The current administration has formed an almost policy regarding the upheaval in Egypt. Not unsurprisingly, it contradicts previous policy of the same administration regarding upheaval in another nation.
In 2009, the then President of Honduras – one Manuel Zelaya – attempted a referendum to change the Constitution of Honduras. The thrust of the change would have been to allow Zelaya to maintain power past the Constitutionally limited term of his presidency. The Supreme Court of Honduras ruled that referendum unconstitutional – illegal – and Zelaya decided to ignore the Supreme Court and go ahead. The Supreme Court then ordered the Honduran Army to arrest Zelaya as being in violation of the Constitution. In short, Zelaya was thrown out and he was replaced by Roberto Michelettim who had been the President of the Honduran Congress AND was a member of Zelaya’s party.
The Obama Administration decided this was a coup d’etat and wrong. Zelaya was the elected President, the legal leader of the country and should be allowed to remain in power. It should be noted this transfer of power was in accord with the Constitution of Honduras and the support of the Congress and military. It was the will of the Honduran people.
In 2011 a similar but not equal occurrence happened in Egypt. Hosni Mubarak was deemed ‘unsuitable’ by a vocal group of Egyptian citizens; those Egyptians demanded – and still demand – Mubarak leave power immediately. The Obama Administration immediately agreed Mubarak should leave power immediately.
Hosni Mubarak is no great shakes as a national leader. He has suspended various rights to Egyptian citizens and is by all accounts a despot of some degree or other. He is surely not in the same despot league as Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung (or Mao Zedong, if preferred), Pol Pot or even His Excellency, President for Life Idi Amin Dada, not having killed nearly so many or ruled with such an iron fist; but he is a despot. I do not hold Mubarak in high esteem. I think he’s probably better for Egypt than the Ruling Counsel of Iran or the Taliban of Afghanistan, but he’s nothing about which to write home.
I include the last paragraph because I know some lackwit will accuse me of being pro-Mubarak. I’m not. I have a rather neutral view of him all things considered.
However, Mubarak is by the standards of Egypt, the legal President of Egypt.
So. Why should one ‘legal president’ of a nation – Honduras – be able to stay in power and defy the laws of the nation in question and another ‘legal president’ of a nation – Egypt – be required to leave? At least according to the Obama Administration?
This harkens back some thirty years to an event in Iran. The United States – prior to the Carter Administration – had been on good terms with, and supported the Shah of Iran. The late Shah, Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, had been pro-American, pro-western and a very progressive leader. During the Shah’s reign, he westernized Iran, gave suffrage to women (take note progressive feminists) and generally allowed a great deal of individual rights to his people. He was not popular with leaders of the Islamic religion in Iran.
This is not to say the Shah was without his flaws. He had a secret police who stifled dissent and the Shah had a collection of political prisoners. Much like the current regime in Iran. Considering the number of immigrants from Iran to the United States – mostly inspired by political threats – people were better off in Iran under the Shah than currently. Especially women.
However, President Carter saw fit to withdraw support from the Shah which ended in the Shah’s exile and the formation of the current Islamic theocracy in Iran. A government which seeks nuclear weapons, an end to Israel, the destruction of the ‘Great Satan’ also known as the United States, and Islamic terror activities around the world. Hezbollah for example, is part of Iran’s attempts to destabilize and control governments and populations in the ‘Palestinian Territories’, Lebanon and the United States. This whole middle eastern Islamic threat has been strongly aided by President Carter’s decision.
We could go back some fifty odd years to Cuba. The dictator of Cuba was a man named Fulgencio Batista. Again, he was no prize as a leader. He made himself rich running Cuba as a combination resort and vacation spot in the Caribbean. He was ousted from power in late 1959 by a man who had widespread support in the United States, one Fidel Castro. Most people in the U. S. though Castro was a genuine ‘freedom fighter’. President Eisenhower can take some of the credit for allowing Castro to take power; President Kennedy had opportunity to destroy the Castro regime and did not take action. President Kennedy is on record as partially endorsing the Castro revolt. (I write that with some sadness; as a young man I rather liked President Kennedy.) History has shown the Castro regime has been far more despotic and oppressive than the Batista regime had ever been. One last thought; Batista was a ‘friendly-neutral’ toward the United States. Castro hates the United States.
Back to the present and Egypt.
With the Obama Administration’s endorsement of the Islamic Brotherhood, another terrorist front working for universal Islamic control and Shariah law, the stage is set for a re-enactment of the revolution in Iran. Very easily, Egypt could degenerate into another Shariah law controlled, anti-American, anti-Israeli, terror sponsoring regime.
Batista, the Shah and Hosni Mubarak all shared qualities of being semi-despotic and were pro-western. The Catro government, the Ruling Counsel of Iran and the Islamic Brotherhood have or are seeking despotic powers and are anti-western, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish and anti-freedom.
Here’s the conclusion. Democrat foreign policy favors any government that hates the United States. I wish it were not so, but there’s no other explanation.