WORLD JANUARY 25, 2013
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Long after the moving images of Egypt’s Facebook-addicted, pro-democratic revolutionaries faded from Tahrir Square, they have remained firmly implanted in the minds of American observers 6,000 miles away. For much of the two years since Egypt’s uprising, many observers in Washington seemingly believed that anything in Cairo that wasn’t Mubarak was a step in a democratic direction.
So even as the post-Mubarak military junta shut down NGOs and killed protesters, and even as the now-ruling Muslim Brotherhood succeeded it by curtailing press freedoms and deploying violence against demonstrators, it was fashionable to declare oneself “optimistic” about Egypt. And to argue otherwise—to observe, as I frequently did, that two blatantly undemocratic forces were steering Egypt’s transition in a decidedly illiberal direction—was to be accused of rooting against democracy in Egypt.
In recent months, however, the prevailing attitude has changed somewhat. President Mohamed Morsi’s blatant power grab in November, coupled with his ramming through an Islamist constitution in December, has dampened the optimism regarding the Brotherhood’s commitment to democracy. But in its place, a new conventional wisdom has taken hold: that even if Morsi and his Brotherhood colleagues aren’t democrats, they can be partners in advancing U.S. interests in the Middle East. And with this new conventional wisdom comes a new conventional policy approach: that the U.S. shouldn’t criticize Morsi for his dictatorial ways, because doing so will jeopardize our strategic relationship with the new Egyptian regime.
In other words, two years after Egyptians dramatically toppled Hosni Mubarak, Washington has the same Mubarak-era policy: ignore the regime’s domestic abuses to win its cooperation on foreign policy. But with the current Muslim Brotherhood regime, this is a decidedly bad bet.
That’s because cooperation with Washington cannot be reconciled in the long run with the Muslim Brotherhood’s deeply anti-Western ideology, which dates back to its 1928 establishment. Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna envisioned his organization as a vehicle for Islamizing Egyptian society and establishing an Islamic state so that Egypt could resist Western cultural and political influence. The Brotherhood’s anti-Westernism remains so central to its ideological vision that, even despite its newfound power and political responsibilities, its tone hasn’t moderated. In his most recent weekly statement, Brotherhood Supreme Guide Mohamed Badie drew an analogy between the Prophet Muhammad’s victory over his seventh century adversaries and the ultimate triumph of the Brotherhood’s “Renaissance Project” over “materialistic” Western civilization, which “made blood and lives the cheapest things in the world.”
Deep hostility towards Israel, as well as its historic rejection of the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, is similarly engrained in the Muslim Brotherhood’s DNA. The Brotherhood was among the earliest opponents of Zionism within the broader Muslim world, and the fact that Brotherhood jihadists fought Israel during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war even after the Arab armies had agreed to a ceasefire remains a point of tremendous pride for the group. (Within the organization, veterans of the 1948 war are given the honorary title of “ach mogahed,” meaning “jihadist brother.”) Indeed, Morsi’s recently unearthed 2010 comments in which he called Jews “the descendants of apes and pigs” were hardly taken out of context, as he now claims. Morsi’s hatred for Israel is so profound that he couldn’t even control himself in a recent meeting with U.S. senators, when he ranted against Israel and implied that Jews controlled the American media.
Yet for those espousing the new conventional wisdom that the Brotherhood can be a U.S. ally, these anti-Western and anti-Semitic statements are idle talk. Brotherhood leaders may believe these hateful things in their hearts, the wonks say, but they aren’t acting on them: the Camp David Accords still stand, and the Brotherhood communicates regularly with U.S. officials. Proponents of the new conventional wisdom took special comfort in Morsi’s response to the November Gaza conflict, when Morsi authorized negotiations that yielded a relatively quick Hamas-Israel ceasefire and, through a series of late-night phone calls, supposedly developed a good rapport with President Obama.
Yet as the Brotherhood has demonstrated repeatedly during its first year in power, it is far from sentimental about its relationships with non-Brotherhood outsiders. In this vein, Morsi sat smiling next to Mubarak-era military leaders shortly after his June election to project political calm, and then fired them a month later. He similarly surrounded himself with prominent non-Brotherhood figures during his presidential campaign and promised to rule inclusively if elected, but ultimately sidelined these supporters and drove most of them into the opposition during his November power grab.
It would be naïve, therefore, to believe that Morsi won’t turn on Washington when he feels the time is right. After all, the Brotherhood is already signaling that it intends to reassess the peace treaty with Israel, which comprises a core American interest: The Brotherhood’s political party has recently drafted legislation to unilaterally amend the treaty, and a top Brotherhood foreign policy official recently told a closed salon that Morsi “is cancelling normalization with the Zionist entity gradually.” Yet the Brotherhood is unlikely to pursue its anti-Western ambitions until after it finishes consolidating its power at home. As deputy supreme guide Khairat al-Shater explained during the April 2011 unveiling of the “Renaissance Project,” the Brotherhood must first build an “Islamic government” before establishing “the global Islamic state.”
For this reason, the Obama administration should work to prevent the Brotherhood from consolidating its control of Egypt through a pro-democratic policy. Specifically, Washington should withhold its support for $4.8 billion loan that Egypt is seeking until the Brotherhood takes demonstrable steps towards more inclusive rule, which should include ending the prosecution on the Brotherhood's political opponents and media critics. It should also deny Morsi an invitation to the White House until he pardons the pro-democratic NGO workers who are still on trial and permits the return of pro-democratic NGOs to Cairo. Finally, the administration should speak out whenever the Brotherhood behaves repressively, such as when it dispatches its cadres to violently attack those protesting Morsi’s edicts, thereby alerting the international community to Egypt’s autocratic trajectory. This would broaden the pressure on the Muslim Brotherhood to moderate its behavior, since its ideology is likely unchangeable.
Failing to do so would mean forgoing the rare opportunity to align U.S. strategic interests with American pro-democratic values. The Muslim Brotherhood, after all, opposes both, and to pretend otherwise is to live in the world of January 24, 2011.
10 comments
Of course, Noah is right, but an anachronistic interpretation of text is an anachronistic interpretation of text. A recess appointment in 1801 makes sense, but not in 2012. A sensible solution would be to scrap the entire anachronistic concept. Instead, we pretend that 2012 is just like 1801. It's not, even if the brains of some judges today are as empty of thought as the brains of all the founders today.
- rayward
January 25, 2013 at 4:19pm
Senate Republicans try scam (making sure the recess doesn't offically happen even though it's a recess to all intents and purposes); president calls scam (says, ok, but it looks like a recess to me); court upholds scam (GOP "it's not a recess" trick to make sure president can't make recess appointments during a recess is validated). Pathetic.
- ironyroad
January 26, 2013 at 1:25am
Confirming once again that GOP Senators need to be replaced, or at least diluted to the percent of the population who agrees with their anarchy in protection of plutocracy grab allowed under Bush, Jr.
- smabry03
January 26, 2013 at 5:46am
Why did Obama wait until January 4, 2012, to make the "recess" appointments; whether the Senate was in "recess" on January 2, 2012, is debatable, but not on January 4th, the day after the Senate met in pro forma session to satisfy its constitutional (Amendment XX) obligation to "assemble" at least once a year at noon on January 3rd. And why was there a "unanimous consent agreement" that provided that from December 3, 2011, through January 23, 2012, the Senate would meet in pro forma session every three business days - I assume to avoid the constitutional mandate that the Senate not "adjourn" for more than three days without the consent of the House. The court doesn't say whether the Senate was in "session" on January 2nd because the putative "recess" appointments didn't occur until January 4th; but the very fact that the Senate "assembled" on January 3rd would indicate that the Senate believed it was in "recess". The court also ruled that, for the President to make a "recess" appointment, the vacancy must "happen" or "arise" during the "recess", not merely "happen to exist" during the "recess". "Recess", ""adjourn", "assemble", "happen", the court's opinion could have been written by Alice in Wonderful, and probably was.
- rayward
January 26, 2013 at 9:57am
"Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting." Constitution Art I, Sec. 5. "The President shall have power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session." Art. II, Sec. 2. Among other things, all of these Original Intent clowns ignore the fact that in the 18th century the use of the upper case was not limited to proper names as it is in modern English. Note "Vacancies" above. I think it would have been unusual in 18th century English to write "a Recess" rather than "the Recess." This usage is analogous to "The Elephant is characterized by a prehensile nose," in which what is being referred to is not a particular exemplar, but the general class embracing all instances. Also, at the time that these provisions were written, it would have been normal for the Senate to convene and remain in continuous session, with no adjournments of more than three days, until recess at which time Senators left the city. Hence, "the Recess." But that was the practice. Nowhere does the Constitution say that the Congress may only enter a single recess per session if it so decides. So much for the usual bullshit of strict constructionism. If the senators are present and able to convene in response to a quorum call at least every three days, the Senate can remain in continuous session with adjournments of not more than three days. If it is adjourned for more than three days, it is in recess, whether with or without the consent of the House. A so-called session in which the Senate is not able to act because there is no quorum is not a bona fide session and if the House is not in session to give or withhold its consent then the Senate can adjourn for more than three days. As noted, the "pro forma session" is a sham, a session in form only. Why is it that the Senate can employ a sham in order to deprive the President of the Power to make Recess appointments when that provision is also part of the Constitution? Clearly, the so-called Original Intent clowns believe today, as ever, that the Original Intent is whatever they find politically convenient. That modern transportation makes it easier for them to remain in continuous session by being present every three days is hardly the reason for concluding that a recess, where the Senate is not in session, is a session. Just the reverse. It is easier for the Senate to remain in continuous session mooting the recess appointment power. But if the Senate does not choose to remain in session, then it chooses not to remain in session. It should hardly be able effectively to amend the Constitution with pro forma (in form only) sessions. Among other things, the Court effectively ruled that the pro forma sessions are unnecessary to defease the recess appointment power and that then Senate is effectively prohibited from going into recess but once per session even if it decides it is in recess.
- roidubouloi
January 26, 2013 at 12:51pm
Of course, there is an enormous irony here: the "conservatives" on the court running roughshod over the other two branches of government, both of them in this one case. To eliminate any doubt about the judiciary's absolute power relative to the other two branches, the court said: "As Chief Justice Marshall made clear in Marbury v. Madison, “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. . . . In Marbury, the Supreme Court established that if the legislative branch has acted in contravention of the Constitution, it is the courts that make that determination. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the Supreme Court made clear that the courts must make the same determination if the executive has acted contrary to the Constitution. That is the case here, and we must strike down the unconstitutional act." Today's "conservatives" are not what Jefferson had in mind about limited government; indeed, he detested Marshall, who was his cousin, and the author of Marbury v. Madison.
- rayward
January 26, 2013 at 1:25pm
The court did not have to have a showdown with the executive branch but elected to anyway. The court could have decided the case on the merits, i.e., whether the decision of the NLRB in the case was correct. In this case, the substantive issue was whether the employer (a Pepsi distributor) and union had reached an "agreement" during bargaining; in contract language, was there a "meeting of the minds". The employer objected to some of the language in the written agreement that was meant to memorialize the "agreement" reached during bargaining, the employer and the union clearly not having a "meeting of the minds". For a transaction lawyer like myself, it seems absurd that negotiations could be construed as a meeting of the minds, before the written contract is even drafted, precluding one party from objecting to language the other party puts in the draft of the "contract". Anyway, the court goes to great lengths (back flips, actually) rationalizing how the NLRB was correct in its decision. This before deciding that the NLRB didn't have a quorum because Obama's three appointments to the NLRB violated the constitution and, hence, the decision of the NLRB was void (not merely voidable). My observation is that the court chose this case to attack Obama's "recess" appointments because the facts were terrible for Obama (as indicated by Noah and in my prior comment). Conservatives went fishing and landed a big one! Take that you socialist!
- rayward
January 26, 2013 at 2:09pm
I find it funny that now every decision done by two appeals court judges, William H. Pryor Jr. and Charles W. Pickering Sr. who were appointed in precisely this manner are now invalid. I still don't see how a private company has standing to argue the Senates inherent business of what defines a recess, if the Senate had sued then the logic would be far more compelling. And roid is right about the and a. It is like these people have zero concept of basic English. At school my children have a recess every day, but during that day they are on the recess break, not a recess break because every day they only have one. I would ask a teacher "what time is the school recess?" Not "what time is a school recess?" And notice how this case was settled after the recess was over. It is like these guys think it was a way to stick it to Obama. And Reid should have known that this case was on the docket and made his decision about filibuster reform contigent on what the judges decided. Someone royally screwed up, and if Reid did know and knew the likely outcome then he is an ass, I would rather there have been a Senator Angle (who would have been good for a lot of laughs) then Republicans pulling this crap for the next 4 years. The filibuster has no place in executive level appointments, the length of office is short so each candidate deserves an up or down vote regardless of party. And why in the world did Democrats decide to even make the consumer post a confirmable one? How is it a Public Minister or Consuls? Republicans want to get rid of many cabinet positions but then want to treat minor positions as cabinet level.
- blackton
January 26, 2013 at 3:28pm
"ric Trager is the Next Generation Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy." Is this thread about American domestic issues or is it about The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. I can't believe that so many people got it wrong. I must assume than this another New Republic digital screw-up.
- arnon1
January 27, 2013 at 4:47pm
BTW: It was a Spring of sorts but not for democracy. It was a spring for the Muslim Brotherhood. "How could we have been so stupid" asks Trager. Easy, when you not allowed to tell the truth that the Brotherhood is an antisemitic totalitarian force, we are involved in a war on Islamic terrorists, etc. When you deny the truth it doesn't go away it just comes at you all the more self assured.
- arnon1
January 27, 2013 at 5:35pm