[Rushtalk] Krauthammer Doesn't Get It!

John A. Quayle blueoval57 at verizon.net
Sun Mar 10 01:24:57 MST 2013

         America simply has no more money to give 
to ANYONE! Not only that, foreign aid is not constitutional at all!

Today is: March 10, 2013 | 4:21 AM


Why we give foreign aid

Why we give foreign aid

By: <http://www.humanevents.com/author/charles-krauthammer/>Charles Krauthammer
3/8/2013 10:33 AM


WASHINGTON ­ Sequestration is not the best time 
to be doling out foreign aid, surely the most 
unpopular item in the federal budget. Especially 
when the recipient is President Mohamed Morsi of Egypt.

Morsi is intent on getting the release of Omar 
Abdel-Rahman (the Blind Sheik), serving a life 
sentence for masterminding the 1993 World Trade 
Center attack that killed six and wounded more 
than a thousand. Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood is 
openly anti-Christian, anti-Semitic and otherwise 
prolifically intolerant. Just three years ago, 
Morsi called on Egyptians to nurse their children 
and grandchildren on hatred for Jews, whom he has 
called “the descendants of apes and pigs.”

Not exactly Albert Schweitzer. Or even Anwar 
Sadat. Which left a bad taste when Secretary of 
State John Kerry, traveling to Cairo, handed 
Morsi a cool $250 million. (A tenth of which 
would cover about 25 years of White House tours, 
no longer affordable under sequestration. Says the administration.)

Nonetheless, we should not cut off aid to Egypt. 
It’s not that we must blindly support unfriendly 
regimes. It is perfectly reasonable to cut off 
aid to governments that are intrinsically hostile 
and beyond our influence. Subsidizing enemies is merely stupid.

(Story continues below)


But Egypt is not an enemy, certainly not yet. It 
may no longer be our strongest Arab ally, but it 
is still in play. The Brotherhood aims to 
establish an Islamist dictatorship. Yet it 
remains a considerable distance from having done so.

Precisely why we should remain engaged. And 
engagement means using our economic leverage.

Morsi has significant opposition. Six weeks ago, 
powerful anti-Brotherhood demonstrations broke 
out in major cities and have continued 
sporadically ever since. The presidential 
election that Morsi won was decided quite 
narrowly ­ three points, despite the 
Brotherhood’s advantage of superior organization 
and a history of social service.

Moreover, having forever been in opposition, on 
election day the Islamists escaped any blame for 
the state of the country. Now in power, they 
begin to bear responsibility for Egypt’s 
miserable conditions ­ a collapsing economy, 
rising crime, social instability. Their aura is already dissipating.

There is nothing inevitable about Brotherhood 
rule. The problem is that the secular democratic 
parties are fractured, disorganized and lacking 
in leadership. And are repressed by the increasingly authoritarian Morsi.

His partisans have attacked demonstrators in 
Cairo. His security forces killed more than 40 in 
Port Said. He’s been harassing journalists, 
suppressing freedom of speech, infiltrating the 
military and trying to subjugate the courts. He’s 
already rammed through an Islamist constitution. 
He is now trying to tilt, even rig, parliamentary 
elections to the point that the opposition called 
for a boycott and an administrative court has 
just declared a suspension of the vote.

Any foreign aid we give Egypt should be 
contingent upon a reversal of this repression and 
a granting of space to secular, democratic, pro-Western elements.

That’s where Kerry committed his mistake. Not in 
trying to use dollar diplomacy to leverage 
Egyptian behavior, but by exercising that 
leverage almost exclusively for economic, rather than political, reform.

Kerry’s major objective was getting Morsi to 
apply for a $4.8 billion loan from the 
International Monetary Fund. Considering that 
some of this $4.8 billion ultimately comes from 
us, there’s a certain comic circularity to this 
demand. What kind of concession is it when a 
foreign government is coerced into 
 taking yet more of our money?

We have no particular stake in Egypt’s economy. 
Our stake is in its politics. Yes, we would like 
to see a strong economy. But in a country ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood?

Our interest is in a non-Islamist, nonrepressive, 
nonsectarian Egypt, ruled as democratically as 
possible. Why should we want a vibrant economy 
that maintains the Brotherhood in power? Our 
concern is Egypt’s policies, foreign and domestic.

If we’re going to give foreign aid, it should be 
for political concessions ­ on unfettered speech, 
on an opposition free of repression, on 
alterations to the Islamist constitution, on open and fair elections.

We give foreign aid for two reasons: (a) to 
support allies who share our values and our 
interests, and (b) to extract from 
less-than-friendly regimes concessions that 
either bring their policies more in line with 
ours or strengthen competing actors more 
favorably inclined toward American objectives.

That’s the point of foreign aid. It’s 
particularly important in countries like Egypt 
whose fate is in the balance. But it will only 
work if we remain clear-eyed about why we give 
all that money in the first place.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20130310/0551604a/attachment.html 

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list