Washington and Morsi

The New York Times has taken the White House to task for abstaining from criticizing Morsi’s decree, limiting its response to a demure statement by the State Department expressing “concern” at the measures and calling for dialogue and stability. According to numerous American sources, the reason behind the American “turning a blind eye” to Morsi’s decrees is the role the Muslim Brotherhood president played in producing the truce agreement. He won profuse praise and appreciation, most of which came from the White House, the Elysée and 10 Downing Street, and some of which even came from the mouths of Peres, Netanyahu and Barak. Even Lieberman, known for his intense hatred of Arabs and his desire to bomb the High Dam, did not hide his contentment at the Egyptian president’s performance. Michelle Dunne, former researcher at the Carnegie Endowment and the US National Security Council, believes that Morsi would not have taken these recent escalatory steps if it was not for a state of absolute self-confidence that blossomed from his role during the aggression on Gaza. Especially, Dunne believes, as he had tried once before and failed when he had to reinstate the public prosecutor hours after dismissing him. The London-based Asharq al-Awsat reported that Freedom House’s Daniel Greenfield said: “Either Morsi had cleared the assumption of such power beforehand with Obama or assumed that he had demonstrated his importance to such an extent that Obama would not dare protest this action. In either case, the situation is worrying.” Calling on the Obama administration to Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services Carl Levin to exercise caution in its dealings with the Egyptian president, the Democrat warned of “a democratically-elected autocrat taking the place of an undemocratically-elected dictator.” Levin, however, said that Morsi presents the Unites States with challenges as well as opportunities, explaining that “If Egypt takes some real responsibility for making the ceasefire work, we'll stop those missiles from going through the tunnels in Gaza, and they seem to be moving in that direction.” These American positions and statements bring us back to two points that we face constantly in the course of wondering and guessing. The first point relates to whether Washington will accept this behaviour by the Brotherhood’s rule now that it accepted from the Mubarak regime until recently: Supporting Israel and preserving its security in return for turning a blind eye to reform, democracy and human rights. The second point is new and relates to hidden clauses of the recent truce talks, especially details relating to Egyptian-Israeli understandings on Egypt’s “sponsorship” and “guaranteeing” of the agreement on the one hand, and the nature of the vows by Cairo regarding preventing the smuggling of weapons into the Gaza Strip and liquidating the tunnels and the multipurpose trade that flows through them. Naturally, we must here remember that there remain in Washington those who harbour feelings of caution and doubt towards Morsi, fearing that the president’s vows to preserve the truce and Israel’s security fall under the heading of “political Taqiyya (religiously-sanctioned dissimulation)” or the Brothers’ “two-facedness.” These beliefs are a continuation of the American school of thought that rejects the ability of the Brotherhood current to transform itself into a civic-democratic movement with an Islamic background in the style of Turkey’s Brotherhood (the Justice and Development Party). Here is the Washington Institute’s Satloff, famous for adopting a similar attitude, saying that the “honeymoon” between the Brotherhood and Obama will not last long, warning Obama that Morsi cannot break away from his ideological roots. Republican Senator and former presidential candidate John McCain also warns of the establishment of an Islamic state in Egypt or the return of the military to the helm if President Mohammed Morsi does not back down over the constitutional declaration he recently issued, which gives him absolute powers. The senator urged Obama to seriously consider using the aid that US gives Egypt as “leverage” to pressure President Morsi to abandon the constitutional declaration which has plunged the country into a serious crisis. We are then witnessing a period of instability and unclear vision in the US’ policy towards Egypt for the duration of the “difficult political transition” that Egypt is experiencing. It appears certain that the American policy towards Egypt in general and its Brothers in particular will continue to oscillate until further notice, between fearing them and betting on them. The worry here is that the Egyptian revolution will wind up being a new and improved version of Iran’s Islamic Revolution, with the Supreme Guide here taking the place of the Gran Ayatollah there. The bet is on a Brotherhood role in preserving the peace between Egypt and Israel and containing Gaza and Hamas under the umbrella of its obligations and stipulations. Is this not the exact circle at the centre of which the Brotherhood now stands as no-one has done before? A president belonging to it seeks to shore up his authority and control from behind a veil of unprecedented commitment to the ceasefire, peace and Camp David, as his Brothers simultaneously try to hold on to the slogans and ideology that made it, for 30 years or more, the supporting column of the opposition in Egypt. --  The views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent or reflect the editorial policy of Arabstoday.