Why Egypt Doesn't Trust Us

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/07/opinion/la-oe-meisler-prodemocracy-20120306


      This article just points out more reasons as to why countries abroad may have a distaste for the Western supported push for democracy.  Going back to the 1950s'-60's, American has been known for covert operations that lose the trust of many people. During the Cold War the CIA had set up fake foundations to secretly give money to private organizations that were non-communist, most people had no idea what was going on and when these operations were exposed, naturally it caused a huge amount of embarrassment for America causing President Johnson to cut funding. Yet, somehow another similar group was created, the National Endowment for Democracy in place of the CIA program that went sour. Legally this group was set up to divide money between four major groups within the United States that were selected to promote equal participation of the major American ideologies and interests. These four groups included The Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the AFL-CIO and the United States Chamber of Commerce. Although handling money abroad is in fact a sensitive subject, especially with a recent past of mishandling, the newly developed group should have been very careful, yet in American tradition, the endowment went awry.
     
        France was given $1.5 million, to the AFL-CIO for a program in France and due to the close relationship between France and the U.S. the endowment didn't feel the need to say where the funds were going. MISTAKE. Irving Brown, the man in charge of the money to fund anti-communist movements, even though the Communist Party only held a mere 10% of the electorate. Clearly embarrassed, the U.S. denied that it was a government program, but  interestingly enough, all of the money came from the government.

      So it is understandable that Egypt may not trust the United States when it comes to funding.  U.S organizations are under scrutiny for creating unrest with illegal means of foreign funding, and they are all connected to the endowment. The GOP's International Republican Institute and the Democratic Party's Nation Democratic Institute are two main players in the endowment. Under the Clinton Administration, as a way to clear America's public opinion after the incident in Somalia leaving 18 American soldiers dead, he would often toss the blame at Boutros-Ghali the U.N. Secretary Genera. The Secretary General also used as a scapegoat by Bob Dole, when oddly enough the U.N. was not the supplier of troops, America was. Overall there seems to constantly be finger pointing and mishandling of funds when dealing with democracy abroad, giving countries another reason to mistrust foreign intervention and "aid".

To Protect Sovereignty or to Protect Lives

           The Responsibility to Protect Act (R2P) is the international communities responsibility to protect countries that cannot protect themselves. Prior to this, there is often a debate stemming back to the Treaty of Westphalia, as to if you should intervene somewhere and defy that sovereign nations rights, or ignore those rights to help the people that country is harming. The R2P narrows it down to say that you may only intervene in situation of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, or crimes against humanity. If a sovereign nation is trying to wipe out a whole selection of people, or any other atrocities, it should cancel out their rights as a sovereign nation. Now, the R2P sounds great but just like any other initiative, there will be a few issues. Where is it worth intervening? Is it worth risking the lives of our own troops?

In Myanmar, the Burmese junta, the Tatadawm and other armed groups under GOVERNMENT control are committing terrible human rights violations against ethnic as well as religious minorities including murder, torture, rape, forced labor and sexual abuse. The EU and the UN intervened in Myanmar, but why didn't others gather a stronger front? Under the R2P, the international community expressed concern over the safety of populations in Burma. Many countries denounced the junta and called for an end to government-perpetrated human rights abuses. The US, France, and the UK tightened economic sanctions on the regime and Japan threatened to cut aid to the country. This sovereignty vs saving lives issue has many loop holes, but overall, internationally, protection of lives is far more important that respecting the countries committing these heinous crimes.

The Decline of American Client States (The Atlantic)

Afghanistan
Foreign Assistance: $3.2 billion
U.S. Troops: 99,000
Strategic Value: Counter-terrorism
Status: Migraines in Washington

Pakistan
Foreign Assistance: $2.9 billion
U.S. Troops: 133 (officially)
Strategic Value: Afghan war, counter-terrorism, Pakistan-India peace
Status: Client relationship at risk

Iraq
Foreign Assistance: $2.4 billion
U.S. Troops: 46,000
Strategic Value: Counter-terrorism, bulwark against Iran, not falling into chaos
Status: Mixed

Israel
Foreign Assistance: $3.1 billion
U.S. Troops: 35
Strategic Value: Israel-Palestine peace, Middle East peace
Status: Migraines in Washington

Saudi Arabia 
Foreign Assistance: None
U.S. Troops: 555
Strategic Value: Oil, counter-terrorism, bulwark against Iran
Status: Client relationship at risk



        There are many reasons for the decline in U.S. client states. Some reasons include that the U.S. has a habit of choosing the most down trodden states, places where they can be the "hero", or because our democratic movements are pressuring the client states to adhere to popular domestic will instead of giving our foreign guidance.  The article seems mention that clientelism was doomed from the start and I agree, it just seems to be a milder, more politically correct form of colonization. In a way, The United States is pushing their way of governing, democracy, we don't exactly help the people but support less then ideal regime leaders in return for goods (Saudi Arabia and oil) as well as strategic geographical and political reasons to help counter terrorism. Now again, this is my personal opinion and it may not be correct, but these are some reasons why we are losing client states. Being labeled a client state seems to be a negative thing, you are a weak nation that needs the help of a larger state, in these 5 cases, you need the help of America, which may or may not always be a good thing. In the case of Israel it is a great thing, you receive that most aid out of all of the Middle Eastern countries, you get the best and most updated military support and equipment, being a U.S. client is awesome for you. However, the relationship within Pakistan is a growing mount of tension. Not only was the discovery of bin Laden only a short distance from Pakistan's West Point, but Mike Mullen, the Joint Chiefs Chairman accused Pakistan of sponsering the Haqqani network known to be aligned with the Taliban, and even labeled it as a "veritable rm" of Pakistani military intelligence. These client states seem more like game board pieces in America's security game then a nice "give and take" relationship.

U.S Foreign "Aid"

The United States sends foreign aid to numerous countries in the Middle East, yet, those countries are starting to lose support in the aid they are receiving. According to the Abu Dhabi Gallup poll, 52% of Egyptians oppose any form of U.S. economic aid at all. Which I understand because, well, we tend to support some leaders that don't exactly make sound decisions when it comes to helping grow their country. A focus needs to be taken away from directly funding leaders, to helping support the people and their economies in order to stimulate the process of the Arab Spring. We had a top-down economic aid approach, which seemed to never actually reach the bottom. So, we have changed our approach to a bottom-up system, supporting civil society, investing in small enterprises and hopefully allowing for bureaucracies to grow. That sounds all well and fine, except that Congress seems to be ignoring countries with a fairly stable system in place that just need an extra financial boost, such a Morocco, while handing out large sums of money to countries like Egypt that does not even have the appropriate institutions in place to properly use the money we are giving them to "boost their economies through bottom-up programs". This misappropriation of funds is hurting not only the countries that need help and can grow substantially from it, but it hurts the U.S. budget as well. It seems as though we have the idea of support, but we can never actually put money in the right places.

 One of the biggest issues with U.S. foreign aid seems to be the constant battle of defense and security spending over development spending in countries in the Middle East. It was reported that $2 billion of the $3.5 billion sent abroad is specifically spent on military assistance. It is in the best interest of the United States to be putting more money into defense in certain countries in the Middle East, allowing countries such as Lebanon to hold back defensively against groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.  It is evident that these countries need more then just military assistance, in recent demonstrations in Israel, the people need social programs as well as military aid. The people of the Arab Spring didn't revolt (in any country) because their military did not have enough support, they were upset about strong hold regimes, lack of resources, and overall poor quality of life established by their leaders. They don't want more protection from external forces, they want help and support for building their own ways of life, they want jobs to support their families, health care, and opposition to regimes that violate human rights to an extreme. It seems that the citizens of these countries truly are not asking for anything spectacular, just some help being able to get on their feet financially and actually have a say in their governments.  Yet, U.S. "aid" is not exactly meeting their needs, causing the countries we support to lose interest, and faith in the "support" we are offering to boost their economies.

 WikiLeaks are a great source of ammunition for pinning nations against each other, or their own people. Not everything in government can be transparent for the everybody and their mother to see, or else nothing would truly get done. Politics are not always rainbows and unicorns, so those matter are worked out behind closed documents  or so you think. Thanks to WIkiLeaks, the average person can take a closer look into the personality of their government. Not only Americans have been effected by these leaks either.

 InTony Karon's article, you see Middle Eastern nations being pitted against each other in the matter of Iran's nuclear weapons. Many nations secretly support Iran, but say that they do not. Why lie? Because it is bad for public opinion. If Iran were to have nuclear weapons, it would raise hell not only in the Middle East, where Iran would love to exercise its nuclear power, but in the United States as well. Also, backing Iran's nuclear armament would go against American ideals, most likely causing a U.S aided country to, well, lose U.S. aid for its people. It was interesting to me that Karon pointed out, that based off of this year's Univeristy of Maryland poll of Arab opinion, that 57% of poll takers support Iran in obtaining nuclear weapons and think it would positively effect their region. But the way I see it, is that giving a rather "grumpy" country nuclear weapons is just asking for chaos and destruction, coercion and something to hold over the people's head. In weak regimes with bad neighborhoods, they are already expressing their support for Iran;s nuclear rights and are trying to avoid the U.N. at the same time.

Basically, WikiLeaks are a great way to see a country's true feelings on a matter. They put out these cables, obviously assuming that no one except for the intended recipient will see them. Welcome to the 21st century guys.  These leaks not only contradict what a nation SAYS and what a nation truly THINKS, or thinks they should say to get a response.  The huge contrasting gap is worrisome especially in less stable nations, it is growing harder to get a read on what their intentions are. It seems though, that this is a growing trend in not just politics abroad but politics even on the smallest scale; say what sounds good in public but hide what you really feel to stay in power. It almost seems to me that, these governments abroad lie in public in order to have U.S. support, but we know where they stand thanks to private cables and conversations. The United States has a funny way of not practicing what they preach, and it is a complete and total embarrassment to what our country was founded on.  Transparency seems impossible when dealing with international politics, they all operate behind closed doors. So, is your government doing what is truly best for "the people" or what is best for their own satisfaction?

WikiLeaks

 WikiLeaks are a great source of ammunition for pinning nations against each other, or their own people. Not everything in government can be transparent for the everybody and their mother to see, or else nothing would truly get done. Politics are not always rainbows and unicorns, so those matter are worked out behind closed documents  or so you think. Thanks to WIkiLeaks, the average person can take a closer look into the personality of their government. Not only Americans have been effected by these leaks either.

 InTony Karon's article, you see Middle Eastern nations being pitted against each other in the matter of Iran's nuclear weapons. Many nations secretly support Iran, but say that they do not. Why lie? Because it is bad for public opinion. If Iran were to have nuclear weapons, it would raise hell not only in the Middle East, where Iran would love to exercise its nuclear power, but in the United States as well. Also, backing Iran's nuclear armerment

Power Politics- Another Game

      This article is all about what you must do as a leader to hold onto power, seen more so from the view of a dictator and how democrats fall into similar traits. Bueno de Mesquita highlights a few key points that he believes makes politics what they are.
    Dependency is his first issue. He states that having to rely on others to keep you in power is a downfall, which completely contradicts the meaning of a democracy; for the people, by the people. The second, related issue, is that as a leader, you want a pool of people to call on to support you. It is easier to chose weak people to support you because without you, they have nothing. With that being said, places were leaders are using their people for personal gain, typically don't have fairly run elections, like in the case of Russia, everyone knew Putin was going to win, so why bother? Well you bother because this "inner circle  of support is almost like a ploy, you need this circle to know that they can be replaced.  Politics have always reminded me of high school,  a bunch of power hungry kids doing whatever they can to get their way.

     So, once you've obtained this inner circle, you need to tax the crap out of these people in order to get yourself some cash, and give yourself some room for bribery. With high taxes come two constraints; if the people don't work, there is not money for the leader, and if you tax them too high they'll eventually get to the point of desperation and revolt because they have nothing to lose. So, with that being said, push them just far enough that they can keep working, but not too far so you don't have a disastrous revolution on your hands.

     Keeping your cronies loyal to you is a big deal, you obviously don't want them supporting anyone else, so you use, you guessed it, money to "buy their love", at quite a cheap price at that. You want to give out as little money as possible to make the people happy in order to keep your own wallet stuffed. There is also the subject of reward, how do you reward your coalition? A public good, something that everyone can benefit from. The alternative however, is private rewards that only help those of which that keep your regime going. Now, democrats by nature, have to rely on huge groups of constituents for support and privately bribing all of them would cost far more then a public good, making a park for underprivileged kids or something lovely. The smaller you keep you inner circle, the less you need to spend on private goods. Every leader used public and private goods and it works in a balancing act. The bigger the coalition, the less private goods and more public goods. The smaller the coalition the less public goods, and more private goods.

     The general theme for power politics is that most democratic rules have to please the people, whereas a dictatorship only needs to minimally please a few of them with as little resources as they can use, and if the people aren't pleased, well, replace them with new people who "need" you.

Independence. Your Friends. Your Best Friends.

Modernization in the Middle East

           The United States seems to constantly be "helping to rebuild" some nation abroad. Yet, in the Middle East, American support doesn't always seem to be having as positive of a reaction as we hope for. Presidencies from Eisenhower, to Kennedy and beyond have always had a policy of "reform, develop, and modernize" as a way to promote evolutionary change and suppress revolutionary change.  Now, this looks good on paper, give military and economic support to help promote growth in these countries abroad, like for instance the support for the Shah of Iran. Which ended up turning into not only a repressive regime with secret police forces and missing people, people that had an opinion about the way the government was behaving, being killed and kidnapped with American financial and arms support.

           Just like every other country, American must protect its on assets and conduct itself in their best interests. We preach to be a country of peace , justice, and democracy promotion, yet we still find ourselves supporting war lords and oppressive regime leaders for our own personal gain whether it be Anti-Soviet agendas or protecting oil resources. It sometimes seem as though the more the West tries influences the Middle East, the more people seem to pull away, especially political leaders who seem to harbor a range of distaste for anything that progressively democratic or that may take away from their power. This is seen with Iranian Hostage crisis, people where so upset with the Shah and pro-Khomeini gunmen took the American embassy workers hostage.

 The United State's approach to achieving  economic development and westernization is to meant to support political stability   in pro-American regimes. Many programs are designed to raise the living standards in countries abroad  but in areas with social, political and economic unrest, it tends to fizzle out and lead to  even more discontent by the citizens who are hoping for change and end up being effected directly by the corruption and power struggle of their political leaders. U.S. foreign policy looks good on paper, but in actuality it just seems like another way to keep resources under close control by dismantling and re-instating new governments, supplying money meant for a good cause but that ends in corruption and unrest instead.

CIA Cannot Foresee It All

      Often times we, as Americans, hold the CIA and other agencies to a very high standard. But at the same time, the CIA is made up of humans, not computers. Analysts try their best to make the right decision but you cannot always predict the outcome.  For example,  the case of the 1973 Arab-Israeli Way. Kovar has to make the executive decision of whether or not a Syrian War plan was in fact a threat or not. There were numerous signs that showed Egypt and Syria with potential to attack Israel.
        Many analysts that make this mistake openly acknowledge that they had made a terrible mistake, one that they must live with their entire lives. In Kovar's case, downplaying Syria and Egypt's intentions the eve of war, was his biggest regret. Yet somehow it seems that the CIA is still having a hard time identifying the future of the Middle East. I believe it has to do with the fact that the Middle East seems to just erupt into chaos when we least expect it, well that's how I feel as a citizen. There is always turmoil in countries with lack of governmental leadership, health care, and especially in an area where resources are used against each other. You have countries like Palestine and Israel constantly at each other's throats with everyone's hands in the middle. I think sometimes it is easy to be complacent with an issue that has been going on for awhile.