The WINEP crusade to discredit the Egyptian revolution
Issandr El AmraniA few days ago I noted a pretty awful piece by WINEP's Robert Satloff and Eric Trager in WSJ. But there is more:
- WINEP fellow Eric Trager has had more negative pieces on the Egyptian uprising, focusing on how nasty Islamists are, than anyone. His latest, published on the revolution's anniversary, is titled Happy Birthday To Egypt’s Doomed Revolution. I share Trager's concerns over the Islamist ascendency but the entire premise of many his pieces is wrong: he argues that somehow the West was fooled into thinking this was a liberal secular revolution. It was not, and it was obvious from the start. It was a revolution against a dictator and his autocratic system, but joined by all sorts of people — from undemocratic radical leftists and Islamists to mainstream Islamists, liberals, centrists of all shades. And it's amusing he decries that some activists would not meet with Hillary Clinton. Nothing new here, it has been the case for a long time and a completely understandable decision considering US policies in the region and backing Mubarak (and perhaps SCAF). He also is fighting a home game, the one WINEP cares most about, about US foreign policy and the engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood. Why anyone would object with US officials meeting with members of the largest party in Egypt is beyond me, and some sort of policy was necessary to break the ice considering past kowtowing to Mubarak regime restrictions on meeting the Brothers. (Update: The Lounsbury chimes in.)
- David Pollock, also a WINEP fellow, has a rather trite piece attacking the Muslim Brothers for what they say in English vs. what they in Arabic. He doesn't even provide the best examples, which come from the governorate websites of the Brothers. This kind of argumentation is futile, because the point is no longer what the Brothers say in one language or the other, but what they do. This is precisely why the US is talking to them – to have an impact over what they do. And the real big problem with this piece in meta: its underlying assumption is that the US is "trusting" the MB's "private assurances" and statements. What, in this chaotic situation? No one runs foreign policy like that, as if Obama is saying, but that guy Beltagui of the Brothers assured me this or that. Paul Pillar has more on this piece at National Interest.
- But the real WINEP Egypt bash-feast took place at one of the organization's "policy forums" which Trager, Egyptian activist Samuel Tadros and old WINEP hand David Schenker. I am quite alarmed by Tadros' phrasing of the Egyptian political scene as what non-Islamists can do in conjunction with the US (of course Tadros was previously a recipient of MEPI funding) – as if the US has historically been a great friend of Egyptian democrats – and I remember his rather nasty attack on Ayman Nour as anti-Semitic (as if anti-Semitism is really Egypt's biggest problem.)
It's not that there aren't real foreign policy conundrums towards Egypt – there are plenty. But WINEP's entire approach, focused mostly on bashing the Obama administration's cautious engagement of Islamists who are sen by most Egyptians (despite the elections' many flaws) as democratically elected and constant return to the question of Israel is neither helpful nor analytically interesting. What it amounts to, in other words, is another Israel lobby initiative to ensure that one of the worst aspect of US foreign policy in the region – seeing everything through an Israeli prism – continues. In Egypt, as I've argued in the past, the best way to calm regional tensions may be precisely to decouple US-Egypt relations from the Camp David framework. It's not the propaganda of an outfit dedicated to furthering Israel's interests in the US that's going to provide much insight into how Egypt can make it through the tremendously difficult road ahead, or credibly give advice about promoting democracy when it spent so many years defending Mubarak when he backed Israeli interests (such as the blockade of Gaza) and bashing him after 2004 when it became politically fashionable.
Reader Comments (9)
Perfectly expressed, please make sure it gets to the US, or even to deaf ears at WINEP. Thanks
There was a painful exchange at a DC event between WINEP guys and an English-speaking woman from the Brotherhood. They seem obsessed with trying to expose Brotherhood's hypocrisy and doublespeak -- a cat and mouse game that's largely irrelevant and smacks of immaturity. This kind of stuff is so regressive and counterproductive, my hope is that people stop paying attention.
Hi,
I find your blog very interesting and I really enjoy reading it. Nevertheless, and Eric Trager talks about a doomed revolution, it is difficult not to agree. In fact, when you look at the situation now and a year ago, what has changed? The Emergency Law is still enforce (some parts are lifted but not all of them), the democratic elections that took place are quite suspicious and nothing is here to show that there will be no agreement between the SCAF and the ruling party.
One difference, the media isn't covering it the same way. After what happened over the last few days, it's clear that the army has an agenda... how far it will go as regard to being in control? no one really knows..
But one thing strikes me really is the lack of response from the West, which is a quite worrying...
I hate it when journalists post an Acronym assuming that everyone knows what it is. What the hell is WINEP?
I googled it but all that came up was something to do with wine.
Please give your readers a starting point for any acronyms used
Washington institute for near east policy.
For more clarification - WINEP is commonly regarded as the think-tank "mouthpiece" of the Likudnik element of Israeli government and politics, and tends to serve as one of Israel's major propagators of hasbara (pro-Israel propaganda), generally with a veneer of scholarly "objectivity."
Interesting article - but yes like David Quamby stated, please clarify for readers what you're writing about in the article itself. I've never heard of WINEP and do not understand their signficance. I do remember reading an article in Slate.com recently about a woman in the MB. It was pretty derogatory towards the MB which I thought was a real shame. But I found it signfiicant because this attack was coming from a popular website. Perhaps indeed there is a movement out there to discredit the MB and to elevate the ruling military junta.
I mean it happened in Algeria. When Muslims won the election, the army took over, and the muslims who won the elections were painted as terrorists with much of that painting going on in western media outlets.
I find your blog interesting.
But my view is that Israel should invade the Sinai and take it back for several reasons.
One reason is that the Camp David peace deal was very good for Egypt but not good for Israel, especially economically. It has provided very little for Israel and has helped many companies in Egypt. The Israel- Egypt shipments are really a one way street ( $ to Egypt, goods to Israel). Tourism from Egypt to Israel is almost zero, etc..
I believe that Israel should take advantage of the chaos and mess in Egypt and Invade the Sinai with guns blazing.
Israelis must have this buffer zone between them and the muslim jungle, plus there is the oil and this will surround Hamas.
I realize that this agreement has given Israel 34 years of peace but this will change.
In addition, this will allow eventually Israelis to buy homes in the Sinai. Israel is very expensive when it comes to real estate because it has appeased the world to leave Sinai, gaza and south Lebanon.
James B Canada
Surely no informed person can be surprised by this drivel from WINEP? What else would one expect from Likkudniks, after all? Of course they are alarmed by Egyptian developments: if ordinary Egyptians begin to have some voice in their country's foreign policy, of course Egyptian policy toward Israel will become less friendly to Israel's bullying behavior. So, naturally, WINEP attacks. It's what they do. The Israel Lobby remains hugely powerful in Washington, but it is not the ONLY player. There is some (small) space for less intransigent policies to be considered. However beleaguered, there are some in Washington who actually try to focus on American, as opposed to Israeli, national interests. Hence the USG actually talks to the Muslim Brothers. As the author points out, this is obviously necessary and desirable.