McCain Isn't a Brother, and Egypt Isn't Syria
Published in Asharq Al Awsat
(Saudi Arabia) on 10 August 2013
by Abdullrahman Al-Rashid (link to
original)
Unlike what is said about him these days in the Arab media, Republican Senator John McCain is one of the American politicians most deserving of respect. He has numerous elevated positions that distinguish him on foreign policy issues like Syria, the Palestinian territories and others. His voice was almost the only alarm bell sounding two years ago as the Syrian revolution was stirring, while others ignored the conflict. He fought in the corridors of Washington and tried to convince the president and Congress of the necessity to assume a military stance against the Assad regime, instead of merely providing economic aid. All that he spoke about and warned against happened today.
However, when McCain went to Egypt, he angered a majority of people there; they accused him of siding with the Muslim Brotherhood. There were those who went so far as to say that he was spearheading an American project to impose the Muslim Brotherhood's agenda on the Egyptian people. Certainly, McCain is pouring oil, not water, on the fire at a time when feelings are inflamed and when the conflict between the political parties is at its peak. The Muslim Brotherhood was negotiating a truce with its opponents through the local religious and political leadership, but then it changed its stance and became more radical after the arrival of American intermediaries. It considered McCain’s visit a sign of support for its position! The senator said that his visit and that of the political and diplomatic team was not to pressure on any political groups but rather to express his country’s respect for Egypt and to support the parties in their attempts to get Egypt out of its crisis.
I think that McCain’s error was that he is confusing Syria and Egypt. The El-Sisi party is not the party of Assad, the president of Syria, and the Egyptian army does not represent the minority. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is the opposition. There is no comparison between Egypt and Syria, despite the similarity between the place and the time.
The Brotherhood propaganda machine abroad, including its scattered connections and voices claiming that it is Islam and that it represents Muslims, is played on three strings. The first is that the isolation of President Morsi is the overthrow of elected legitimacy. The second claims that the street revolution on July 30 was merely a military coup. The last plays on the string of terrorism, contending that the existence of Islamic groups in government prevents terrorism! The truth has obscured the Egyptian situation for those outside Cairo; the three reasons are all partially correct. It is true that the voters chose Morsi, but his group tried to seize the state and move Egypt toward an Iranian model. His government was an extremely fascist state, and it was dangerous to the world. Moreover, the military did not enter until the push and pull escalated to a critical point within the country. As for the third allegation, that a Muslim Brotherhood presidency in Egypt or Tunisia or elsewhere blocks extremist group that rely on violence from accessing power, it is an oversimplification. Extremist Islamist groups are not recognized by moderate groups. They reject and fight everyone in the government. Previously, they targeted moderate Islamic groups; they are now blamed for the deteriorating security situation in Tunisia. Jihadist groups criticize El-Nahda; they are behind the toppling of the Islamic El-Nahda government and parliament. They killed two opposition leaders, causing agitation in the streets against El-Nahda.
I, like many others, am convinced of one thing by McCain’s story: the need to involve the Muslim Brotherhood in the government. This is what nearly everyone in the second camp is saying — Mohamed ElBaradei, Hamdeen Sabahi and even the army. The dispute with the Muslim Brotherhood is only about its management of the state. It must accept a complete democracy, not a selective one. It must accept a constitution that grants rights to everyone and protects the freedom of the country's populace. It must respect the tripartite division of power. These are questions the isolated president and his companions tried to ignore, which led to the unification of the diverse forces on the left and right that now oppose him.
However, when McCain went to Egypt, he angered a majority of people there; they accused him of siding with the Muslim Brotherhood. There were those who went so far as to say that he was spearheading an American project to impose the Muslim Brotherhood's agenda on the Egyptian people. Certainly, McCain is pouring oil, not water, on the fire at a time when feelings are inflamed and when the conflict between the political parties is at its peak. The Muslim Brotherhood was negotiating a truce with its opponents through the local religious and political leadership, but then it changed its stance and became more radical after the arrival of American intermediaries. It considered McCain’s visit a sign of support for its position! The senator said that his visit and that of the political and diplomatic team was not to pressure on any political groups but rather to express his country’s respect for Egypt and to support the parties in their attempts to get Egypt out of its crisis.
I think that McCain’s error was that he is confusing Syria and Egypt. The El-Sisi party is not the party of Assad, the president of Syria, and the Egyptian army does not represent the minority. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is the opposition. There is no comparison between Egypt and Syria, despite the similarity between the place and the time.
The Brotherhood propaganda machine abroad, including its scattered connections and voices claiming that it is Islam and that it represents Muslims, is played on three strings. The first is that the isolation of President Morsi is the overthrow of elected legitimacy. The second claims that the street revolution on July 30 was merely a military coup. The last plays on the string of terrorism, contending that the existence of Islamic groups in government prevents terrorism! The truth has obscured the Egyptian situation for those outside Cairo; the three reasons are all partially correct. It is true that the voters chose Morsi, but his group tried to seize the state and move Egypt toward an Iranian model. His government was an extremely fascist state, and it was dangerous to the world. Moreover, the military did not enter until the push and pull escalated to a critical point within the country. As for the third allegation, that a Muslim Brotherhood presidency in Egypt or Tunisia or elsewhere blocks extremist group that rely on violence from accessing power, it is an oversimplification. Extremist Islamist groups are not recognized by moderate groups. They reject and fight everyone in the government. Previously, they targeted moderate Islamic groups; they are now blamed for the deteriorating security situation in Tunisia. Jihadist groups criticize El-Nahda; they are behind the toppling of the Islamic El-Nahda government and parliament. They killed two opposition leaders, causing agitation in the streets against El-Nahda.
I, like many others, am convinced of one thing by McCain’s story: the need to involve the Muslim Brotherhood in the government. This is what nearly everyone in the second camp is saying — Mohamed ElBaradei, Hamdeen Sabahi and even the army. The dispute with the Muslim Brotherhood is only about its management of the state. It must accept a complete democracy, not a selective one. It must accept a constitution that grants rights to everyone and protects the freedom of the country's populace. It must respect the tripartite division of power. These are questions the isolated president and his companions tried to ignore, which led to the unification of the diverse forces on the left and right that now oppose him.