Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Egypt Follows Israel, Eyeing U.S. Aid without Pre-Conditions

Egypt and Israel may be at a crossroads in their relations, but each is violating the terms of its U.S. military assistance.

Print Friendly

Inter Press Service

The United States, the largest provider of military aid to Israel, has rarely, if ever, succeeded in using its leverage to get the Jewish state to abandon its continued repression of Palestinians or halt illegal settlements in occupied territories.

Since 1949, and through 2010, Israel has received a staggering 105 billion dollars in U.S. aid, of which 61.3 billion dollars went as outright military grants – gratis and non-repayable.

As one critic remarked, Israel's longstanding relationship with the United States has been predicated on a single premise, best described as: "Give us your money — and mind your own business."

Egypt's new interim military government, led by Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, head of the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), seems to have taken a cue from the Israeli playbook.

As it cracked down on human rights and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Cairo last week, including two pro-democracy groups funded by Washington, the military leaders were virtually telling the United States: "We want your money but don't interfere in our domestic political affairs."

Since 1979, the United States has provided Egypt with a total of 64 billion dollars in economic and military aid, mostly grants, at an average of about two billion dollars annually, of which 1.3 billion dollars are outright military grants.

Dr. Natalie J. Goldring, a senior fellow with the Center for Peace and Security Studies in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, told IPS that Egyptian forces were short- sighted in raiding NGO offices.

"The magnitude of their error was compounded by the fact that they chose to attack organisations that are serving as election monitors, including the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute," she said.

She said it's not yet clear what the U.S. Congress will do. Congress as a whole seems to strongly support a continuing aid relationship with Egypt.

"However, there is increasing concern about misuse of U.S. aid and materials. This is reflected in increasing support for conditioning U.S. aid on consistent Egyptian progress toward democracy," added Goldring.

Pieter Wezeman, a senior researcher at the Arms Transfers Programme of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), told IPS that Egypt, like Israel, depends heavily on the United States both for military aid and for weapons systems.

Egypt's total military expenditure in 2010 was estimated at about 3.9 billion dollars, according to published figures. And U.S. military aid accounted for over 30 percent of that total.

Asked if Egypt can survive a cut in U.S. military aid, Wezeman said, "Obviously if the U.S. would end its military aid, which as you say is unlikely, it would create some substantial financial problems for Egypt."

In terms of access to technology the problems would also be substantial, he said.

In the past decade (2001-2010) SIPRI has estimated that about 70 percent of all Egyptian imports of major arms came from the United States.

Key arms deals between the United States and Egypt in the past 10 years (and through 2011) include orders for 575 M-1A1 tanks and 44 F- 16 combat aircraft and a wide variety of other weapons and support equipment.

"A key problem in the longer term for Egypt would be to maintain its large arsenals of advanced U.S. military technology without U.S. assistance," Wezeman said.

He said Egypt could replace U.S. equipment, "although at substantial financial costs in terms of access to technology".

Wezeman said countries such as France and the UK may be step into a gap created by the United States.

"And as long as Egypt is willing and able to pay, countries such Russia, China and smaller suppliers such as Ukraine would be willing to supply all possible military equipment, as they have been all the time," he said.

Israel has never suffered any major cuts in U.S. funding, largely because of the political influence it wields in the U.S. Congress.

But Egypt is a very different story. The United States has continued to maintain its military links primarily because of the 1978 U.S. brokered Camp David peace treaty and Egypt's dominant role in the Arab world.

Goldring told IPS both domestic and international programmes should be evaluated to ensure they're effective because the Camp David accords were signed more than 33 years ago.

"Taxpayers have the right and the responsibility to ask whether the aid packages associated with the Camp David accords have had the intended effects," she said.

She said U.S. aid to Egypt may have helped prevent further wars with Israel. "If so, I believe that funding was well worth the investment."

"Even so, countries have also violated the conditions under which the U.S. government has provided aid and weaponry. They need to be held accountable for their actions. Pictures of protesters holding tear gas canisters labeled 'made in the USA' don't serve U.S. democratic goals," said Goldring.

Egypt's military is expected to play a key role in three upcoming events: the continuing parliamentary election runoffs; the drafting of a new constitution; and the presidential elections later this year.

The administration of President Barack Obama is expected to set aside about 65 million dollars in U.S. aid specifically to "help foster electoral democracy".

Goldring told IPS "aid must be accompanied by accountability".

"This is true whether we're talking about aid to Israel or aid to Egypt. It's also true when we are discussing aid to Greece and Turkey," she added. "Far too often, the U.S. government has looked the other way when recipients of U.S. aid and arms have used U.S. weapons against their citizens."

Goldring said too often, recipients of U.S. aid seem to be saying, "Just give us the money and go away."

"The U.S. government has a responsibility to ensure that our aid is being used as we intended. We can't afford to just 'go away'," she added.

"The U.S. government has frequently advocated giving situations more time when analysts have raised concerns about recipients' actions and their use of U.S. aid and weaponry." This is sometimes a sensible approach, she said. "But in this case, waiting may risk lives. Being passive is not the answer."

"If the U.S. government is silent when abuses of human rights occur, it becomes complicit in those violations," Goldring declared.

Thalif Deen is a contributor to Inter Press Service.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Established in Baltimore in 1897, the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) is the oldest Zionist organization in the United States—and also among the most aggressively anti-Arab ones.


U.S. Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis is a retired U.S Marine Corps general and combat veteran who served as commander of U.S. Central Command during 2010-2013 before being removed by the Obama administration reportedly because of differences over Iran policy.


Mike Pompeo (R-KS) is a conservative Republican congressman who was voted into office as part of the “tea party” surge in 2011 and chosen by Donald Trump to be director of the CIA.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a 2016 Republican presidential candidate.


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


Billionaire investor Paul Singer is the founder and CEO of the Elliott Management Corporation and an important funder of neoconservative causes.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

President Trump and his Iranophobe supporters are itching for a war with Iran, without any consideration of the disastrous consequences that will ensue.


Print Friendly

The war of words and nuclear threats between the United States and North Korea make a peaceful resolution to the escalating crisis more difficult than ever to achieve.


Print Friendly

The new White House chief of staff, retired Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly, is anything but non-partisan or apolitical. For the deeply conservative Kelly, the United States is endangered not only by foreign enemies but by domestic forces that either purposely, or unwittingly, support them.


Print Friendly

The prospects of Benjamin Netanyahu continuing as Israel’s prime minister are growing dim. But for those of us outside of Israel who support the rights of Palestinians as well as Israelis and wish for all of those in the troubled region to enjoy equal rights, the fall of Netanyahu comes too late to make much difference.


Print Friendly

Rich Higgins, the recently fired director for strategic planning at the National Security Council, once said in an interview on Sean Hannity’s radio program, that “more Muslim Americans have been killed fighting for ISIS than have been killed fighting for the United States since 9/11.”


Print Friendly

This is how the Trump administration could try to use the IAEA to spur Iran to back out of the JCPOA.


Print Friendly

President Trump seems determined to go forward with a very hostile program toward Iran, and, although a baseless US pullout from the JCPOA seems unlikely, even the so-called “adults” are pushing for a pretext for a pullout. Such an act does not seem likely to attract European support. Instead, it will leave the United States isolated, break the nuclear arrangement and provide a very reasonable basis for Iran to restart the pursuit of a nuclear deterrent in earnest.


RightWeb
share