In nearly 6 months of campaigning, including 9 televised debates, the Republican presidential candidates have steered clear of foreign policy in general and only seem to mention the Middle East when gushing about Israel. Despite Egypt's so-called “strategic importance,” the Egypt-US alliance has been a non-issue in the presidential campaign. After the American-funded Egyptian military opened fire on Christian demonstrators in Maspero, no Republican candidate made a substantial comment. Even as the U.S. Senate considers a bill to make U.S. aid contingent on a successful transition to democracy, the candidates are silent. Of course, Republican candidates know that there are no votes to be won discussing Egyptian politics. The names are hard to pronounce and most Americans don't know that Egypt is a major regional ally and the second largest recipient of US foreign aid. While most of the public debate revolves around the merits of Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan, under the radar, Republican candidates have amassed a cadre of foreign policy advisors who are hostile to democratic transition in Egypt and sympathetic to military dictatorship. Their views reflect the conservative conventional wisdom that Egyptians should not be allowed to elect their own leaders because they may elect Islamist parties. Mitt Romney is the only leading candidate to propose a comprehensive foreign policy. He issued a policy paper on October 7th outlining his foreign policy goals. Though the document barely mentions Egypt, his major advisors are recycled Bush Administrations officials who are on the record opposing the Egyptian revolution. One advisor, Mary Beth Long is former Bush administration Pentagon official with close ties to the Egyptian military. The New York Times reported that Long is an “old friend” of Sami Anan, the number two general in Military Council that rules Egypt. Obvious, she is a major supporter of the Egyptian military and skeptical about Egypt's democratic prospects. In an interview last February, Long criticized the Obama administration for voicing support for Egyptian protesters: “By running too fast [from the Mubarak regime] we send a terrible and premature message to our friends particularly Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon and Bahrain.” Speaking at a conference in Israel last Spring, Long seemed skeptical that Egyptian could handle democratic elections. She told an audience at IDC Herzliyah that ““democratic stirrings [in Egypt] may bring about profoundly undemocratic results.” She went on to warn that “elections do not democracy make.” Another of Romney's foreign policy advisors is causing quite a controversy. Walid Phares is a Lebanese “terrorism expert” who can claim unique expertise in the field, having been an advisor to a right-wing Lebanese militia known as the Guardians of Cedar during the Lebanese Civil War. Andrew Exum, a well known security expert at the New American Foundation called Phares “nuts.” Apart from Romney, the other leading candidates have said little publicly about their foreign policy goals. Rick Perry has been especially laconic since being criticized for admitting that his “faith” compels him to “support Israel.” Behind the scenes, Perry has taken his foreign policy cues directly from former Bush administration officials, including Donald Rumseld and Douglas Feith. Feith is a well known neo-conservative who warned last February that “If the Muslim Brotherhood gains the upper hand in Egypt, the revolution may do more harm than good for human rights in Egypt and may increase regional instability and the danger of war.” Feith is also under investigation for War Crimes by a Spanish court for his role in setting up the extrajudicial prison at Guantanamo Bay. Rumsfeld too has been warning that the Muslim Brotherhood may “hijack” the revolution. “ It's an organization that is, by our standards, radical and Islamist and certainly not benign”, he warned in late March. Since the ouster of Mubarak, the Brotherhood has repeatedly denounced violence formed democratic coalitions with both secular and liberal parties. But by and large, the Republican foreign policy establishment still cannot distinguish between democratic Islamist movements and terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda. Some prominent Republican advisors even propagate conspiracy theories about an immanent “global caliphate.” In a primary debate in September Michelle Bachman raised the specter of a “global caliphate.” According to Bachman—and some of her foreign policy advisors—the revolution in Egypt may be linked to a movement to impose Sharia law in the United States. Last August, Mother Jones reported reported that Bachman was taking unofficial advice from Frank Gaffney, a former Reagan official who is a vocal crusader against the spread of Sharia Islam in the U.S. He made a documentary called “Sharia: The Threat to America,” which makes the argument that there is a comprehensive plot by Islamic extremists “to infiltrate the United States government and all other levels of society and destroy America as we know it.” More recently, she has turned to Peter Schweizer, a research fellow at the Hoover institute and former Sarah Palin advisor, for foreign policy advice. On January 29th just a week before the ouster of Mubarak, Schweizer penned an article in support of continued support for the Muabarak regime. He characterized Obama's measured support of Egyptian protesters as “Hope and Change, with an Islamists twist.” Apart from long shots John Hunstman and Ron Paul, the other candidates appear either indifferent to foreign policy or paranoid about the rise of a global caliphate. The candidates' tepid support for democratic transition in Egypt is on the surface, quite surprising. The Republican Party spent the last ten years cheerleading “democracy promotion” in both Afghanistan and Iraq. People like Feith, Long, and Schweizer, were all vocal supporters of the President Bush's “Freedom Agenda.” In the face of genuine popular uprising against authoritarianism in Egypt, however, Republican foreign policy thinkers side with the autocrats. If the Republicans win the White House in 2012, we are sure to a see an administration eager to delay or forestall genuine democratic transition. BM
