It can be easy to compare the US official position on the military coup in Egypt against the late President Mohamed Morsi in 2013 and the US position on the military coup against the elected chancellor in Myanmar in 2021, as the army coup occurred in Egypt during the era of President Barack Obama and his current Vice President Joe Biden. The Myanmar coup happened two weeks after the current Democratic President Joe Biden took office in America.

(1) Between two coups

When the army coup occurred against the first elected Egyptian president in the country's history, the American position was clouded by a haze and lack of clarity, as the American position was included that President Barack Obama communicated at that time with the late Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi two days before his removal, and declared that the United States is committed to the democratic process and that it does not support A specific party, explaining to the Egyptian President that democracy is not just elections, and demanding that the president listen to the voices of all Egyptians.

Whereas, the US Secretary of Defense was in contact with the commander of the Egyptian army who led the military coup, as President Al-Sisi said in his interview with the American newspaper "The Washington Post" after that.

Days later, the White House spokesman, "Carney", came out to express the United States' refusal to describe what happened in Egypt as a military coup, describing the Egyptian President Morsi that he was not governing in a democratic way, and that the army's support for those who went against him is not a coup.

Then came the position of the US Secretary of State at that time John Kerry, the former Democratic candidate for the US presidency, accusing the Brotherhood of stealing the Egyptian revolution, describing the Egyptian youth who emerged in the January revolution against ousted President Hosni Mubarak that they left for work and freedom, and that the largest organization had stolen their revolution from them, intending by that to organize Muslim Brotherhood.

After the forceful dispersal of Rabaa Square and the fall of the dead, the White House stopped the military aid to the Egyptian army, but quickly returned the military aid from Apache helicopters and (F-16) to the Egyptian army, explaining that these equipment would help the Egyptian army to eliminate extremism in Sinai.

In Myanmar, the matter was different, as the US position was clear and decisive from the first hours of the military coup in Myanmar, and then the clear American positions followed soon after.

The current US President described the arrest of Chancellor Aung San Sochi as a direct assault on democracy and the rule of law, stating that the will of the people cannot be abolished and the results of valid elections erased by force.

Although the spokesman for the US Department of Defense ruled out US military intervention against the coup in Myanmar, the United States imposed sanctions on the coup leader and a number of army officers, and warned the coup generals that there would be more sanctions on companies belonging to the army.

The United States also called on members of the United Nations to impose sanctions on the leaders of the coup, similar to what it had done, and these calls were answered by the European Union, which issued a strongly worded statement against the leaders of the coup demanding the release of the Myanmar chancellor and the need to respect the outcome of the elections and the democratic process.

(2) Position difference

While the American public stance was blurred on the coup that took place in Egypt and governed by American interests, the decisive position on the coup in Myanmar is also governed by US interests, not by principled positions.

The American position that came in the gray area after the military coup in Egypt was governed by several interest considerations, the most important of which is that the White House used to see in the Egyptian regime elected from an Islamic background a system that was not friendly to the United States of America, but at the same time it did not classify it as an enemy regime, and this is what he declared The American President at that time, Barack Obama, commenting on the attempt by some demonstrators to attack the United States embassy in Cairo and remove the American flag from it.

At the same time, the United States viewed with concern the Egyptian regime’s position on the peace treaty with Israel, despite the late Egyptian President Morsi's statement that Egypt would respect all previous agreements as long as the other side respects them.

The position of the late Egyptian president on the war on Gaza and Israel's accusations against Egypt of facilitating the flow of arms to Gaza during Morsi's rule, with the late Egyptian president avoiding any contact with Israel, had angered the United States, so it felt that its great ally in the region was no longer the same strategic ally it was in the days of Hosni Mubarak.

In addition to the United States ’fear of securing energy sources and their flow from the Middle East after the events of the Arab Spring, it used to see Morsi staying in more Arab revolutions in different regions.

As for the situation in Myanmar, it appears to be different and contrary to all the conditions that were in Egypt at the time of the coup. The military coup harms US interests and gives China the edge in the geopolitical competition between China and America in Asian countries.

China refused to describe what happened in Myanmar as a coup, and called on all parties to resolve differences by peaceful means, in order to preserve Chinese interests in Myanmar, as Chinese companies implement huge economic projects, especially in the field of infrastructure, and the Chinese leadership has close ties with the army leaders. China has been accused of hidden support for the military coup, which is denied by China and rejected by the United States, which found in the coup in Myanmar an expansion of Chinese influence at the expense of its interests and presence in Asia.

(3) Double standards

There is no doubt that double standards affect the image of the United States and its presentation of itself as a custodian of democracy and human rights and support for the liberation of peoples from tyranny.

Such attitudes, the Arab peoples lose their confidence in the United States and strengthen their negative view of the American positions, as the Arab peoples see that the United States of America is an ally of tyranny in the region and that it uses slogans of democracy only to improve its image, but in reality it does the opposite of everything it declares and calls for from the point of view. Their view, and this is what the Arab elites, opinion leaders, and leaders of parties and groups that oppose tyranny and stand up to in the region believe in and are convinced of.

The US's unprincipled position on the Egyptian military coup requires the Arab liberation movements to pay attention to several matters.

It must realize that it is first and foremost concerned with carrying out the struggle itself for liberation from the state of political despotism in the region, and that Western and American support in particular for liberation movements and emancipation from tyranny is only complementary and supportive, as it cannot be relied upon in bringing about any political transformation regardless of the external pressure. And great western.

The liberation movements must also realize that the West is not a human rights association concerned with spreading freedom and democracy, and that this Western support is contingent on the availability of real conditions for it by preserving Western interests in the region and at the same time ensuring that hostile regimes are not formed, as the West cannot support any democratic transformations It can generate enemies of democracy, Western values, and Western interests.

The Arab liberation movements, and in particular here the Islamic liberation movements, must realize that going through any reform and demanding full Western support for them requires them to enter into understandings in the smallest details with the West, and that sitting in the gray areas of Western values ​​and their interests will undermine confidence between the regimes Western and those movements and makes them easy prey for the forces of tyranny and counter-revolutions.

The liberation movements must realize that the struggle with tyranny is not a case of a popular revolution only, even if it is its backbone, but the revolution and the political shift from tyranny to the rule of the people themselves is a complex political process in which the internal factor overlaps with the external factor, and the interests of the major powers intersect, and this requires reading It is accurate to the scene and always looking to benefit from everything that is possible and from all the available spaces away from previous ideological positions. What is suitable for the opposition is not suitable for political coercions and dealing with reality after gaining power.

The Arab liberation movements lost their spring in their first wave when they ignored the fact that the West does not support the peoples' liberation movements unless it reassures its leaders and is similar to it in adopting Western values ​​and Western interests, which requires liberation movements to realize how they should present themselves to the West, and how their discourse should be What it appears to be, and how it can build alliances with the West to ensure the stability of the political transition and the success of the process of political emancipation and freedom from tyranny, to begin after that the state of contribution to human civilization and the rise again in partnership with Western models and their humanitarian and political renaissance