Hi everyone!
For anyone interested in reading a concise overview of the history of the Muslim Brotherhood and its presence in the Middle East since its founding in Egypt in 1928, I suggest you pick up a copy of this week's The Economist. As is typical of its reportage, the article provides an in-depth though thoroughly readable discussion on how, in the ongoing wake of the Arab Spring, the Brotherhood and its confederates are determining the political direction of the entire Middle East.
Branches of the Brotherhood are present in almost every country in the Arab World. Surprisingly, they aren't necessarily as aligned as one might think. In Egypt's recent elections, the Brotherhood dominated the polls and now make up more than 50 percent of the new parliament. The same is true in Tunisia. In Jordan, the Islamic Action Front (a Brotherhood affiliate) comprises the political opposition and has been dominant in this role for decades. Over in Gaza, Hamas--otherwise known as the Islamic Resistance Movement--was born from a Brotherhood charity. In Iraq, Algeria, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Yemen, offshoots of the Brotherhood have been influential in the respective parliaments of these countries. And although the Assad regime in Syria has banned its own Syrian Brotherhood, it has allowed Hamas to run its headquarters from Damascus much to the Syrian Brotherhood's chagrin, although this has changed of late as Hamas has moved out of the country in light of the Syrian uprising and Assad's bloody crackdown.
What the Arab Spring has done is given the Muslim Brotherhood--or Ikhwan as it known in Arabic--genuine political legitimacy. No longer is it a cultish underground organization kept under persecution by the ruling secular elite. As the recent democratic elections in Egypt and Tunisia have demonstrated, the majority of people want a solidly religious (and thereby moral) leadership. It's not really all that surprising when one considers the extent of corruption and graft that were inherent of these previous autocracies. And while the rise of political Islam may not be what the West has hoped for, the Brotherhood--at least for now--is being quite pragmatic in its approach to government.
In Egypt, for example, Brotherhood leaders have attended Coptic Christian religious ceremonies as proof that they support a religiously pluralistic landscape. They have also been vocal in their support of women taking a greater role in government, which has also been true in Tunisia and within Hamas. They have been criticized however for not being tough enough against SCAF, the military counsel that now dominates Egypt's transitional government, and have been accused of discouraging those who have protested for an immediate SCAF withdrawal. But again, this is pure pragmatism. What's important right now--as the Brotherhood has openly stated--is to get society back on track after a tumultuous year that has severely weakened the Egyptian economy and wrecked its tourism industry. It would seem the last thing on the Brotherhood's minds right now is extremist ideology, though of course that is always a concern.
Bottom line: it's simply still too early to determine whether the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East is going to prove an asset or a detriment to the economic and social development of these countries on the world stage. While the West certainly has some cause to be wary, the Brotherhood as it has evolved and will continue to evolve, is not al-Qaeda. It is remarkable that amid all the turmoil in the region over the past year, al-Qaeda has not been a dominant voice, although of late there has been concern that it has infiltrated the Syrian opposition movement. If we want democracy to blossom in the Arab World, we have to withhold judgement and allow things to develop organically, even if an Arab version of democracy does not always align with Western interests.
When you empower the people to speak, you have to listen to what they say. This does not mean you always have to agree. That's the spirit of true democracy.
Ciao.
Showing posts with label SCAF. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SCAF. Show all posts
Monday, February 20, 2012
Friday, February 3, 2012
Fear and Loathing in the Arab World: Syria, Egypt, and Algeria
Hi everyone!
As I expected, the Arab League and the United Nations Security Council came out of their negotiations yesterday with a severely watered-down version of their resolution against Syria. Whereas the original draft had stipulated Assad must step down and cede power to an acting vice president before new democratic elections were held, the document that came out of yesterday's meeting drops any mention of Assad's ouster. It also doesn't articulate an arms embargo or new sanctions. This is because Russia (quietly backed by China and India) has expressed utter antipathy toward any punishment for the Assad regime's horrendous treatment of its protesters and threatened to veto any resolution that even hinted at regime change. Russia has continued to supply pro-government forces with arms and ammunition and sees no reason why it should stop. The Kremlin claims it is no friend of Bashar al-Assad but does not agree with foreign intervention in domestic affairs. More to the point, Putin knows his own political actions lack legitimacy and, by showing any support for the Syrian protesters, he doesn't want to be seen supporting a movement that calls for the ouster of another dictator.
So thanks to Russia, we have a resolution that doesn't really mean all that much. The Arab League and the Security Council are in agreement that Assad is bad and that the country would (though the resolution doesn't say this) be better off without him. We already know this. This isn't news. So what's next? Assad continues to kill with impunity, the rest of the world (minus Russia, China, and India) collectively shakes its head, and the death toll hits 10,000.
Elsewhere in the Arab World, things aren't all that rosier. Mass protests continued in Cairo yesterday in response to the soccer stadium massacre in Port Said Wednesday night. Eyewitness reports continue to come in which only throw mud in the eye of the Egyptian security apparatus and point toward at least tacit SCAF support for what happened. Apparently, right when the game ended and the El Masry fans charged the pitch, the stadium lights blacked out, providing the rioters temporary cover as they initiated their attack against the unsuspecting al Ahry team and fans. Other reports claim security closed and locked the gates of the stadium when the violence began, in effect trapping those trying to escape inside. Al Ahry's "Ultras" as their ardent supporters are called have been very vocal in their demands that first Mubarak and now the military council step down, having taken a front-and-center role in the protests since their start a year ago.
But--lest this column be too much gloom and doom going into Super Bowl weekend--there was some levity to be had. Iran hosted a conference in Tehran this week where it expressed pride in having been the birthplace of the "Islamic Awakening." Right. Conspicuously absent from this "conference" was any mention of Syria whose protest movement, Iran insists, is the work of foreign meddling and provocation. Try telling that to the thousands of Syrian people and defecting soldiers on the streets of Homs and Hama who are being mowed down by pro-Assad tanks.
I don't know where this is all headed and I'm fearful of the worst. Democratic transition is never easy and it is unrealistic to expect the process to be a success overnight. But the West, having been burned by involvement in two wars in the region over the past ten years, is loath to jump into the fray again. I understand this reluctance but can we in good conscience sit on the sidelines while hundreds of innocent people are killed on a daily basis?
It reminds me of the attitude France took after its eight-year undeclared war with Algeria. Once Algerian independence was granted in 1962, De Gaulle turned his back on Algeria and more-or-less refused to address it or acknowledge the concerns of pro-French Algerians in both Algeria and France. As British historian Martin Evans points out in his thorough and informative but at times tedious new book "Algeria: France's Undeclared War," when considering the French Resistance movement during World War Two and France's fight to preserve its colonial integrity in Indochina, France had been in a state of war for over twenty years by the time the Algerian conflict wrapped up. Consequently, it turned inward and focused on domestic and European affairs, much as the U.S. is doing now.
I suppose only time will tell. And while I understand Egyptian rage and their fear that the military will never step down, killing each other is not the way to effect positive change. Violence begets violence. It's the stuff history is made of.
Ciao.
As I expected, the Arab League and the United Nations Security Council came out of their negotiations yesterday with a severely watered-down version of their resolution against Syria. Whereas the original draft had stipulated Assad must step down and cede power to an acting vice president before new democratic elections were held, the document that came out of yesterday's meeting drops any mention of Assad's ouster. It also doesn't articulate an arms embargo or new sanctions. This is because Russia (quietly backed by China and India) has expressed utter antipathy toward any punishment for the Assad regime's horrendous treatment of its protesters and threatened to veto any resolution that even hinted at regime change. Russia has continued to supply pro-government forces with arms and ammunition and sees no reason why it should stop. The Kremlin claims it is no friend of Bashar al-Assad but does not agree with foreign intervention in domestic affairs. More to the point, Putin knows his own political actions lack legitimacy and, by showing any support for the Syrian protesters, he doesn't want to be seen supporting a movement that calls for the ouster of another dictator.
So thanks to Russia, we have a resolution that doesn't really mean all that much. The Arab League and the Security Council are in agreement that Assad is bad and that the country would (though the resolution doesn't say this) be better off without him. We already know this. This isn't news. So what's next? Assad continues to kill with impunity, the rest of the world (minus Russia, China, and India) collectively shakes its head, and the death toll hits 10,000.
Elsewhere in the Arab World, things aren't all that rosier. Mass protests continued in Cairo yesterday in response to the soccer stadium massacre in Port Said Wednesday night. Eyewitness reports continue to come in which only throw mud in the eye of the Egyptian security apparatus and point toward at least tacit SCAF support for what happened. Apparently, right when the game ended and the El Masry fans charged the pitch, the stadium lights blacked out, providing the rioters temporary cover as they initiated their attack against the unsuspecting al Ahry team and fans. Other reports claim security closed and locked the gates of the stadium when the violence began, in effect trapping those trying to escape inside. Al Ahry's "Ultras" as their ardent supporters are called have been very vocal in their demands that first Mubarak and now the military council step down, having taken a front-and-center role in the protests since their start a year ago.
But--lest this column be too much gloom and doom going into Super Bowl weekend--there was some levity to be had. Iran hosted a conference in Tehran this week where it expressed pride in having been the birthplace of the "Islamic Awakening." Right. Conspicuously absent from this "conference" was any mention of Syria whose protest movement, Iran insists, is the work of foreign meddling and provocation. Try telling that to the thousands of Syrian people and defecting soldiers on the streets of Homs and Hama who are being mowed down by pro-Assad tanks.
I don't know where this is all headed and I'm fearful of the worst. Democratic transition is never easy and it is unrealistic to expect the process to be a success overnight. But the West, having been burned by involvement in two wars in the region over the past ten years, is loath to jump into the fray again. I understand this reluctance but can we in good conscience sit on the sidelines while hundreds of innocent people are killed on a daily basis?
It reminds me of the attitude France took after its eight-year undeclared war with Algeria. Once Algerian independence was granted in 1962, De Gaulle turned his back on Algeria and more-or-less refused to address it or acknowledge the concerns of pro-French Algerians in both Algeria and France. As British historian Martin Evans points out in his thorough and informative but at times tedious new book "Algeria: France's Undeclared War," when considering the French Resistance movement during World War Two and France's fight to preserve its colonial integrity in Indochina, France had been in a state of war for over twenty years by the time the Algerian conflict wrapped up. Consequently, it turned inward and focused on domestic and European affairs, much as the U.S. is doing now.
I suppose only time will tell. And while I understand Egyptian rage and their fear that the military will never step down, killing each other is not the way to effect positive change. Violence begets violence. It's the stuff history is made of.
Ciao.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Brother vs Brother?: A Generation Gap in the Muslim Brotherhood
Hi everyone!
I came across an interesting article in today's New York Times Magazine about a gentleman named Mohamed Beltagy. Mr. Beltagy is a doctor and a popular leader within the Muslim Brotherhood, which incidentally won 40 percent of the seats in the new Egyptian parliament.
The article discusses the conflict brewing within the Brotherhood between its moderate members--like Mr. Beltagy--and the hardliners who have traditionally been the more dominant faction. Because of this, many fear that any government majority comprised of hardcore Islamists is going to result in a repressive society, a fact that would appear to contradict the democratic values upon which the Egyptian protest movement was founded. It's disappointing that the youth movement, at least from a political perspective, appears to have lost its influence. The party it backed in the recent elections barely registered with voters who turned out in droves to elect a parliament that is at least 65 percent Islamist.
While the Muslim Brotherhood came out with the majority of votes, not too far behind it are the Salafists who advocate strict religious rule...a theocracy if you will. It would appear then that there should be a modicum of overlapping values between these two political parties. But, as the article points out, there is not. In fact, although the Brotherhood claims to have abandoned its more fundamentalist leanings--at least for the sake of elections--the Salafists have hardened their more extremist stance. This poses an obvious problem for the future, let alone stability, of any Egyptian government. If the two leading parties are unable to compromise for the sake of a united and stable parliament, it just gives the military council (SCAF) further reason not to step down as promised in June. In fact, when the unofficial election results started to trickle in late last month, the military revised its position and said it would not step down and would in fact take control of the writing of the Constitution.
But there are other, perhaps more immediate concerns as well...or if not concerns per se, then questions. Where, for example, has the Brotherhood been in the most recent bout of protests? A year ago, the Brotherhood was a dominant presence in Tahrir Square, serving--according to New York Times writer Robert Worth--as a sort of makeshift security apparatus, frisking anyone who came to the protests before allowing them into the square, etc. This is no longer the case. In fact, the Brotherhood has consciously put distance between itself and the protests, at least from an external perspective. The reasons for this are about murky as the politics.
Many believe that most of the top dogs in the Brotherhood (who are used to a strong military involvement in government) are not necessarily as adamant about getting rid of the military as are the younger generation, or for example, Mr. Beltagy. The military is still viewed by many older Egyptians as a stabilizing presence without which many fear anarchy. This may just be a case of better the devil you know...
But it does give cause for concern. The Brotherhood appears to be contradicting itself. In response to the most recent spate of violence that left at least 10 dead and hundreds more wounded, the Brotherhood spoke out against the violence--which it conceded was committed at the hands of the military--while telling protesters that their efforts would be better served by going to the polls and encouraging others to do the same. While elections are certainly an important part of the democratic process, if the military ultimately refuses to step down and widespread violence once again returns to Tahrir Square, on what side of the conflict is the Brotherhood going to find itself? After a year of dramatic change and continued uncertainty, the Egyptian public are not going to stand for a parliament--elected for the first time by the public--that sits on the fence and does nothing.
And as for that conflict within the Muslim Brotherhood between moderates like Mr. Beltagy and the traditional hardline cohort, many predict that once the Brotherhood is firmly in power, the moderates are going to be pushed out in favor of the old school...or the old madrassah, as it were. The hardline Brothers will align themselves with the hardline Salafists and you'll have a theocracy like Iran at worst, or Saudi Arabia at best, which isn't saying much.
The one-year anniversary of Tahrir Square is this Wednesday, the 25th. The new Parliament is also supposed to sit for the first time this week. Whatever happens, Egypt is definitely in the spotlight once again.
Ciao.
I came across an interesting article in today's New York Times Magazine about a gentleman named Mohamed Beltagy. Mr. Beltagy is a doctor and a popular leader within the Muslim Brotherhood, which incidentally won 40 percent of the seats in the new Egyptian parliament.
The article discusses the conflict brewing within the Brotherhood between its moderate members--like Mr. Beltagy--and the hardliners who have traditionally been the more dominant faction. Because of this, many fear that any government majority comprised of hardcore Islamists is going to result in a repressive society, a fact that would appear to contradict the democratic values upon which the Egyptian protest movement was founded. It's disappointing that the youth movement, at least from a political perspective, appears to have lost its influence. The party it backed in the recent elections barely registered with voters who turned out in droves to elect a parliament that is at least 65 percent Islamist.
While the Muslim Brotherhood came out with the majority of votes, not too far behind it are the Salafists who advocate strict religious rule...a theocracy if you will. It would appear then that there should be a modicum of overlapping values between these two political parties. But, as the article points out, there is not. In fact, although the Brotherhood claims to have abandoned its more fundamentalist leanings--at least for the sake of elections--the Salafists have hardened their more extremist stance. This poses an obvious problem for the future, let alone stability, of any Egyptian government. If the two leading parties are unable to compromise for the sake of a united and stable parliament, it just gives the military council (SCAF) further reason not to step down as promised in June. In fact, when the unofficial election results started to trickle in late last month, the military revised its position and said it would not step down and would in fact take control of the writing of the Constitution.
But there are other, perhaps more immediate concerns as well...or if not concerns per se, then questions. Where, for example, has the Brotherhood been in the most recent bout of protests? A year ago, the Brotherhood was a dominant presence in Tahrir Square, serving--according to New York Times writer Robert Worth--as a sort of makeshift security apparatus, frisking anyone who came to the protests before allowing them into the square, etc. This is no longer the case. In fact, the Brotherhood has consciously put distance between itself and the protests, at least from an external perspective. The reasons for this are about murky as the politics.
Many believe that most of the top dogs in the Brotherhood (who are used to a strong military involvement in government) are not necessarily as adamant about getting rid of the military as are the younger generation, or for example, Mr. Beltagy. The military is still viewed by many older Egyptians as a stabilizing presence without which many fear anarchy. This may just be a case of better the devil you know...
But it does give cause for concern. The Brotherhood appears to be contradicting itself. In response to the most recent spate of violence that left at least 10 dead and hundreds more wounded, the Brotherhood spoke out against the violence--which it conceded was committed at the hands of the military--while telling protesters that their efforts would be better served by going to the polls and encouraging others to do the same. While elections are certainly an important part of the democratic process, if the military ultimately refuses to step down and widespread violence once again returns to Tahrir Square, on what side of the conflict is the Brotherhood going to find itself? After a year of dramatic change and continued uncertainty, the Egyptian public are not going to stand for a parliament--elected for the first time by the public--that sits on the fence and does nothing.
And as for that conflict within the Muslim Brotherhood between moderates like Mr. Beltagy and the traditional hardline cohort, many predict that once the Brotherhood is firmly in power, the moderates are going to be pushed out in favor of the old school...or the old madrassah, as it were. The hardline Brothers will align themselves with the hardline Salafists and you'll have a theocracy like Iran at worst, or Saudi Arabia at best, which isn't saying much.
The one-year anniversary of Tahrir Square is this Wednesday, the 25th. The new Parliament is also supposed to sit for the first time this week. Whatever happens, Egypt is definitely in the spotlight once again.
Ciao.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)