After Israel, Egypt is the second-highest recipient of U.S. foreign aid, with $1.3 billion in military assistance allocated each year. Of that sum, $225 million is conditioned on ‘clear and consistent progress’ in improving human rights, and $95 million on releasing political prisoners. But in spite of limited or no movement on these matters, on September 11th U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken notified Congress that he plans to release it all.
This was to the dismay of human rights groups and lawmakers who wanted to continue withholding the money to give Egypt an incentive to make changes. But Blinken’s reasoning is pragmatic, and has important implications for how we view U.S. support for Israel. We need more background to understand what is going on.
Human Rights in Egypt
The most recent State Department report on human rights in Egypt found a host of grave violations, including arbitrary or unlawful killings, enforced disappearance, torture by the government, harsh and life-threatening prison conditions, and much more. The report also found that there have been no recent changes or improvements.
Blinken acknowledged this and said that he was releasing the $225 million not because Egypt met the criteria for improvement, but rather via his authority to waive the human rights conditions if he determines doing so is in U.S. national security interests. To these ends he cited Egypt’s help with Gaza ceasefire negotiations and Egypt providing humanitarian assistance there.
Regarding the $95 million, Blinken says that Egypt met the condition to receive the money by releasing political prisoners. But this is hotly contested. The Hill quoted Democratic U.S. Senators Chris Murphy and Chris Coons saying that over the last year, for every single political prisoner Egypt has released it has jailed two more. Numerous prominent prisoners remain in captivity, including several U.S. citizens.
Blinken’s calculation is clear. Withholding $310 million a year has so far not caused Egypt’s government to make any of the desired internal changes, and there is no sign that continuing to withhold the money would make any difference. But releasing it now in a quid pro quo related to Gaza may help lead to a major breakthrough there. While the rights of those falsely imprisoned and tortured in Egypt are just as important as the rights of Gazans and Israelis, Blinken thinks that when it comes to Egypt Gaza is the place where U.S. aid money can make a difference. These are the difficult political calculations anyone trying to be effective in the real world must make.
Aid to Israel
Critics of Israel often cite laws that prohibit U.S. military assistance that may contribute to war crimes or human rights violations as justification for ending U.S. weapons transfers to Israel. There are frequent claims that Israel receives special treatment when the U.S. government does not invoke these laws to withhold support and thereby avoids punishing Israel for its alleged infractions. But as this decision about Egypt shows, there is nothing unusual or special about political and national security interests influencing decision making related to human rights.
We all know there is wide disagreement about Israel’s conduct in Gaza. Some believe Israel is by and large following humanitarian law as best as possible while fighting a terrorist army embedded amongst civilians, while taking responsibility for investigating mistakes and violations. Others accuse Israel of throwing humanitarian law to the wind and deliberately targeting Gaza civilians. But even if you think the worst about how Israel is conducting the war in Gaza, withholding U.S. military assistance should not be the automatic reaction.
One has to consider what impact the U.S. restricting or threatening to restrict weapons transfers would have. Would it cause Israel to follow humanitarian law more closely? Or would it result in the U.S. losing leverage it could use both to keep Israel accountable for its conduct and to push it to accept a political solution? Would a lessening of U.S. military support embolden enemies sworn to Israel’s destruction to carry out aggression and atrocities, which could also provoke a wider Middle-East war? Would Israel, feeling more threatened and vulnerable without U.S. support, lash out even harder against its enemies in order to inflict more devastating, long-term damage?
These are hard questions that require both inside knowledge and astute judgment. People will disagree about what the answers should be. But as Blinken’s decision regarding Egypt shows, U.S. laws designed to incentivize human rights must be applied with flexibility and political savvy if they are to be beneficial. Withholding funds as punishment for other countries’ shortcomings may make us feel noble or self-righteous, but it is often necessary to make hard choices when the goal is actually do some good.