The US really missed an opportunity to promote meaningful change in Egypt earlier this year when the administration indicated that it would not pursue a free trade agreement with Egypt. This is not so much the administration's fault as the US congress and senate, who believe that FTAs are a reward for good behaviour (see Jordan, Morocco, Gulf States) rather than a mechanism for promoting change.

FTA talks would have allowed reform of many of the systems that keep the Mubarak regime in power. For example, making the rules on government procurement more transparent would reduce the opportunities for patronage that allow Mubarak and his circle to survive. Trade talks are time-consuming and boring and lack the infantile appeal of Boot’s shot heard ‘round the world. But they work. The FTA process could allow the US to encourage the same sorts of changes that the EU is encouraging, again slowly, in Turkey. In both cases, the process of negotiation and change is as important as the final outcome.

Egypt already gets many of the benefits of free trade with the US through the QIZ system (another reward for good behaviour, given to Arab states that have signed treaties with Israel). But congress doesn’t see it this way, so a chance has been missed.

The $2bn in military aid to Egypt is linked to the Camp David treaty with Israel (and $3bn in aid to Israel as well). If Boot wants to dispense with this, then he must accept all of the consequences.

Posted by: Simon at May 15, 2006 08:27 AM | Permalink to this comment

There are two primary reasons for the billions we give to Egypt:

- It was part of the camp David bargain (as indicated by Simon above).

- The Suez Canal - it's a lifeline to Europe and the US, not to mention it's militarily strategic use. Can you imagine our carriers losing 7-10 days time to go around the cape in a crisis?

Posted by: Andy at May 15, 2006 03:03 PM | Permalink to this comment

Sure, let's take away Mubarak's foreign aid. We could always use another destabilized foreign haven for anti-American terrorists. If the US were to pull back these funds, the already weak economy, which relies heavily on Western tourism, would go into a tailspin. Mubarak would be seriously weakened and the emboldened radical leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood (the same folks who brought us our pal Ayman al Zawahiri) would be in the Heliopolis Presidential Palace before you can say "Pyramid". I wonder how easy transit through the Suez Canal and Red Sea would be with radical suicide cigarette speed boats in the mix. That being said we in the West should be under no misconceptions that Mubarak, a former air force general, rules Egypt with an iron grip. Having travelled there extensively, I was amazed by how many images of him are on posters, buildings, and the media in general. He may be a sonofabitch, but he's OUR sonofabitch, so let's keep the bleeding heart simplicity to ourselves.

Posted by: Bret Eagan at May 15, 2006 03:27 PM | Permalink to this comment

I dont think Boot said to take it away abruptly. He said to take it away, but that doesnt have to be abrupt.

How much of the hostility to the US in the arab world is due to our support for regimes like Mubarak's? A considerable amount I think.

Why isnt a "conscience caucus site" looking at the nature of the Mubarak regime, and what it does, and the cost to the US of that, rather than cherrypicking and mischarecterizing a quote from Boot for use as a strawman?

Posted by: liberalhawk at May 15, 2006 04:35 PM | Permalink to this comment

To inject real people into this discussion. An Egyptian blogger, Alaa, along with other Egyptians have been arrested while peacefully protesting the Egyptian govt's campaign of intimidiation against independent Judges. More details including a petition demanding their release can be found at http://www.sandmonkey.org/2006/05/09/help-us-free-alaa/#comments .

Posted by: David All at May 15, 2006 10:38 PM | Permalink to this comment