The White House position on Egypt would seem to back the transfer of some level of official power to Omar Suleiman, who Hosni Mubarak recently named vice president. Suleiman’s former role as intelligence chief made him a key player in Egypt’s use of torture, against Egyptian citizens and in connection with CIA-backed rendition.
That part of the story hasn’t received enough media attention, but today the New York Times does a great job, splashing the story on the front page…. Sorry, that’s not right. It must be here somewhere.
Perhaps a stinging editorial denouncing torture… no, that’s not it.
OK, here we go.
It’s a letter to the editor from writer, lawyer and activist Marjorie Cohn.
To the Editor:
Re ‘West Backs Gradual Egyptian Transition’ and ‘Blood on the Nile‘ (Week in Review, Feb. 6):
The United States government, which sends $1.5 billion annually to Egypt, refuses to learn that supporting vicious dictators is counterproductive.
Washington is backing Vice President Omar Suleiman, who is fiercely loyal to President Hosni Mubarak, to lead the transition team. But the vast majority of Egyptians who have taken to the streets to demand Mr. Mubarak’s ouster would not likely accept a Suleiman-led government.
The former intelligence chief worked with the Central Intelligence Agency when it rendered terrorism suspects to Egypt for torture. As your reporters who were interrogated by Egypt’s secret police, Souad Mekhennet and Nicholas Kulish, vividly point out, torture is commonplace in Egyptian prisons. Mr. Suleiman is closely identified with the government’s longstanding policy of torture.
What happens next in Egypt is up to the people there, not the United States government. Until we stop backing tyrants and torturers, we and our allies will suffer the consequences.
Marjorie Cohn
San Diego, Feb. 6, 2011The writer, a law professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, is editor of ‘The United States and Torture: Interrogation, Incarceration and Abuse.’
The “counterproductive” argument struck me, as it is a meme of many “progressive” commentators.
My question to them is “Counterproductive to what?”
Supporting Mubarak has been extremely productive to US – i.e., corporate and geostrategic – interests, hasn’t it?
It may finally be at an end, depending on whether our gummint can manipulate events to its advantage, as has been done in the case of the downfall of many tyrants in the past. But regardless, the benefits to the power structure in this country has been many and varied, don’t you think?
Cohn’s and others’ arguments seem to hinge on there being some upside to “doing the right thing” for the US. Since its goal is to control the area’s resources and politics for purposes of power and profit, just how is it in its interest to relinquish that control?
That’s a substantial blind spot when it comes to seeing the US for what it is, wouldn’t you say?
Doug Latimer, have You forgotten Afghanistan in the 80ies, when USA faught an indirect war against the USSR via a miscellaneous bunch of “freedom fighters”, a decade-long war which ended up with the Taleban regime? For a background, read “Unholy wars” by John K Cooley. Now the whole World fears for “Islamistic” suicide bombers, trained in camps in Afghanistan and elswhere. The original intention – officially – was to overthrow Najibullah´s regime in Kabul and throw out the Russians, but now it backfires both in the Muslem world and, more and more, in the West.
Don´t try to convince us that the backing of autocratic regimes of whatever colour is productive for others than the corporate business. I´ll bet that the average Egyptian will not agree with You!
Martin, you misread my comment. My point is that backing mass murderers *has* been extremely productive for corps and the gummints who love them, and a nightmare for those living under those regimes.
How could I have meant anything other?
As for terrorism, the US – meaning the empire, not its people – benefits from the boogeyman aspect. It’s a fig leaf for wars of aggression abroad, and a budding police state at home, isn’t it?
The first step in ending terror is to stop engaging in it.
Why oh why has America gone so wrong? Whatever happened to being a “beacon on a hill” for democracy?During the reign of Bush’s imperialistic intentions and “crusades” in the Middle East have not helped either. Unfortunately, Obama has not done much to change those intentions.
Doug, you are so right.
“Cohn’s and others’ arguments seem to hinge on there being some upside to “doing the right thing” for the US. Since its goal is to control the area’s resources and politics for purposes of power and profit, just how is it in its interest to relinquish that control?”
When did America decide to be an imperialistic power with more than 700 military bases around the world? In the cold war, countries chose between Communism and Democracy in the world, doesn’t America believe in promoting real Democracy for other countries anymore? Why are we promoting such a large military when we do not have an enemy to use what it is trained for?Who is our enemy that we must fight that needs the constant build up of the military? Like you have said Doug, “its goal is to control the area’s resources and politics for purposes of profit and power.” Pride goeth before the fall.
Raymond, you have to remember that this country was founded in large part by slaveholders, and those who didn’t own slaves didn’t care about their freedom. Economically, slavery was a vital component for both the South and the North – cotton production for one, textile manufacturing for the other.
This dichotomy of “liberty and justice for some” carried over into foreign policy from the beginning. Recall the line, “From the halls of Montezuma”.
This wasn’t about bringing freedom to anyone. It was, and is, about empire – before, during and after the Cold War.
I guess that can be labeled as “anti-American”. I see it as anti-imperialism. The US is just one in a long line of nations which has sought dominion over other peoples, and has to be opposed as such.
Their rights, their humanity depend on it, as does our own. Solidarity with those struggling for true freedom around the world strengthens our cause at home. At the moment it seems that there’s reason for hope in many countries, while the skies darken above us.
Beyond the “political”, we’re facing the end of the world as we know it. If any challenge confronting humanity called for international cooperation among peoples, the battle to stop and reverse the incredible damage we’ve done to this rock would be it, don’t you think?
I’m not smart enough to figure out how we accomplish that, but the first step is to recognize the need. From both the standpoint of morality and mere survival, our future depends on seeing our common bonds, and our common interests.
I hope that makes sense.
Doug, thank you, well thought out.
Most welcome, Raymond. I’m glad you felt I managed some modicum of lucidity.
It’s often a struggle. -g-