By Shaun Tan

A few days ago I wrote an article entitled ‘No Pain, No Gain’, which addressed the US response to the ongoing crisis in Egypt. My classmate Thomas Francis was kind enough to offer a critique of my article, which is entitled '“Be careful what you wish for.” No kidding.’. I am glad to be able to return the favor.

As I see it, I have three issues to deal with, one factual, one semantic, and one a misinterpretation.

The factual issue involves the second and third sentences of ‘No Pain, No Gain’, which read: ‘For years the US has advocated democracy. For years it has publicly encouraged citizens of repressive regimes, calling on them to push for their rights, to speak out, not to be afraid.’. Mr Francis takes issue with this, claiming that these two sentences are ‘wholly false’, and denying that the US publicly encourages protest movements in repressive countries (apart from a few exceptions).

This contention is bizarre. I am under the impression that out of my entire article one would be hard-pressed to find a section less controversial than those two sentences. In formulating a reply the only difficulty is deciding where to begin.

The US has a strong tradition of publicly encouraging democracy and freedom, dating back to the founding father Thomas Jefferson, who in 1780 envisioned America as the force behind an ‘Empire of Liberty’, which would spread freedom to oppressed peoples across the world. Since then there have been countless other examples. In his 1904 State of the Union address Theodore Roosevelt said that America had a duty to intervene in foreign countries to prevent repression. During and after WWI Woodrow Wilson called for the self-determination of all nations, including colonies, which often put America at odds with its British and French allies.

Recent history has even more stark examples. Both Kennedy and Reagan famously expressed their support for ‘freedom for all mankind’ and their solidarity with those living under the totalitarian Soviet Union: ‘Ich bin ein Berliner’, ‘Mr Gorbachev tear down this wall!’. Responding to Mr Francis’ question: ‘in what cases does the US publicly encourage protest movements?’, the answer is: almost everywhere. American support for freedom and popular protest has been articulated in every corner of the globe: from HW Bush’s condemnation of the repression in Tiananmen Square, to the State Department’s vocal support for the 2007 BERSIH (Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections) rally in Malaysia, to Madeleine Albright’s 1998 speech in Africa where she said that ‘Promoting democracy and human rights is not just the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do.’. Indeed, so undeniable is this trend that just yesterday Robert Grenier, former director of the CIA’s Counter-Terrorism Center, referred to America’s ‘explicit ideological allegiance to freedom, democracy, and the universal rights of people.’. In light of all this, Mr Francis’ claim that the US hasn’t publicly encouraged democracy, freedom, and popular protest is not just wrong, it’s ridiculous.

The semantic issue involves a line in ‘No Pain, No Gain’ that refers to what I call ‘the ominously-named Muslim Brotherhood’. Mr Francis takes great issue with this, claiming that calling the name ‘ominous’ betrays an insidious Islamophobia on my part. It is up to me therefore to explain my choice of adjective.

What’s in a name? Potentially, quite a lot. I called the name ‘ominous’ not so much because I personally find the name ominous, but to reflect the vibe I imagine a typical US policymaker would feel upon hearing that name. Given the War on Terror and the rise of Islamophobia, the word ‘Muslim’ is commonly associated with terrorism and extremism. Furthermore, defining a political party in religious terms is inherently exclusionary, and raises the question of the rights of minority religions in Egypt (10% of its population is Christian).

Mr Francis incorrectly assumes that ‘ominous’ doesn’t also apply to the word ‘Brotherhood’. It does. To define a political party as a ‘Brotherhood’ is also inherently exclusionary, because it implies only male membership (much like fraternities in universities in America). It also reminds one of militant or martial strength. Given the already considerable concerns surrounding women’s rights in Muslim countries, it is no surprise that in this context the term ‘Brotherhood’ can send alarm bells ringing all over Washington. In light of the above (as far as names go) it is hard to deny that compared to the Muslim Brotherhood (or ‘Muslim Brothers Organization’), Hosni Mubarak’s National Democratic Party sounds much more palatable to a US policymaker.

The misinterpretation refers to my alleged portrayal of the Muslim Brotherhood as religious extremists. I did no such thing. I don’t pretend to be an authority on Egyptian political parties, but I read that the Muslim Brotherhood has its share of moderates, professionals, and intellectuals, and I kept this in mind at the time of writing my article. All I said in ‘No Pain, No Gain’ was that over the past few years Mubarak’s regime has portrayed the Muslim Brotherhood as religious extremists, and used them as ‘a political scarecrow’ to keep US support, and that so far, this strategy has worked. I go on to explain this by quoting Mohamed ElBaradei on the ‘demonization of the Muslim Brotherhood’. Mr Francis’ allegation is therefore completely unfounded.

SHAUN TAN is a first-year Masters student in International Relations at Yale University. Contact him at shaunzhiming.tan@yale.edu