The contradictions at the heart of the Obama administration’s approach to the Middle East are approaching the level of parody. For the past four years under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, we were constantly told that protecting the rights of women was an integral element in U.S. foreign policy. That was laudable, yet the same State Department that touted its feminist bona fides to the press was also the champion of engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood government of Egypt. While the administration has dug in its heels on their policy of continuing to shower Mohamed Morsi’s regime with U.S. taxpayer dollars, there doesn’t seem to be any more pushback against Egypt’s policy toward women than its attempts to crush political opponents or its anti-Semitism.
An article in today’s New York Times that discusses the Brotherhood’s policies toward women illustrates the raging hypocrisy of the American stand on Egypt. There was never much doubt about the misogyny that is at the heart of the Islamist group’s worldview, but by issuing a public critique of a proposed United Nations declaration opposing violence against women, they have elevated the topic to one of international significance. The regime’s stance on women is scaring Egyptian moderates and liberals who are rapidly losing any hope that the toppling of Hosni Mubarak’s government would usher in an era of democratic reform. But the specter of the most populous Arab state’s government moving slowly but surely toward an Iran-style theocracy is an ominous development for the rest of the region. Indeed, this makes it clear that what President Obama is doing in Egypt is nothing less than a U.S.-subsidized war on women.
As the Times details, Morsi’s governing party has several bones to pick with what might otherwise be considered an anodyne resolution condemning violence against women.
According to the Brotherhood, men should not be liable to being charged with the rape of their waves or be subjected to harsh punishment if they were called to account. They also say that women should not have equal rights of inheritance or be allowed to work, travel or use contraception without their husband’s permission.
Given that the group believes women are generally at fault when they are beaten by their husbands, this is hardly a surprise.
Morsi’s official spokesperson, who is still trying to convince the Western press that the Brotherhood is a moderate organization that has no intention of subjecting the entire nation to Islamist interpretations of religious law, tried to distance the Egyptian leader from his party’s declaration. But Egyptians understand which way the wind is blowing.
That the Brotherhood would issues such a salvo against women’s rights right at the time when the regime is encountering increased resistance to its rule and with new parliamentary elections in doubt is telling. Rather than moderate their stands, they are doubling down on their effort to use their newly acquired power not just to dominate every branch of the government but to transform society in their own image.
Part of the Brotherhood’s confidence stems from their belief that there is virtually nothing they can do that would prompt President Obama to cut off the more than $2 billion in U.S. aid that the country continues to receive. The administration has bought into the idea that, as Vice President Biden claimed last week in his speech to the AIPAC conference, there is no alternative to engagement with Morsi and his crowd. But what non-Islamist Egyptians are discovering is that bolstering the regime with the hundreds of millions more in U.S. funds, such as the big check Secretary of State John Kerry brought to Cairo earlier this month, is only worsening the situation.
Unlike the Obama re-election campaign theme, the Brotherhood’s war on women is not a partisan farce aimed at demonizing opponents but a genuine wave of repression that will set back human rights in that country. That the same administration that was re-elected in part because of its pro-women policies and which trumpeted its concerns for women’s rights abroad is subsidizing a regime that oppresses women in this fashion is more than merely hypocritical. It is an indictment of a president and a State Department that have lost their moral compass.
American aid should be cut off until Egypt's government outlaws the forced cutting off of clitorises. n n90% of Egyptian women are walking around without them. Morsi has already declared he does not think the government should be involved in this issue. n nIt is very interesting how nobody in authority, anywhere, talks about this issue. I think it is just too raw and ugly a subject for diplomatic discussions, as far as the pinstripe set and arab sympathizers in the State Department, and the Islam admirers in the White House are concerned. n nThe hypocrisy is breathtaking. n nOf course, even Tobin does not see fit to bring up the subject.
American money helps pay to keep the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty alive. When Israel calls for a cut off of aid to Egypt, then you'll have a case.
Arab promises are worth less than shit, and should in any case not depend on American dollars to keep them from being broken. n nI would think the possibility of an Egypt-Israel war is a 'make my day' opportunity for Israel, at this point. Sooner or later, the Sinai will once again be in Israeli hands, hopefully for ever.
I bet a good lawyer could take the letter of protection, signed by Mohammed himself, that protects St. Catherine's Monastery at the base of Mt. Sinai, and extend that protection to the entire Sinai. nI really would love to know where the monks are hiding that letter – imagine what Mohammed's signature is worth!
he was illiterate
Interesting. It would appear Islam has internalized and codified ways of mitigating the whole panoply of possible male sexual and power insecurities. n nArab culture is additionally insecure at its core via western or judeo-christian culture, as manifest by its aggressiveness and bullying. They know their root ethos is a malevolent plagiary of the the Torah and the Gospels. n nPrognosis: Poor.; Arab Islamic 'civilization' is thoroughly fubar'ed. n n(FUBAR is a medical term, that means 'f*cked up beyond any repair'. n n
Obama finds it easy to criticize Israel for construction in the settlements, yet impossible to criticize Egypt for its treatment of women. Obama has shown from the very beginning that he likes to coddle Mohammedans, but it is a mystery, really, as to why. His background, meaning Barack Obama Sr and Lolo Soetoro, do not really explain that. The Mohammedan problem, generally, is very volatile and these pain in the neck countries must be brought into line. It can be done, but we need a Bill Whittle or a Ronald Reagan to do it.
Haven't we been subsidizing Israel's war on women for decades? I'm glad the Haredim are finally out of the ruling coalition, but what about the Chief Rabbi?
So what else is new – the US gov't foreign policy is based on national interest, not morality – just like any other country. Just look at our relations to such human rights abusers as China, our disgusting hands-off reaction when the Ayatollah cracked down on the student Green revolution in Tehran a few years back, leaving them twisting in the wind, our relations with the biggest supporters of Wahhabi terrorism, the Saudis, etc etc etc…
I second DocVisual's comment. And I'm thinking that Tobin, who writes very good posts, in this instance hasn't thought through the point or is being ideologically mischievous. n nObama doesn't throw around foreign aid money willy nilly. And just because the U.S. cooperates with, supports, gives money to, certain regimes with slews of repressive and undemocratic policies, that doesn't mean tacit support for those policies. It means seeking to advance larger U.S. interests, as any administration sees them, in spite of those policies. It may be that giving Egypt money is money not well spent but that's a different order of argument. The U.S. can internationally do two things at once: generally, say, support women's liberation and equal rights such as, say, by standing behind and working towards passing said U.N. Declaration while pursuing its larger interests as it sees them, say, by aiding Egypt. n nTobin here is mixing apples and snap peas.
Carter created Islamic Iran & Obama Islamic Egypt. n nThe difference? n nCarter has been identified as a failure and was send packing after 1 term, as for Obama????
it's all about race n nALL OF IT
Obama should practise what he preaches and cut off aid to this group AT ONCE. This is what comes of chasing a popular revolution without ONCE thinking of the ramifications. I have been saying tit before and I will say it again: this is an anti-freedom, misogynist group intent on turning a decent country into a new dictatorship!