Israel Matzav

Obama's 'realist' Secretary of State

A 'realist' foreign policy pays no attention to moral differences between states. As far as realists are concerned, there's no way to think about the way governments act except as the pursuit of self-interest.

I highly doubt that most of the Americans who voted for Barack Hussein Obama in November thought that they were electing an adherent of the 'realist' school of foreign policy. In fact, most Americans probably have no clue what being a 'realist' means. But thus far Obama has shown that his administration is very much adherent to the 'realist' school.

I have written extensively over the last two weeks of Chas Freeman, a primary example of the 'realist' school. Apparently there's another example high up in the State Department. It may come as a surprise to many of you that Hillary Clinton is a 'realist' (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).

According to State's latest report on Egypt, issued Feb. 25, "the government's respect for human rights remained poor" during 2008 "and serious abuses continued in many areas." It cited torture by security forces and a decline in freedom of the press, association and religion. Ms. Clinton was asked about those conclusions during an interview she gave to the al-Arabiya satellite network in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. Her reply contained no expression of concern about the deteriorating situation. "We issue these reports on every country," she said. "We hope that it will be taken in the spirit in which it is offered, that we all have room for improvement."

Ms. Clinton was then asked whether there would be any connection between the report and a prospective invitation to President Hosni Mubarak to visit Washington. "It is not in any way connected," she replied, adding: "I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family. So I hope to see him often here in Egypt and in the United States." Ms. Clinton's words will be treasured by al-Qaeda recruiters and anti-American propagandists throughout the Middle East. She appears oblivious to how offensive such statements are to the millions of Egyptians who loathe Mr. Mubarak's oppressive government and blame the United States for propping it up.

The Washington Post article from which the previous two paragraphs came goes on to give another example where Mrs. Clinton ignored an adverse human rights report and gave an oppressive government (albeit nowhere near as oppressive as Egypt's) a pass: Turkey.

Just how wrong was Mrs. Clinton in glossing over Egypt's human rights record? At Gateway Pundit, Jim Hoft has some of the sordid details.

Egyptian policemen sexually assaulted prisoner Imad Kabir with a broomstick.

The violent scene of Imad writhing in agony as he was being sodomised with a broomstick was filmed and later circulated on the Egyptian blogs. Torture by security forces is common in Egypt.

...

Egyptian blogger Karim Soliman (Karim Amer) was tortured in prison.

His blogging outraged religious authorities so he was jailed. There is no freedom of expression in Egypt.

Read the whole thing and follow the links.

Why should an Israeli blog be concerned with Egypt, with which we have the coldest of cold peace? Partly out basic human instincts (something this administration apparently doesn't have except for ACORN and its beneficiaries), and partly because I have had some contact with Egyptian bloggers and know that those with whom I have been in contact are decent and courageous and honest human beings.

And partly because a 'realist' foreign policy is one that is likely to throw Israel to the wolves. If one ignores the shared values between the United States and Israel and the differences between Israel's moral values and those of the surrounding Arab Muslim states (as a 'realist' would), why should the United States support a tiny democracy nestled among a vipers' nest of dysfunctional states when the democracy is the only one that doesn't have what is arguably the world's most important commodity?

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:33 PM