We will never know how many Egyptian civilians were killed in the massacres on Wednesday. According to the Guardian there were 638 casualties, while an article in the Asia Times claims the death toll was more than 1000. While there has been a public outcry in many countries, the Obama administration has still not recognised the ousting of Mohamed Morsi as a coup, and there has been no United Nations condemnation of the brutal military crackdown on the protesters. Western governments are fearful of isolating the Egyptian military and national security interests are at stake. But a muted response in the face of such atrocities only further erodes our moral credibility and reveals our double standards, fuelling anti-Western sentiment.
Mohamed Morsi was the first leader in the history of Egypt to be democratically elected, winning 52% of the vote in 2012 after protests had brought down Hosni Mubarak's military regime. What happened on 3 July was clearly a military coup: the Egyptian military under Abdel Fattah al-Sisi ousted Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood, placing Morsi under house arrest, suspending the constitution and declaring a state of emergency.
A democratically elected government was overthrown by the military, voted for by no one. But US Secretary of State John Kerry claimed that the miltary was "restoring democracy", and the Obama administration continues to carefully avoid the word "coup" in reference to the events in Egypt. Kerry said that millions of Egyptians supported the ousting of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the New Statesman reported that 15 million people had signed a petition calling for Morsi's resignation. But protesting against the government is not the same as clamouring for a military take over. The idea that the coup was the beginning of a democratic transition is absurd.
In response to Wednesday's violence Obama said "while Mohamed Morsi was elected president in a democratic election, his government was not inclusive and did not respect the views of all Egyptians." He went on to say "we don't take sides with any particular party or political figure." But by refusing to refer to 3 July as a coup, by definition he is legitimising the military takeover. And his criticism of Morsi is ludicrous - no government in the history of the world, democratically elected or not, has ever respected the views or retained the support of its entire population. Millions protested against Morsi's government, but now the entire population has been disenfranchised, and the democratic process has been abandoned.
In his capacity as Middle East peace envoy Tony Blair has defended the coup, on the grounds that the Egyptian people faced a choice between "intervention and chaos." But the coup brought us to where we are today: hundreds dead, no promise of elections and potentially a slide towards civil war. Meanwhile, the massacres on Wednesday haven't stopped the US from continuing to pay $1.3 billion in military aid to the Egyptian generals. Martin Indyk, Washington's peace envoy to the Middle East argues that the US should work with the military regime in order to maintain its political leverage and national security interests. But what use is this leverage if it can't prevent massacres of civilians?
The failure to recognise the ousting of the Muslim Brotherhood as a coup and the muted response to the killings on Wednesday make a mockery of Western claims to support democracy and human rights. For decades Western governments supported the likes of Mubarak, Assad and Ben Ali, giving them political, military and financial support until the Arab Spring swept these dictators from power. In our response to the coup in Egypt, once again we have come out on the side of the oppressors. This will only worsen our already dismal image and reputation across the Arab world, something which certainly isn't in our national security interests.
While the protests in Cairo's Tahrir's square were still raging in February 2011, Obama claimed "history will end up recording that at every juncture in the situation in Egypt, that we were on the right side of history." The reality is the exact opposite. The Egyptian people have demonstrated that they are ready for democracy and at some point in the future, their wishes will have to be granted. Obama will be remembered as a president who shamefully chose to side with the military against the Egyptian people.
The aim of this blog is to expose baseless arguments made in the media and the Houses of Parliament, to propose some new policies and to generate public debate. It seeks to be a thorn in the side of many of the government’s domestic and foreign policies, and to challenge the dominance of the pessimistic outlook in Britain today.
It is absolutely true that the West (and indeed just about everyone) picks and chooses its terminology based on its own agenda; it's only a coup if the wrong people succeeded, otherwise it's a heroic rebellion. We're all guilty of it - no one learns about the French Coup in history, for example, but that too was an undemocratic overthrowing of the reigning power (though admittedly not democratic, although just about no one was back then, of course).
ReplyDeleteHowever, it is important to bear in mind that Morsi was not 'democratically elected' in the sense we think of it in the UK. I don't believe corruption has yet been ruled out, and I'm sceptical that he managed to get 52% of the vote purely legitimately. Even without Mugabe-style rigging, Morsi's cronies are known for intimidation - most of my acquaintances in Cairo say they are more scared of his 'thugs' (their words) than of the army or police. And much of the backlash against his election was because it was a sham in any case - many of the candidates people actually wanted to vote for were not allowed to be in the running. Few people voted FOR Morsi - many of those who did vote for him did so because the alternative was worse. True, we could say the same about the last UK election (and neither Cameron nor Clegg were technically democratically elected with a majority of the vote), but the Tories aren't sending out heavies to rough up anyone who expresses discontent.
It's hard to say what is really going on out there - reports from the BBC conflict with what I'm hearing from dancer friends, who claim that the pro-Morsi protesters are armed and not at all defenceless, and they praise the police. Naturally, it's all a little murkier than either side are painting it. You can criticise the West for not calling it a coup, but you could equally criticise them for calling Morsi's rise to power an election, too.