ShareThis Page
Egypt is glossing over repression |
Featured Commentary

Egypt is glossing over repression

For several years President Barack Obama has asserted that the United States must sometimes subordinate its commitment to human rights in backing repressive regimes that are supportive of U.S. national security objectives, such as fighting terrorism. The Egyptian government of Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi is providing a case study of why that doctrine is misguided.

In the name of defeating Islamic extremism, Sisi has instituted the most repressive regime Egypt has known in more than a half-century. Since leading a military coup against the elected government of Mohammed Morsy in July 2013, he has overseen the jailing of more than 16,000 people and the killing of more than 1,000; the banning of public protests; the elimination of a once-robust free press; and a massive crackdown on non-government groups. Scores of secular Egyptians who led the fight to create a liberal democracy in 2011 and 2012 have been imprisoned on trumped-up charges.

Yet the actual threat of terrorism in Egypt has steadily worsened under Sisi’s rule. Oct. 24 saw the country’s most deadly terrorist assault in decades: a suicide bomb attack in the Sinai Peninsula that killed more than 30 soldiers. Hundreds of soldiers and police have been killed in the Sinai in the past 15 months, and bombings in Cairo, unheard of before the coup, are now common. Both the foreign ministry and Cairo University have been targeted in recent weeks.

Sisi’s response to the latest attack exemplified his self-defeating reflexes: a blizzard of measures to further suppress peaceful opposition and free expression. Leading newspaper editors were induced to issue a statement last Sunday pledging not to criticize “state institutions,” including the army, police and judiciary. The same day a judge sentenced 23 more activists, including several leading liberal democrats, to three years in prison for violating the anti-protest law.

The regime’s repression is eliminating outlets for moderate Islamists, alienating secular allies and turning formerly peaceful opponents into jihadist recruits. The secular and liberal April 6 movement, which has been outlawed by the Sisi regime, rightly judged that the new measures “will … increase chaos and create a better environment for terrorism.”

The Obama administration has stubbornly resisted this commonsense conclusion. It has been courting the Sisi regime while downplaying its abuses. Secretary of State John Kerry insists, ludicrously, that Sisi is leading Egypt to democracy. Fortunately, he is constrained by Congress, which passed legislation conditioning the full resumption of military aid on a formal certification of that claim.

Instead of trying to free up aid that would be spent on tanks and fighter planes useless for fighting terrorism, the administration should be defending what remains of Egypt’s democratic opposition and civil society from Sisi.

— from The Washington Post

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.