Follow us on social

Anti-coup_sit-in_at_rabaa_adiweya_mosque_2013

Nine years after Rabaa massacre, US still turns blind eye to Egyptian abuses

Washington continues to treat el-Sisi with kid gloves, supplying the despotic regime with aid, hurting its own credibility in the process.

Analysis | Africa

On August 6th, 2013, almost one week before Egyptian security forces would massacre over 800 civilians protesting in and around Rabaa Square, U.S. Senator John McCain stood in Cairo and publicly called the regime change in Egypt what it was: a military coup.

The U.S. government did not follow suit and officially label the overthrow of Egypt’s first democratically elected president a coup, a move that would have required it to cut off $1.3 billion in military aid. Rather, successive administrations have taken meager and halting steps to condemn the consequent waves of repression.

In the years since, Egyptian officials have counted on Washington officially mischaracterizing, or ignoring, the severity of the challenges, which has had serious ramifications both on Egypt’s human rights situation and on American democracy.

Nine years later, Egypt’s repression has not only claimed the freedom of an estimated 60,000 political prisoners, but its reach has extended to U.S. soil. And yet, Egypt continues to enjoy its status as a Washington ally: President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the same man who presided over the massacre at Raba’a al Adaweya, is planning to travel to the U.S. twice this year. This is, in part, because the current regime in Egypt has continuously counted on Washington's willful ignorance of faux reforms as meaningful steps. 

Most recently, for instance, el-Sisi has called for national dialogue and for the re-constitution of a dormant presidential pardon committee to release political detainees. In the months since these calls, the dialogue was relegated from the supervision of the presidency to a little-known training academy, where its steering committee included none of the names put forward by the opposition.

Even more discouraging, when a former parliamentarian and head of the opposition Alkarama Party wrote several opinion pieces criticizing the dialogue, the regime blocked the news site. Most damning of all, while 443 people have been released since el-Sisi’s remarks, at least 716 have been arrested. For every detainee they have released, they have detained almost two. Beyond new detainments, over 7,000 people have seen their pretrial detentions renewed in the same time period.

Egyptian civil society sees a very different country than what the current regime markets abroad. Whereas Egypt plans to host the COP27 meetings in Sharm ElShiekh this November, environmental activists such as Ahmed Amasha, who has been subjected to enforced disappearance and torture, and Seif Fateen, a former professor director of environmental engineering program at Zewail University, remain behind bars. 

Others like prominent British-Egyptian activist Alaa Abdelfatah, human rights lawyer Hoda Abdelmoniem, and former member of parliament Ziad El-Elimy continue to endure increasingly harsh prison conditions. All of these, and tens of thousands of others, have worked and dreamed about an Egypt for all Egyptians. Issues like climate change and sustainable development are what pushed them to Tahrir square in 2011. An agenda of accountability and change, on climate or otherwise, is impossible without an active civil society. A civil society behind bars or threatened in exile is tremendously less effective at securing either.

The administration’s failure to take serious measures to combat these human rights abuses, and call things for what they are, is increasingly a threat not just to Egyptian democracy, but to our own.

Egypt’s reach into American democracy has been through consistent threats to activists, defamation campaigns, and travel bans against the families of dissidents. A recent report by Freedom House found Egypt to be the third-largest aggressor of transnational repression. At the Freedom Initiative, we have documented instances in which US citizens were denied travel back home from Egypt because of their parents’ political activism. 

We have also documented incidents in which citizens were surveilled by foreign security operatives and threatened to be physically harmed on U.S. soil. Activists who engage U.S. civil society are also defamed on state-owned channels and, perhaps more urgently, have their family members arrested.

By failing to use its leverage and undermining campaign promises, the Biden admin is harming its credibility. Days after President Biden’s meeting with el-Sisi, a notable columnist, and member of the steering committee for National Dialogue, wrote an op-ed mocking activism in the U.S. saying that Washington will always choose interests over human rights, and that the meeting was a case in point.

One way to combat this notion is to ensure that upcoming meetings with Washington officials are done on the condition that U.S. persons behind bars and under travel bans are released and allowed to come back home. Meetings without these measures are read as implicit endorsements of the regime's policies. This includes people like Salah Soltan, a legal permanent resident, Hussien Mahdy, the father of a US asylum seeker, and Seif Fateen, the father of three US citizens.

Nine years ago on August 14, 2013, over 800 people were killed in one day in Rabaa square. The U.S. administration at the time stood against calling the regime change what it was and we have continued to pay the price of de facto endorsements of these policies. 

These endorsements have only contributed to a worsening human rights condition in Egypt and has manifested as a security threat for America and Americans. The killing of Jamal Khashoggi and recent arrest tied to attempted assassination of John Bolton speak to a fact that autocracies have grown to see their borders as reaching till the doorsteps of their most fierce critics. 

This administration's promise of “no more blank checks to dictators” has manifested itself in lackluster efforts that have been read as implicit endorsements of bad global practices. Holding Egypt more accountable and calling faux reforms for what they are is a good first step towards rectifying this.


Muslim Brotherhood supporters engage in a month-long sit-in at the Rabaa Adiweya mosque against President Morsi arrest and coup. This photo was taken 12 days before the el-Sisi government massacre, which killed more than protesters, according to estimates by human rights organizations. (H. Elrasam for VOA/public domain/wikimedia commons)
Analysis | Africa
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.