United States Support for Global Social Justice? Foreign Intervention and Realpolitik in Egypt's Arab Spring (2012)

On rare occasions, and under certain conditions, segments of the population respond to the repressive and violent conditions imposed on them by a state's leader by seeking social justice in a variety of ways--from broad social movements to revolutions. The that began in December 2010 is an example of such uprisings. The authors suggest that political factors, in particular the need of states to maintain legitimacy and pursue their interests, affect the framing, labeling, and repression of those involved in ending state violence. In this context, the reaction of foreign states to social unrest is more often than not predicated on their geopolitical interests than on their stated support for social justice, democracy, humanitarian concerns, or human rights. By drawing on theories of power, discourse, and legitimacy, the authors analyze the contradictory responses of the United States to the Arab Spring uprisings in Egypt. Keywords: Realpolitik, Arab uprisings, state crime, Obama administration ********** STATE CRIME, (1) STATE REPRESSION, AND VIOLENCE AGAINST CITIZENS regretfully are regular occurrences in history. On rare occasions, and under certain circumstances, segments of the population respond to the repressive and violent conditions imposed by a state's leader by mobilizing to achieve social justice. (2) The forms of these uprisings may range from broad social movements to revolutions. Such has been the case in what is now termed the Spring, which began in December 2010. However, responses to state violence and repression are not always hailed as noble efforts but rather are sometimes called acts of terrorism, as is the case with the struggles of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Political factors affect the framing of these events, including the need for states to maintain legitimacy, preserve their interests, and counter conditions of unrest. When geopolitically important states are involved, many within the Western world hail emerging social movements as efforts to democratize and gain human rights and freedom (Schwedler, Stacher, and Yadou 2011). This framing and subsequent discourse is what we typically hear in political, media, and scholarly accounts of such events. Typically ignored, however, are the external interventions that have supported, covertly and overtly, the conditions of repression and violence. The political alliances and stated support for or against existing social movements are more often than not predicated on the geopolitical interests of Western states rather than on the touted dogmas of social justice, democracy, humanitarian concerns, or human rights, which are often only invoked as efforts to legitimize state actions (see, for example, the US precursor to the build-up to the invasion of Iraq). Drawing on theories of power, discourse, and legitimacy, in this article we analyze the response of the United States to the Arab Spring uprisings in Egypt and the subsequent removal of President Mubarak from office. We attempt to unveil the contradictions between the United States' support of the movement and its backing of repressive regimes. States must legitimize their actions and positions, for example through the adoption of certain discourses (i.e., condemning the regime responsible for violently repressing uprisings), while simultaneously pursuing interests and policies that strategically benefit them politically and economically. In the case at hand, the Obama administration not only demonstrates hypocrisy, but through the pursuit of its own self-interest, it is also complicit in the facilitation of Egyptian state violence. We first briefly review the extant literature and theoretical perspectives guiding our research and then discuss the onset of the Arab Spring movement and the subsequent public reactions of President Barack Obama and his administration. Literature Review Of the many journalistic and nongovernmental reports on the Arab Spring (Ahram Online 2011a, 2011b, 2012; Byman 2011a, 2011b; Fick and ElBoweti 2013; Mustafa 2011), most are typically historical, descriptive, and atheoretical. …