Soc (2014) 51:68–86 DOI 10.1007/s12115-013-9740-3 GLOBAL SOCIETY US “Partnership” with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and its Effect on Civil Society and Human Rights Anne R. Pierce Published online: 18 December 2013 # The Author(s) 2013. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract Looking at Egypt before, during and after the Arab With the world reeling from the fascist assault, and facing the Spring, this paper examines the intersection of Christian Copts, new threat of Soviet expansionism, America asserted influ- the Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptian army, moderate Muslims ence as never before. While forming alliances and economic and secular groups. In turn, it examines the Obama administra- and strategic partnerships throughout the world, the United tion’s policies toward Egypt. It discloses the surprising finding States also actively promoted democratic principles and that the only consistent aspect of the administration’s policy sought to expand the number of representative democracies. toward Egypt has been outreach to and engagement with the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Reagan all insisted that Muslim Brotherhood. At no time before or after the our principles were what made our power important, and Brotherhood’s ascent to prominence in Egyptian politics and espoused those principles in their speeches and documents. society did the administration make support of the Brotherhood There were times when the United States sullied its own cause conditional. At no time did it use US leverage - given the massive and credibility by making its enemy’s enemy a friend. But, the amount of financial and military aid Egypt was depending on, overriding goal during the postwar years was the expansion of and given the new Egyptian government’s desire for prestige in the realm of political and economic freedom. Testimony to that the world community–to pressure the Morsi government to emphasis: Most European and East Asian countries went from respect human rights, religious liberty and the impartial rule of the postwar period of instability and hardship to democratic law. Arguing that American foreign policy at its best is rooted in advances, economic prosperity, and relative external security. democratic ideals, this paper asks whether the United States, Europe and East Asia benefited from the American defense while respecting that Egyptians must choose their leaders and shield, from economic interaction with and aid from the United their political system, could have done more to encourage a States, and from the projection of American/democratic ideals. positive strategic, moral and political outcome. When the Cold War ended with communist dictatorships col- lapsing one after the other, this was a victory not just for our Keywords American foreign policy . Human rights . Rule of military and material power, but also for the human rights and law . Civil society . Barack Obama . Hillary Clinton . Arab individual rights that the free world, at its best, embodies. Spring . Muslim Brotherhood . Christian Copts . Egypt . In spite of widespread assumptions to the contrary, even in the Mohamed Morsi . Abdel Fattah al-Sisi Middle East, post-World War II American policies included humanitarian and liberalization efforts. The United States American foreign policy at its best combines moral and prac- pressured European powers to help prepare former enemy terri- “ ” tical concerns. It emphasizes the security of the free world tories for self-rule. Roosevelt appointed Patrick J. Hurley to “ ” (necessary in a world where global threats lie just beneath the map out ways to seek free governments and free enterprise, “ ” surface) and the principles of freedom (essential to expanding and to put an end to exploitation and imperialism. Truman both the realm of human dignity and political liberty.) As the decided to support the creation of a Jewish state in Israel and “ United States became a world power after World War II, it stated his belief that the peoples of the Middle East were de- ” did so in terms that advanced both our defenses and our ideals. serving of post-war political independence. Eisenhower went so far as to support Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser against the Europeans–even after Nasser shocked the world by announc- A. R. Pierce (*) ing Egypt’s nationalization of the Suez Canal. When English and Care of Department of Sociology (Attn: Jonathan Imber), Wellesley College, Pendleton East, 106 Central Street, Wellesley, MA 02481, French planes bombed Egyptian airfields in response, the United USA States condemned the assault. But the United States would not be e-mail: [email protected] rewarded for supporting Egypt. Soc (2014) 51:68–86 69 Increasingly under the sway of Soviet power and extremist governments. The Iraq War did not stem the tide of discontent; ideals, many post World War II “self-determination” move- instead, democracy movements grew during the Bush years. ments in the Middle East, including Nasser’s, started to define The war did cause major resentment in the region, but so did themselves less in terms of political freedom than in terms of realpolitik policies which had caused the United States to form Soviet-style “liberation” from capitalist, western powers, in- reluctant alliances with Middle Eastern dictators. Indeed, cluding the United States. By the time of Kennedy’s presiden- claims that the United States supported governments that cy, post-colonial regimes in Syria, Egypt, Iraq and elsewhere denied their people rights caused some middle easterners to had devolved into dictatorships. As political and religious turn to Islamic political movements as opposed to more extremism rose, it was increasingly tempting to befriend au- secular/Western ones. Claims of U.S. collusion with repres- thoritarian leaders who could help the United States hold sive governments had been one of the selling points of Al extremists and/or communists at bay. Such was the case with Qaeda itself. the US alliance with Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak, a It was thus Western intellectuals, not Middle Easterners, repressive leader whose transgressions the US mostly who were upset by the Bush administration’s focus upon the overlooked for the sake of Egypt’s cooperation on Israeli Middle East’s “freedom deficit.” As the Arab Human peace issues, terrorism and regional security. Development Report and other internal surveys showed, sen- Still, U.S. involvement in the Middle East continued to timent against the freedom deficit was overwhelming in the include financial aid, health, infrastructure and agriculture Middle East itself by the time President Obama and Secretary projects, and support of democratization. Some are so bold Clinton took office. Unlike American intellectuals, Arab in- as to argue that, in spite of alleged American antipathy to tellectuals who contributed to the post 9/11 Arab Human Islam, most of America’s recent involvement in the Middle Development Report pushed the idea of democracy, stating, East has been intended to help Muslim people. Asserts Robert “The freedom deficit [in the Arab region] undermines human Lieber, “Remarkably, most of the post-Cold War American development and is one of the most painful manifestations of military interventions abroad have been to save Muslim pop- lagging political development.”2 Sentiment for more freedom ulations from starvation, ethnic cleansing, civil war, invasion, was not limited to intellectuals. As Shibley Telhami shows in and oppression–as large numbers of Kuwaitis, Somalis, his analysis of public opinion polls, most people wanted Kurds, Bosnians, Kosovars, Iraqi Shiites, and the people of human rights and democratization. Stated Telhami regarding Afghanistan, especially women, can attest. Moreover, the the Arab Spring, “It was hardly surprising to discover Arabs absorptive character of the United States has made it far better wereangrywiththeirrulers.Infact,everyyear,after than any of the countries of Europe or Asia in accommodating conducting the Annual Arab Public Opinion Poll in Egypt, and integrating Muslims”1 Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, Lebanon, and the United By the time of the George W. Bush presidency, there were Arab Emirates, the question that leapt from the findings was two currents shaking and transforming the Middle East–one not, ‘When will Arabs have reason to revolt?’ but ‘Why toward Islamic extremism, the other toward political liberali- haven’t Arabs revolted yet?”3 zation. Many in the west were blind to the later. They claimed They would revolt soon thereafter, when the “Arab Spring” that Arabs, being culturally different from the West, didn’t shook an entire region and opened up entirely new possibili- want democracy, and wouldn’tknowwhattodowithitifthey ties. What a pity that the Obama administration was complete- had it. They thought Middle Eastern nations were not “ready” ly unprepared for the situation and incapable of nurturing or for democracy because they had no democratic traditions. influencing it. It is, of course, true that there was a parallel (Never mind that post-World War II Germany and Japan movement in the Arab world, for the Islamization of govern- defied that logic; these Democratic allies had “traditions” that ment, the imposition of Sharia Law and the conversion of were far from democratic.) In addition, with cultural and infidels. With this the case, why wouldn’t the United States moral relativism very much in vogue, influential intellectuals use its very substantial leverage and the steadfast enunciation