeared with Egypt's foreign minister later in the day, the Egyptian seemed to set a price: increased US assistance against Islamic radicals within Egypt and in neighboring Libya. And Kerry was forced to respond gingerly when asked about local human-rights abuses, a longtime US concern in the repressive country, saying Egypt would take steps "on an appropriate schedule that is controlled by Egyptians, not by me."
The idea that the United States is being forced to suspend any "longtime concerns" about Egyptian human rights is hard to square with reality. For several decades, the United States considered brutal dictator Hosni Mubarak an ally; the initial US government response to the 2011 uprisings that would remove him from power was supportive (FAIR Media Advisory, 2/1/11). The New York Times noted (1/27/11) that "Mr. Obama praised Mr. Mubarak as a partner but said he needed to undertake political and economic reforms," while Vice President Joe Biden challenged the notion that Mubarak was a dictator at all (FAIR Blog, 1/28/11).
And WikiLeaks cables showed that the Obama administration was backing off even making public criticisms of the regime's human rights abuses; the New York Times (1/27/11) reported that the documents
show in detail how diplomats repeatedly raised concerns with Egyptian officials about jailed dissidents and bloggers, and kept tabs on reports of torture by the police.
But they also reveal that relations with Mr. Mubarak warmed up because President Obama played down the public "name and shame" approach of the Bush administration. A cable prepared for a visit by Gen. David H. Petraeus in 2009 said the United States, while blunt in private, now avoided "the public confrontations that had become routine over the past several years."
Of course, the Egypt story didn't end with Mubarak's ouster. Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Morsi won presidential elections in 2012, only to be removed by a military coup a year later. It is believed that as many as 2,500 were killed by Egyptian forces following the coup (The Nation, 5/8/14). The United States did not condemn the coup, and would eventually welcome former military leader Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi, who in elections staged by the coup regime this year won an incredible, Mubarak-like 96 percent of the vote.
US leaders occasionally issue statements about their concern for human rights in a given country. But when judging a government's actual position, the clear, decades-long record should be matter more than the rhetoric-especially to journalists.
In a piece about Secretary of State John Kerry's efforts to build a coalition to support the attack the Islamic State fighters in Iraq and Syria, Time magazine's Michael Crowley (9/18/14) made a curious assertion about the US government's position on Egypt:
When Kerry appeared with Egypt's foreign minister later in the day, the Egyptian seemed to set a price: increased US assistance against Islamic radicals within Egypt and in neighboring Libya. And Kerry was forced to respond gingerly when asked about local human-rights abuses, a longtime US concern in the repressive country, saying Egypt would take steps "on an appropriate schedule that is controlled by Egyptians, not by me."
The idea that the United States is being forced to suspend any "longtime concerns" about Egyptian human rights is hard to square with reality. For several decades, the United States considered brutal dictator Hosni Mubarak an ally; the initial US government response to the 2011 uprisings that would remove him from power was supportive (FAIR Media Advisory, 2/1/11). The New York Times noted (1/27/11) that "Mr. Obama praised Mr. Mubarak as a partner but said he needed to undertake political and economic reforms," while Vice President Joe Biden challenged the notion that Mubarak was a dictator at all (FAIR Blog, 1/28/11).
And WikiLeaks cables showed that the Obama administration was backing off even making public criticisms of the regime's human rights abuses; the New York Times (1/27/11) reported that the documents
show in detail how diplomats repeatedly raised concerns with Egyptian officials about jailed dissidents and bloggers, and kept tabs on reports of torture by the police.
But they also reveal that relations with Mr. Mubarak warmed up because President Obama played down the public "name and shame" approach of the Bush administration. A cable prepared for a visit by Gen. David H. Petraeus in 2009 said the United States, while blunt in private, now avoided "the public confrontations that had become routine over the past several years."
Of course, the Egypt story didn't end with Mubarak's ouster. Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Morsi won presidential elections in 2012, only to be removed by a military coup a year later. It is believed that as many as 2,500 were killed by Egyptian forces following the coup (The Nation, 5/8/14). The United States did not condemn the coup, and would eventually welcome former military leader Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi, who in elections staged by the coup regime this year won an incredible, Mubarak-like 96 percent of the vote.
US leaders occasionally issue statements about their concern for human rights in a given country. But when judging a government's actual position, the clear, decades-long record should be matter more than the rhetoric-especially to journalists.