Stop using taxpayer money to aid Egypt's Morsy
July 2, 2013 -- Updated 1635 GMT
Supporters of Egyptian President
Mohamed Morsy hold sticks and wear protective gear during training
outside a mosque in Cairo on Tuesday, July 2. Counterprotests erupted
after anti-Morsy demonstrators demanded that Morsy resign and threatened
to march on the presidential palace if he doesn't step down Tuesday
evening.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
- Rand Paul: Why is the U.S. supporting Egyptian President Mohammed Morsy?
- Paul: I argued that Morsy is not someone the U.S. should necessarily embrace
- He says despite Egyptians' discontent with Morsy, we continue to give him aid
- Paul: What kind of example do we set when we side with the enemies of freedom?
Editor's note: Rand Paul, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Kentucky.
(CNN) -- On the one-year anniversary of President
Mohammed Morsy's inauguration, tens of thousands of Egyptians marched in
the streets of Cairo in an effort to remove him from office. The Associated Press
described the protesters as "an array of secular and liberal Egyptians,
moderate Muslims, Christians — and what the opposition says is a broad
sector of the general public that has turned against the Islamists."
You would think these
protesters represent an Egypt more favorable or in line with American
interests. Unfortunately, our government supports the current regime of
Morsy and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Earlier this year, we sent Egypt's
government 20 F-16 fighter jets, Abrams tanks and other military aid.
Sen. Rand Paul
I introduced an amendment
that would halt the transfer of advanced weapons to Egypt. I argued
that the situation in that country was too volatile and that Morsy was
not someone the United States should necessarily embrace.
My amendment was defeated in the Senate, 79 to 19.
Last week, President
Obama deployed more than 400 Army soldiers to Egypt as part of a
nine-month "peacekeeping mission," which could include responding to
protests—or even riots—led potentially by Egyptians seeking a more
secular or moderate government.
Our government insists on calling Morsy an ally. Morsy, on the other hand, has called Jews "bloodsuckers" and has said they are the "descendants of apes and pigs."
The Obama administration announced in March
that we no longer had enough money to continue giving White House tours
because of the sequester. That same month, Secretary of State John
Kerry met with Morsy and pledged $250 million in additional aid to Egypt.
Before America supported
the Muslim Brotherhood, we supported Morsy's predecessor, Hosni Mubarak.
For decades, we aided the Mubarak regime to the tune of about $60
billion in total.
When Egyptians protested Mubarak in January 2011, F-16 jets were used by Mubarak to intimidate protesters. Those jets were supplied to Egypt by the United States. When hundreds of
thousands of Egyptians rallied in Tahir Square to protest three decades
of martial law, Mubarak doused them with tear gas made in Pennsylvania and paid for with American taxpayer's money.
Mubarak abused and
tortured his people for decades, while we subsidized his government. As
Egyptians marched in the streets to remove this dictator from power in
early 2011, former Vice President Dick Cheney said we should stand by
Mubarak and called him our "good friend."
For many Egyptians, the
United States was Mubarak. In their eyes, we were the same. To some, we
are now undoubtedly Morsy. Indeed, the weapons that were once given to
Mubarak or bought with U.S. dollars are now in the hands of the Muslim
Brotherhood.
Egypt is just one
example of our misguided foreign policy. There are multiple examples of
our government aiding and abetting despotic regimes in ways that
ultimately work against American interests.
The same Washington leaders who were eager to aid Mubarak, and now Morsy, were also once the loudest voices for supporting Libyan dictator Moammar
Gadhafi. They are the same Democrat and Republican hawks who later
insisted we back the Libyan rebels. They are the same people who now
demand we fund the Syrian rebels, even though al-Nusra and others who
belong to the resistance are also affiliated with al Qaeda.
The problem with
constantly intervening in these troubled parts of the world is that
there are often no clear good guys or bad guys. Today's ally can quickly
become tomorrow's enemy. This should be a paramount and obvious
concern, but in Washington it is almost always treated as an
afterthought.
Also, what kind of
message does funding despots send to the rest of the world? When Mubarak
was our "good friend," he was certainly no friend to the Egyptian
people. Judging by the protests in Cairo on Sunday, the same can
probably be said of Morsy's regime.
You cannot give people liberty. They must fight for it themselves.
People around the world
seek to emulate and embrace our concept of freedom. America should
continue to lead, something we often do best by example.
But what kind of example
do we set when we side with the enemies of freedom? How can we have
influence in troubled parts of the world when we cuddle up to regimes
responsible for much of the trouble?
No comments:
Post a Comment