With Friends Like This, Egypt Doesn't Need Enemies
I'll put this plainly, since my government isn't. Every bit of my heart, as an American and a human being and someone who deeply believes in democracy and human rights, is on the side of Egyptians who want exactly the rights and freedoms and opportunities all Americans take for granted. And we should say so to Mubarak: Do not touch another hair on the head of another protester, or you will face the wrath of the United States.
We must also confront forthrightly the chance--not a certainty, nor even a likelihood, but not an impossibility--that the Muslim Brotherhood will take power as the result of the uprising there.
I don't believe this is an Islamist uprising. I believe it is a genuinely democratic uprising. But Egyptian civil society is fragile and the Muslim Brotherhood is strong, well-organized, and well-financed. Were it to take power, there is every reason to believe it would make those very Egyptians for whom my heart aches long for Mubarak. The Muslim Brotherhood does not envision for Egypt a tolerant, pluralistic modern democracy: It envisions a theocracy. I have made this case at length and I stand by it.
This is why my heart sank when I saw this op-ed by about Egypt by Anwar Ibrahim in the Wall Street Journal:
The problems that plague the Arab world remain overwhelming: the concentration of wealth and power by the few over the many, poor infrastructure, primitive education systems, minimal health care, and decreasing incomes in the face of rising food prices and cost of living. Corruption and nepotism reign in the complete absence of accountability and transparency.
It is a perfect recipe for political upheaval: political marginalization and economic impoverishment for the people and ill-gotten wealth for the ruling elite. It’s a reality that can’t be cloaked by propaganda—citizens can see the reality on YouTube and Facebook—though the leaders certainly try. Indeed, no Arab leader has owned up to any of these evils, other than by offering pious platitudes about improving the economic lot of their people. ...
And he's right! He's right! What man of conscience could read this without nodding?
Except for one thing. Anwar is a textbook exemplar of Islamism 2.0, an anti-Semitic Muslim Brotherhood loyalist (no doubt about that) who has come to appreciate that the word "democracy" is his friend and that no one in the West will be that curious about what he truly believes or the company he keeps so long as he liberally uses the magic word "moderate."
I've written about this before. Among his other Islamist achievements, Anwar co-founded the IIIT, a Muslim Brotherhood front organization in the United States whose members have been arrested on terrorism charges. It publishes obscene Islamist propaganda, and has been implicated very credibly as a financier of terrorism:
There is more evidence of IIIT’s links to terrorism. A few examples: according to court documents, in the early 1990s IIIT donated at least $50,000 to a think tank run by Sami al-Arian, the World Islamic and Study Enterprise (WISE), that served as a front group for Palestinian Islamic Jihad. IIIT is also named as a defendant in two class-action lawsuits brought by victims of the 9/11 attacks. One alleges that IIIT received the bulk of its operating expenses from the SAAR network, whose component groups are accused in another class-action suit of being “fronts for the sponsor of al Qaeda and international terror.”
In 2006, lecturing in Washington DC, Anwar noted (not at all for the first time) that he was most influenced by the writings of “Syed Qutb, Hassan Al Banna, and Maududi.” Those names will be familiar to Ricochet's readers: You'll know what they stand for, and it's surely not democracy. To the extent that such ideologues embrace democracy, it is not democracy for its own sake--it's democracy as a streetcar to sharia. In Malaysia, Anwar's party has formed an electoral alliance with the PAS, the party that calls for the strict imposition of sharia law. And he is positively proud of his association with Yusuf al-Qaradawi.
Anwar continues:
The bogeyman of Islamism, the oft-cited scapegoat of Middle Eastern dictators to justify their tyranny, must therefore be reconsidered or junked altogether. The U.S., too, should learn a lesson about the myth that secular tyrants and dictators are its best bet against Islamists. Revolutions, be they secular or religious, are born of a universal desire for autonomy. The common thread that binds the Iranian revolution and the Tunisian upheaval is the rising discontent of the people after years of suffering under oppressive rule.
Anwar is the bogeyman of Islamism: It's a self-refuting statement. One of the most sinister aspects of Islamism today is that it has learned to exploit democracy, or at least the rhetoric of democracy, and it has learned to exploit the way the West pays no attention to the details.
That said, he is also right that secular tyrants and dictators are no inoculation against Islamism. They are no inoculation against tyranny and dictatorship, either. These are inherent evils. We do not oppose Islamism because it is Islamic, we oppose it because it is tyrannical.
As Americans, we have to be against all tyranny--against kleptocrats, against aging dictators, against Islamists, against communists, against fascists. We are for democracy, civil rights, the rule of law. We're against cracking the heads of young people exercising their God-given freedom to assemble and speak. We're for freedom of expression. We're against Islamists like Qaradawi and his friends. We're for free elections in Egypt, unmarred by corruption.
But let's come out and say it. We are not for the participation of the Muslim Brotherhood in those elections, unless this movement explicitly renounces those parts of its political ideology that are simply incompatible with democracy. Unless they do, they will be the next group of thugs cracking the heads of Egyptian democrats.
We are allowed to say all of this. And we must. There's only one side to be on in this: The side of liberal democrats. That's what we are and that's what we believe.
I hope.
- Comment (31)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: With Friends Like This, Egypt Doesn't Need Enemies
When you write your rebuttal for the Wall Street Journal -- as you should -- you can point out that "the common thread that binds the Iranian revolution and the Tunisian upheaval" doesn't run between Tunisia and the Islamic revolution of 1979, but between Tunisia and the Green Revolution of 2009. "The rising discontent of the people after years of suffering under oppressive rule" isn't only the Iranians of yesteryear under the Shah, but the Iranians of today under the Islamic Republic.
Dec '10
Re: With Friends Like This, Egypt Doesn't Need Enemies
"We are not for the participation of the Muslim Brotherhood in those elections, unless this movement explicitly renounces those parts of its political ideology that are simply incompatible with democracy."
Any movement with the underlying philosophy that whichever election it wins will be the last should be excluded from the electoral process.
May '10
Re: With Friends Like This, Egypt Doesn't Need Enemies
American foreign policy has never been about either freedom or democracy. It's all about stability.
The basic philosophy is that bad things happen in unstable situations, so therefore the known is always to be favored over the unknown. That's why we'll prop up a dictator like Mubarak for thirty years. Or the House of Saud. Or even a jerk like Karzai.
Then the leftists say that the reason we're hated in the Arab world is because we support Israel. Do they ever stop and think that maybe we're hated because we prop up the guy that has his boot on their necks?
Re: With Friends Like This, Egypt Doesn't Need Enemies
Thank you for this. I had no idea that Anwar Ibrahim was an adherent of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Jul '10
Re: With Friends Like This, Egypt Doesn't Need Enemies
When any authoritarian regime falls, the question is what new leadership arises to fill the vacuum.
Unfortunately, in places like Egypt or Yemen, there doesn't appear to be an organized democratic alternative ready to step up. The only organized factions seem to be of the Islamist variety. The fall of the Shah of Iran and his replacement by a far worse regime is the exemplar, is it not?
Re: With Friends Like This, Egypt Doesn't Need Enemies
Kenneth: When any authoritarian regime falls, the question is what new leadership arises to fill the vacuum.
Unfortunately, in places like Egypt or Yemen, there doesn't appear to be an organized democratic alternative ready to step up. The only organized factions seem to be of the Islamist variety. The fall of the Shah of Iran and his replacement by a far worse regime is the exemplar, is it not? · Jan 27 at 9:55am
Yes. But beware the dangers of always fighting the last war. That this happened in Iran doesn't necessarily mean it must always happen.
Jul '10
Re: With Friends Like This, Egypt Doesn't Need Enemies
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Kenneth: When any authoritarian regime falls, the question is what new leadership arises to fill the vacuum.
Unfortunately, in places like Egypt or Yemen, there doesn't appear to be an organized democratic alternative ready to step up. The only organized factions seem to be of the Islamist variety. The fall of the Shah of Iran and his replacement by a far worse regime is the exemplar, is it not? · Jan 27 at 9:55am
Yes. But beware the dangers of always fighting the last war. That this happened in Iran doesn't necessarily mean it must always happen. · Jan 27 at 9:57am
But where, specifically, are the democratic alternatives strong enough to step up and resist an Islamist takeover?
Re: With Friends Like This, Egypt Doesn't Need Enemies
Correct that. Anwar Ibrahim is the fellow from Malaysia -- whose outlook I learned about from you before.
May '10
Re: With Friends Like This, Egypt Doesn't Need Enemies
What would you have the U.S. government do if Mubarak brakes this ultimatum?
May '10
Re: With Friends Like This, Egypt Doesn't Need Enemies
Stuart Creque: "We are not for the participation of the Muslim Brotherhood in those elections, unless this movement explicitly renounces those parts of its political ideology that are simply incompatible with democracy."
Any movement with the underlying philosophy that whichever election it wins will be the last should be excluded from the electoral process. · Jan 27 at 9:35am
I'm not sure I can agree with your last statement, Stuart. Could it be that the suppression of dissedent groups, like the Muslim Brotherhood, contributes to their gaining strength and legitimacy as they are driven underground? Let them compete openly in the marketplace of ideas, and the result might, just might be that thier extremist ideology will be rejected by their fellows.
The Muslim Brotherhood was harrassed for decades by Farouk, Nasser, et al, and look where we are now.
Claire: I completly agree that democracy is being used as a cloak by the Islamists to further their aims and I am as distressed by it as anyone. I have no idea what the solution to that problem could be.
Re: With Friends Like This, Egypt Doesn't Need Enemies
Michael Labeit
What would you have the U.S. government do if Mubarak brakes this ultimatum? · Jan 27 at 10:04am
Stop financing him. We simply cannot win in this region if we're associated with this. It makes a mockery of everything we stand for. And then we pour support like we're opening a vein into every liberal democrat in Egypt.
Re: With Friends Like This, Egypt Doesn't Need Enemies
Kenneth But where, specifically, are the democratic alternatives strong enough to step up and resist an Islamist takeover? · Jan 27 at 10:03am
They're on the street right now. And the same thing could have been said of Eastern Europe (was said, by some) when the Soviet Union collapsed. I am well aware of the danger here, Kenneth--this terrifies me--but propping up Mubarak if this crackdown proceeds to the next step (which would be killing thousands, because that's what it takes when an uprising gets this big) is not only obviously immoral, but guaranteed to backfire.
We have to bet. And as a friend said to me today, and he's right, "This is the Middle East. Whatever you do, do it fast and strong."
May '10
Re: With Friends Like This, Egypt Doesn't Need Enemies
Kenneth
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Kenneth: When any authoritarian regime falls, the question is what new leadership arises to fill the vacuum.
Unfortunately, in places like Egypt or Yemen, there doesn't appear to be an organized democratic alternative ready to step up. The only organized factions seem to be of the Islamist variety. The fall of the Shah of Iran and his replacement by a far worse regime is the exemplar, is it not? · Jan 27 at 9:55am
Yes. But beware the dangers of always fighting the last war. That this happened in Iran doesn't necessarily mean it must always happen. · Jan 27 at 9:57am
But where, specifically, are the democratic alternatives strong enough to step up and resist an Islamist takeover? · Jan 27 at 10:03am
Kenneth, check out Michael Totten's "The (Really) Moderate Muslims of Kosovo" archived on the City Journal site (Autumn 2008, vol. 18, no. 4).
Aug '10
Re: With Friends Like This, Egypt Doesn't Need Enemies
As a fly on the wall here in the State Department, I need to tell you that ........
no one is here. Nobody showed up today. There's no people, no plan, and the only thing that's happened is the new Ambassador to Syria has presented his papers in Damascus.
And that's what happening in Foggy Bottom..........................
Dec '10
Re: With Friends Like This, Egypt Doesn't Need Enemies
Kervinlee, I'm all for a robust competition in the marketplace of ideas. But the electoral process is not the same as the marketplace of ideas. In the USA, we require victors in the electoral process to swear an oath of fealty to the Constitution. A party that includes in its platform an overt plank of intending to abolish Constitutional government by non-democratic means should not be allowed to place candidates on the ballot. And that's even more true in places without Constitutional guarantees of democracy.
Dec '10
Re: With Friends Like This, Egypt Doesn't Need Enemies
EJHill, I hated reading Peggy Noonan's response to W's second inaugural speech, the one in which she likened dictators to garbage-can lids. It seemed to me that she was endorsing stability over Bush's anti-tyranny policy.
May '10
Re: With Friends Like This, Egypt Doesn't Need Enemies
I don't know a whole lot about the situation in Egypt, and I'm a still a bit hazy about '79 Iran, but how can we make sure than we don't end up on the wrong side of a possible revolution? I see a lot of similarities with Iran, especially in the revolutionary tendencies of the people, divorced from Islam, but that didn't stop Khomeini et al. Will Mubarak be another Shah? We ended up tossing the Shah under the bus, and that didn't do us any favours with the Persians, though I don't think we've propped up Mubarak quite like we did the Shah.
It seems to me that indifference would be just as bad supporting the wrong regime. I think we have to just plant our feet and say "we're with the guy carrying the hoe and torch." Besides the Arab/Persian cultural differences, is there any reason this may end differently?
May '10
Re: With Friends Like This, Egypt Doesn't Need Enemies
Good points, and of course, they apply to the constitutional system in the U.S. I confess I have no idea of the constitutional structure (if any) of Egypt.
Interesting question, though. Would a party that advocated the abolition of the constitutional system be allowed a place in the electoral process?
Dec '10
Re: With Friends Like This, Egypt Doesn't Need Enemies
Kervinlee
Interesting question, though. Would a party that advocated the abolition of the constitutional system be allowed a place in the electoral process? · Jan 27 at 11:25am
In the US? If the party in question advocates the abolition of the US Constitution through democratic and peaceful means, it's allowed. The Peace and Freedom Party, for example, regularly makes the ballot in a number of locales across the US, and it's straight-up, full-on Socialist (as in, its website features a link to The Internationale).
If the party in question is honest, however, and advocates a violent overthrow of the Constitutional form of government in the US, it's not. At least, not to my knowledge -- and I know that membership in the CPUSA will still get you excluded from Federal government service at anything above the lowest levels.
Edited on Jan 27, 2011 at 11:54amMay '10
Re: With Friends Like This, Egypt Doesn't Need Enemies
Stuart Creque
Kervinlee
Interesting question, though. Would a party that advocated the abolition of the constitutional system be allowed a place in the electoral process? · Jan 27 at 11:25am
-- and I know that membership in the CPUSA will still get you excluded from Federal government service at anything above the lowest levels. · Jan 27 at 11:49am
Edited on Jan 27 at 11:54 am
Unless you're the president of course (kidding! kidding!).
Thanks, Stuart.