Exclusive: John Kerry Defies the White House on Egypt Policy

[DonViejo]

By Josh Rogin

November 18th 20135:45 AM

The secretary doesn’t agree with Obama’s team, especially Susan Rice, on how to deal with Egypt. Unfortunately for Rice, Kerry is the one on the ground—and he’s doing things his way.

Before Secretary of State John Kerry’s recent trip to Cairo, National Security Adviser Susan Rice told him to make strong statements in public and private about the trial of deposed President Mohamed Morsi. On his own, Kerry decided to disregard the White House’s instructions.

The tension between the national security adviser and the secretary of state spilled over into public view in the past week, when Rice laid out her critical appraisal of the Egyptian government, which contradicted Kerry’s assessment that Egypt was “on the path to democracy.” The now public rift has been simmering behind the scenes for months and illustrates the strikingly divergent Egypt policies the White House and the State Department are pursuing.

The turf battles and internal confusion are hampering the administration’s approach to Egypt, say lawmakers, experts, and officials inside both governments.

“John Kerry doesn’t agree with Susan Rice on big portions of our Egypt policy, and he made a deliberate and conscious decision not to mention Morsi in his Cairo meetings,” an administration official told The Daily Beast. “Susan Rice wasn’t happy about it.”

Full article
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/18/exclusive-john-kerry-defies-the-white-house-on-egypt-policy.html

[newfie11]

1. Kerry needs to continue what he's doing

He's doing a good job.

[Mass]

2. It would be nice if leaks were not the working tool of the White House.

It is hurting the White House a lot more than any policy disagreement between the NS Adviser and Secretary of State.

This said, as for the debate which is a valid one (I do not quite understand Kerry's position on this one, except may be on the basis of pragmatism), it is one worth having, but not through WH and State Department staffers leaking to the media. Our democracy deserves better.

[karynnj]

6. I agree - the leaks are counter productive

It also seems this is a Rice staffer leak. It is also misleading to refer Rice's position as the "White House's". That should be Obama's position - and I seriously doubt that had Obama told Kerry that was his position that he would blow it off.

The author's name is familiar as he wrote an article when Rice was named NSA that claimed this made her "Kerry's boss", which is not true. She is an adviser to the President, but so is Kerry. The difference is that he runs the State Department. He also was one of the people pushing Rice, when Obama had not yet named anyone.

[elfin]

3. Looks like Rice still wants to be Sec. State

I trust Kerry more than her in choosing which statements best further better outcomes for Egypt and the region.

She bothers me, and I can't explain why. I thought she got a raw deal in the events leading up to the Sec. St. nomination choice, but always thought Kerry was better qualified.

If she is using NSA to determine foreign policy on her own - not good.

[TwilightGardener]

4. I read that Rice held a Mideast administration policy review--aaaand never bothered

to invite the Secretaries of State and Defense. Because why would they need to know what the WH Mideast policies are? I think Kerry and Hagel are not as enamored of the Muslim Brotherhood and the APPEARANCE of Egyptian "democracy" as some in the WH, and the usual maniacs Graham and McCrazy. How about we just let Egypt sort itself out, and Libya, and Syria, etc. etc.?

[karynnj]

5. If true about the review, Obama needs to call the shots here

He nominated and supported both Kerry and Hagel. They actually met with people in Egypt - which Rice did not. The question is who DID Rice include in her review. It seems clear that the article is saying that the State Department experts advised Kerry and he followed their advise.

Though he may not have spoken of Morsi, he DID in effect call the coup a coup - in that he did publicly explain that the cut in aid was mandated by US law because it was a military take over of a democratically elected government.

When Morsi was in power, he pushed Morsi to allow a more inclusive government and to insure democracy. In this case, there is no black and white situation -- it was two very dark shades of gray. Morsi eliminated any judicial counter balance - exempting any of his rules from judiciary review. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/world/middleeast/morsi-urged-to-retract-edict-to-bypass-judges-in-egypt.html?_r=0 (However as the white counterpart to that black, it was right after he negotiated the Gaza ceasefire.)

US policy has been murky since Mubarak was over thrown. There is no doubt that Morsi was democratically elected, but he then moved far from the role that the elected leader was expected to have - giving himself dictatorial powers. When he put out a draft Constitution, it led to MORE protestors than those that toppled Mubarak. However, this leads to a pattern that the way to change government is to riot in the streets.

It looks like what Kerry and Hagel are doing is dealing with the government in power. The fact is that the withheld US aid is smaller than the additional aid that SA provided in response to our cut. The REAL question is whether the US has any leverage at all to apply in Egypt. Then the question is whether it helps or hurts US interests long term to diplomatically fight for Morsi. It is very likely he is a lost cause and any effort might be better applied AFTER the trial to get some mercy. He had already earned the hatred of most moderates in the country. It seems like what Kerry and Hagel are trying to do is to use the very limited amount of pressure they have to push for the existing government to be more democratic and allow more people a say in their government -- and I assume they know this is unlikely.

It is interesting that the article refers to Rice - in the headline - as White House. An interesting question is whether OBAMA actually agreed with Rice's position. I highly doubt that Kerry would blow off the President's position - and that he would not be called on it.

Rice has a long habit of having people allied with her leak to the media as a way to further her positions. (Kerry is very much the opposite) It is interesting that OBAMA has repeated given Kerry the lead - not her. That is true on Syria (where Obama clearly backed Kerry over Powers trying to expand the resolution beyond what Kerry and Lavrov negotiated - with the end result being Kerry/Lavrov working out the final language.), Iran - where Obama said he wanted Kerry to negotitate, and Israel/Palestine.

It is even clearer in a much lower profile case of the Congo. Here, it was Feingold who negotiated the peace treaty with M23, one of the rebel groups - and Kerry, who pushed Rwanda to stop supporting the rebels. (One negative for Rice as SoS was that she backed the leaders of Rwanda more than many thought reasonable.)

If it is Rice herself making these leaks, she needs to stop or maybe Obama needs a new NSA.