Analysis: Stance on Egypt sends confusing message on aid
WASHINGTON — For decades, foreign armies that received U.S. assistance were on notice that toppling their freely elected civilian leaders would mean an aid suspension.
After Egypt, that seems no more, despite a law requiring just that if Washington determined a coup had taken place.
The Obama administration made a technically legal move to decide not to decide whether the Egyptian military's ouster of the country's first democratically elected president was a “coup.”
That's now created a wide opening to skirt legislation intended to support the rule of law, good governance and human rights around the world — principles long deemed inviolable American values.
Previous administrations have endured criticism for appearing to pay them only lip service. But this new and unprecedented finding sends a confusing message that probably will resonate beyond Egypt to other fragile — and perhaps not so fragile — democracies where soldiers are unhappy with ballot box results or the policies of their elected commanders in chief.
“The law does not require us to make a formal determination ... as to whether a coup took place, and it is not in our national interest to make such a determination,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said on Friday. She spoke in the administration's only on-camera news briefing a day after members of Congress were informed privately that the law was no longer necessarily applicable.
That interpretation of the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act might come as a surprise to juntas and militaries in Mali, Madagascar, Honduras and Pakistan. All of them, and others, have coped with aid suspensions over the past decade or so because of coups. In each case, there was a presumption that the United States would make a coup determination based on the law, and it did.
The law allows aid to resume only when a democratically elected government is restored. Exceptions have been made before, notably in the case of Pakistan.
Aid to Pakistan was suspended in 1999 when Army chief Pervez Musharraf ousted then-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, now back in the job, in a bloodless coup. The assistance was restored by an act of Congress in 2001 for national security reasons before democracy returned after the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States.
Psaki would or could not say why the administration had decided against such a solution in the case of Egypt, clearly a vital American ally in the Middle East.
But such a fix would have required a determination that the Egyptian army had ousted President Mohamed Morsy in a coup, and that step would have triggered suspension of the $1.5 billion in aid the United States provides each year. Of that, $1.3 billion goes to the military.
Conversely, a determination that a coup had not occurred would have flown in the face of the uncontested facts that the army removed Morsy from power and detained him incommunicado in an undisclosed location for weeks.
There is little to dispute in White House, State Department and Pentagon pronouncements that the situation in Egypt is complex and difficult. Amid the bloody violence that erupted on Saturday in Cairo and Alexandria — at least 65 protesters were killed — Secretary of State John Kerry reiterated the call for Egyptian authorities to respect the right of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression, calling them “essential components of the inclusive democratic process they have publicly embraced.”
Yet the administration's decision to selectively apply what had been a hallmark of support for democracy would seem to raise questions about its stated unwavering commitment to that ideal around the globe.
Matthew Lee covers the State Department and foreign policy for The Associated Press.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- McCarthy withdraws candidacy for speaker
- Volkswagen exec ready to testify in D.C.
- Scientists call coral bleaching global crisis
- DNA repair research earns 3 Nobel Prize
- Defense bill heads to Obama under threat
- Speaker’s job contest may be start of battles
- High court poised to rule against Kansas trio
- GOP-led House authorizes special panel to investigate Planned Parenthood
- Guantanamo detainee Kamin to be freed after 11 years
- Former Massey CEO’s character debated: Profit hungry or safety conscious?
- Broadening police collection of license plate photos spurs privacy discussion