United States’ Foreign Policies to Egypt and Libya Foreign Policies before Uprisings

Foreign Policies before Uprisings

The United States have always enjoyed a cordial relationship with Libya and Egypt before the turmoil. The previous administrations the U.S. had very sound policies towards the two States, which were meant to strengthen ties.

The U.S. government never came up with policies projected to force the leaders of the two States to be accountable. Insisting on things like democracy and liberalization of the economy could anger the leaders of these States and hence straining the economic ties. The U.S. supported Libya in its endeavors while the United States benefited from reduced fuel prices.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

The U.S. government protected Libya from the angers of the reformists and other aggressions from outside. The autocratic leaders were supplied with weapons from the American arms industries. The American engineering industry benefited from the relations because it reaped maximally. The government of the U.S. avoided any conflicts with the two States since such conflicts can interfere with the multilateral relations.

The U.S. companies marketed the products from Libya and supplied the Egyptian industries with facilities such as machinery needed for production. The relations between the U.S. and the embattled States before the uprisings can therefore be termed as peaceful and cooperative. The relations were mutual since the two parties benefited, though the U.S. benefited more.

It is argued that there is no common government at the international system. States are more concerned with their self-interests. The U.S. supported the two countries because it benefited from such support. States at the international system exist according to the Hobbestian state of nature.

The international system is anarchic meaning that the mighty States, such as the U.S. subjugates the lesser ones. States at the international system have not yet formed a Leviathan, which is a common authority in charge of overseeing the affairs of all States. Libya and Egypt were supported by the U.S. only because of one reason, oil. After the uprisings, things changed.

The U.S. swiftly changed and demanded accountability from the leaders of the two States. This was aimed at preserving its image at the international system. The United States is always depicted as the image of democracy. It is not surprising that the U.S. voted for the decision at the U.N. Security Council authorizing the imposition of the no-fly zone to Libya. The U.S. foreign policies towards these states were inspired by economic motives.

Foreign Policies after the Uprising

The U.S. can bear Mubarak’s and Kaddafi’s defeat because it is uncertain Egyptian ruling leaders as well as Libyan autocrats will refuse to continue operating within the American precincts. Certainly, they will grip to the Washington’s lap. It is equally cynical that the military council managing Egypt at the command of the ruling class will lead the state in a way acceptable to the employees and students who ousted Mubarak.

It was sending a warning to the leader of the military council, Field Marshal Mohamed Tantawi, who served faithfully at Mubarak’s regime in ruling Egypt for years. The insurgents observe that while the tyrant is departed, vital features of the stretched repression are expected to stay put.

Washington is contented with the progress so far. What the United States cannot accept is a public rebellion in a State inferior to the U.S. that demolishes the established state machinery and starts edifying a fresh radical government devoted to throwing out the entire traces of the previous imperialist authority.

When Nicaragua attempted it, Uncle Sam instigated the Contras. After Cuba made it, the U.S. is still harsh to its little neighbor for proclaiming sovereignty from its Yankee overlord, 52 years afterward (Grimmett 76). The concern is whether the Egyptian citizens will be contended when fresh provisions are made in some months to come.

In Libya, the U.S. of late has taken a more active position as opposed to the time when the uprising started. It has joined other major powers in condemning the outraged Libyan government for assaulting innocent citizens and committing crimes against humanity. The U.S. forces have so far been deployed to the region to check any terror activities that might crop up in the course of the uprising.

Differences between Previous and Current Policies

The U.S. before the uprisings had friendly policies that were meant to entice the leaders to dispose of oil products at fair prices to the people of America. The U.S. supported all forms of governments in the region without considering their political responsibilities. Things have so far changed.

Every leader wishing to take over power is assessed carefully to determine whether he will abide by the rules and regulations of the United Nations (Bret 21). The current governments must be accountable and responsive to the needs of the people. It can be summarized that, while the policies before the uprisings were cooperative in nature, the policies after the uprisings are full of conflicts.

The Libyan autocrats are no longer protected because the whole world is now keen on the activities taking place. Supporting totalitarianism will be contradictory to the U.S. principles. For that reason, the U.S. is calling upon the leaders to liberalize the economy and ensure that basic human rights are adhered.

Future Foreign Policies

The U.S. policies in future will have to be tactful since the incoming governments may come up with new strategies to lockout the U.S. from oil proceeds. The secret agents are working out a formula to ensure that friendly leaders take over power in the two States. The leaders are expected to support the United States in the U.N. Security Council and its quest to achieving national interests.

The future foreign policies will be all encompassing and inclusive. The U.S. will come up with future policies after scrutinizing the idiosyncratic variables, that is the behavior of leaders and the institutional or governmental variables, implying the governmental institutions such as the civil service and the executive.

Future foreign policies will be shaped by the aftermath of the uprising. Should governmental powers land to the hands of the Islamic radicals, the U.S. will be forced to come up with more radical policies to counter the influence of the group. This could be one of the setbacks for the U.S. government.

Works Cited

Adams, Chris. “Libyan rebel leader spent much of past 20 years in suburban Virginia.” McClatchy Newspapers, March 2011. Web. June 12, 2011.

Bret, Stephens. “The Libya mission was never about regime change.” Wall Street Journal, March 2011. Web. June 12, 2011.

Grimmett, Richard. “The War Powers Resolution: After Thirty-Six Years.” Fas.org, 2010. Web. June 12, 2011.

Gutterman, Steve. “No UN mandate to attack Gaddafi forces: Russia.” Reuters, 2011. Web. June 12, 2011.

Kareem, Fahim. “Rebel leadership shows signs of strain in Libya.” New York Times, 2011. Web. June 12, 2011.

Youssef, May. “Anti-Gaddafists Rally in London.” Al Ahram Weekly, AlJazeera, May 2005. Web. June 12, 2011.