For Obama, tricky diplomatic geometry in democratic Egypt

WASHINGTON Wed Jul 3, 2013 7:10am EDT

A man walks under defaced poster of U.S. President Barack Obama with banner reads '' Obama supports dictator Mursi'' in Cairo June 6, 2013. REUTERS/Amr Abdallah Dalsh

A man walks under defaced poster of U.S. President Barack Obama with banner reads '' Obama supports dictator Mursi'' in Cairo June 6, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Amr Abdallah Dalsh

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With Egypt and its democratic experiment at a tipping point, U.S. President Barack Obama finds himself trying to nudge the most populous Arab country's bitterly divided antagonists toward compromise but finds his influence limited.

Where Obama and his predecessors once dealt with a single all-powerful figure - ousted strongman President Hosni Mubarak - the White House is now gingerly trying to persuade unpopular, but democratically elected, President Mohamed Mursi and Egypt's military to strike a political deal, all without alienating millions of Egyptians protesting in the streets.

Egypt's size and leading position in the Arab world mean its political course will be felt throughout the region, where the United States is already struggling to stem Islamist militants and sectarian strife.

But Obama has not forged close ties to Mursi, and has been criticized for what is widely seen as his standoffish approach to Egypt's attempts to solidify its democracy.

Now that Egypt looks to be on the brink of chaos, an immediate challenge for Washington is how to sway the country's armed forces, which have given Mursi until Wednesday to agree on power-sharing with other political forces, warning it would set out its own roadmap for the country's future if he did not.

A military coup against Mursi and his crumbling government would seriously undermine Obama's promotion of democracy in the Middle East and could lead to a cutoff in U.S. military aid to Egypt.

The United States relied heavily on its ties with Egypt's top military officers, forged through decades of joint training, military schooling in the United States and U.S. military aid, to guide the country to free elections when protesters poured into Cairo's Tahrir Square in early 2011 demanding Mubarak's ouster.

The armed forces eventually sided with the protesters, hastening Mubarak's downfall. The difference this time is that Mursi was democratically elected in a process backed by Washington.

U.S. influence with the Egyptian military is greatest on regional security matters, such as Egypt's peace treaty with Israel.

Underlying the importance for Washington of keeping ties to Egypt's military, Secretary of State John Kerry in May quietly approved $1.3 billion in military assistance, despite the country's failure to meet democracy standards set by the U.S. Congress.

To do so, Kerry waived a U.S. legal requirement that he certify the Egyptian government "is supporting the transition to civilian government, including holding free and fair elections, implementing policies to protect freedom of expression, association and religion, and due process of law."

"Nobody should be under the illusion that simply because we give $1.3 billion of weapons and training support to the Egyptian military that we can control them in any way when it comes to internal politics and the internal security situation," said Brian Katulis at the Center for American Progress, a Washington-based think tank.

Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke by telephone this week with Egypt's army chief of staff, Lieutenant General Sedki Sobhi, a U.S. defense official said.

Details of that conversation were not released, and it is unclear whether Dempsey or other top U.S. officials have explicitly warned the Egyptian military against mounting a coup.

Obama, Kerry and other U.S. leaders have not publicly criticized the army's ultimatum.

Michele Dunne, a former State Department official who served in Egypt and Israel and is now at the Atlantic Council think tank, said the key question is whether the military sweeps Mursi and his government aside entirely and steps in to rule, or stops short of that - perhaps by appointing a civilian figurehead.

The U.S.-Egypt military relationship was tested when the army assumed power after Mubarak's fall, and "if the military takes control, it's going to be tested again," she said.


The Obama White House has not been enamored with Mursi, a leader of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood whom it sees as having failed to form an inclusive, effective government. Obama has not hosted Mursi at the White House, and officials canceled a visit by the Egyptian leader last year after a video from 2010 surfaced in which Morsi described Israelis as "descendants of apes and pigs."

Obama, wrapping up an Africa tour, called Mursi on Tuesday, according to the White House. "Democracy is about ... ensuring that the voices of all Egyptians are heard and represented by their government, including the many Egyptians demonstrating throughout the country," a White House statement said. Obama told Mursi that "the current crisis can only be resolved through a political process."

But amid reports of violence, Mursi showed little sign of compromise, calling on the military to withdraw its ultimatum and saying he would not be dictated to.

For Washington, communicating with the Mursi government is becoming more problematic.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki announced Tuesday that Kerry had called Egyptian Foreign Minister Mohamed Kamel Amr, only to be reminded by reporters that Amr had reportedly tendered his resignation - one of a half-dozen or so senior Mursi aides to resign in recent days.

It was unclear whether Amr was still in his position when Kerry spoke with him, giving a sense in Washington that the Mursi government is unraveling.


As with the civil war in Syria, Obama has been criticized for what many analysts say is a largely hands-off approach toward post-Mubarak Egypt.

Obama administration officials counter that Washington has limited influence on Arab societies struggling to remake themselves, and too overt a U.S. intervention would backfire.

In the latest crisis, the United States, seen for decades in the Arab world as a supporter of pro-Western autocrats, has insisted it is not playing favorites.

That has not stopped some among the millions of protesters on Egypt's city streets from criticizing what they see as Washington's backing for Mursi. Photos insulting U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson have appeared in the crowds.

Obama told Mursi in their phone conversation "that the United States is committed to the democratic process in Egypt and does not support any single party or group," the White House said.

Dunne said popular resentment at the United States can be blamed in part on policies toward Egypt and other fragile Arab democracies that she labeled "unimaginative at best."

"We could have done so much more to encourage the transition in Egypt," she said. "We really have stayed out, stayed on the sidelines, waiting to see what happened."

(This story is refiled to move first reference to Kerry to paragraph 10)

(Editing by Alistair Bell and Prudence Crowther)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (6)
The Islamic Brotherhood is one of the most feared terrorist groups in the Middle East. They broke Mursi out of prison. Obama seems to like these terrorist groups. He has yet to speak against the al Qaeda attack in Benghazi – or instigate any ‘justice’ for the Americans who died there.

“Democracy” was the ‘beautiful solution’ to Middle-East politics (according to “Western” thinking) until Hammas was elected In Gaza. No one learned from that. Now, here’s Mursi, with his terrorist group – a really nasty terrorist group, at that. Why did Obama ever give Mursi the time of day?

Obama’s big dilemma is that Saudi Arabia may back the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt – to keep the Islamic Brotherhood quiet in Saudi Arabia. If Syria is any indication, that would probably put shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles in the Hands of the Islamic Brotherhood. Israel should fear that particular possibility.

Strange that Israel hasn’t told Obama what position to take. Maybe it’s more of a personal ‘wait-and-see’ scenario for Obama. He’s done a lot of screwing-up, lately. Still, it’s a little late for Obama to be sitting on the fence. He’s probably waiting to see who produces the greatest number of civilian casualties – that’s always ‘safe’ to address.

Besides, he’s got his hands full with Snowden. He just screwed that pooch (again) also. He had the wrong diplomatic plane diverted. Worse, he showed his trump card (aircraft diversion tactic). The NSA must have gotten the wrong number.

Jul 02, 2013 12:25am EDT  --  Report as abuse
DeeTam wrote:
This is not a military coup! 22 million people went down the streets asking for one thing. Leave! If the military listens to the will of the people and take their side, this is called democracy. The presidential elections were not fair and square. There are many cases in courts against it. Why do you insist that these elections were fair and square when even president Carter said they weren’t.

The people suffered for a whole year they cannot take it anymore. Mursi has been encouraging sectarian divisions, the economy went down, we are near bankruptcy, the people of Egypt are saying enough now and the army of the people is with the people. Why is the US so upset about that?

Are we less of a people unlike the Americans we do not deserve true freedom and justice in our own land?

Jul 03, 2013 7:15am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Nigeletto wrote:
Yeah, typically a question has one right answer and an infinite number of wrong answers. Guessers barely get anything right.

Jul 03, 2013 8:24am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.