I was reading a fairly odd CFR article on the Egyptian coup (Even Good Coups Are Bad). I was curious what the US party line was going to be, and this is a very mixed message. Even the title of the article is ambiguous.
The coup being characterized as bad is consistent with the fact that the US is now starting to increase its fleet presence in the area. This coup is also being compared to one that briefly ousted Chávez, and he is characterized as despotic in the article:
Chávez ruled Venezuela for another decade, until his death, earlier this year, becoming more vengeful and authoritarian as he went.
Chávez is clearly characterized negatively since he was and has been bad for US interests.
How can we reconcile this “bad coup” characterization with statements in the article like:
As Ibrahim Saif, an economist at the Carnegie Endowment, put it, the revolution left “a hostile environment for private-sector investment,” fueled by “a perceived risk of expropriation,” as well as damaging “taxation, stringent regulations, export and production subsidies, and high transaction costs associated with red tape.”
Here “revolution” is the machinations that installed Morsi, and it’s clear that Morsi being outed is “good” because he was bad for globalist exploitation agendas.
All said, this is a very confusing position piece.
EDIT: This confusion was cleared up by a chance reading from Perkins’ “The Secret History of the American Empire”, where it was noted that Chávez also led a coup attempt and was jailed for two years prior to him being elected as President later after his release. That must have been the coup that the CFR article was actually talking about.
Eventually, I’ll learn enough world history that I’ll be able to make sense of this stuff.