Let’s review some recent news about the situation in Egypt. The country is engaged in a power struggle between its military and the Islamist, America- and Israel-loathing Muslim Brotherhood, which seeks a worldwide caliphate. As but one illustration of the reigning insanity, in the wake of the Brotherhood’s political successes, various Islamicscholars” have openly endorsed the enslavement of women.

So, in the midst of these ominous developments and religious oppression, what is the response of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Is it to condemn Islamist violence and oppression, call for Egypt to move toward a rights-respecting government, and assert America’s and Israel’s right to defend themselves by whatever means necessary?

Of course not. That would be the right thing to do.

Instead, Clinton promised Egypt economic “aid.” A U.S. State Department official described the offer this way:

In both her talks with President Morsi and Field Marshal Tantawi, [Clinton] discussed the U.S. ability to help the Egyptian economy. The political instability here in Egypt has really hurt economic growth and tourism revenue. So, U.S. President Barack Obama is proposing [a] package of debt relief that could go as high as $1 billion. Tantawi said that's really the chief priority now, that's what Egyptians need—a better economy.

Why do Egypt’s “needs” impose a moral and economic claim on U.S. producers? The only sane answer, the only moral answer, is that they do not. The U.S. should end all extortion payments to Egypt and to every other oppressive regime. Supporting rights-violating regimes is immoral. Supporting rights-violating regimes that seek to enslave you to sharia law is suicidal.

Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard.


Image: Wikimedia Commons

Return to Top

Pin It on Pinterest