Egypt: Ethics vs Interests (Draft)

Politics is a dirty business and this is starkly evident in Egypt. In July, the military command determined that it needed to intervene in an increasing crisis. The Islamist government, popularly elected and in office for a year, was coming under massive pressure from anti-Islamist political groupings. Fearful of the Islamists intent with regard to the constitution and the country's particular (secular) type of government, they staged major demonstrations across the country. Counter-demonstrations occurred but did not reach the same levels as those of the anti-government groups. The military command, composed of senior Western educated leaders, decided to intervene on the side of the demonstrators and effectively took power. They installed an interim government and initiated a violent crackdown on the Islamists. President Morsi was arrested and jailed and remains in captivity today.

The military intervention can be viewed as a wider power struggle between Islamists and nationalists forces. Since the Tanzamat reforms initiated under the Ottomans, there has been this friction between religion and modernity in the Middle East. Following World War II, this tension ended with the takeover of many states (following the withdrawal of the colonial powers) of nationalist, pro-Arab groups. In some places they violently suppressed Islamists. This was starkly underlined in Syria and Egypt. Egypt, in particular, was suspicious of the Islamist motive and feared an Iranian style revolution. The Muslim Brotherhood was violently suppressed, then tolerated and then unbanned following the 2011 revolution. The suspicions of the Islamist intent did not diminish of course and sensing an opportunity, the Egyptian military jumped at the chance of undermining the Islamists following a 'mandate from the street'.

The US Government, a proponent of democracy and free and fair participation in the political system, has remained largely mute since July 2013. Sure, they have condemned violence and called for the release of Islamist prisoners. Aid was suspended in 2013 but political, security and economic cooperation continue. The decision rested and rests largely on US geopolitical self-interest and not an ethnical or moral position. Should the US impose sanctions and diplomatic restrictions (the only methods which will reverse the current atrocities), they will lose an important ally. Egypt needs to remain in the US realm of influence. It controls the key access between Asia and Africa, the government keeps the lid on Islamist extremists in the Sinai and Egypt is placed critically close to Israel, the US's number 1 ally in the Middle East. Should Egypt leave the US sphere of influence, the door would open for China and Russia, who would, doubtlessly jump at the chance of propping up a regime in this geopolitically strategic arena.

On 26 March, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, the former military chief and Minister of Defence, who led the 2013 coup, announced his intention to stand for president in the forthcoming presidential poll. His announcement was anticipated but still serves as a shock to the moral conscience. Yet, he appears to enjoy wide support among the Egyptian people and is set to win the next election. Pro-democracy activists will, rightly, argue that this is a flagrant slap in the face of liberty and call on the US to act. They won't of course because military and political strategic interests will trump ethics. What may lead the US to rethink their position is if the US public latch on to the Egyptian crisis and a threat to the democrats hold on the White House appears. This is unlikely at present given the US population's largely inward focus. So, anticipate more Islamist protests, empty words from the US against the military in Egypt and a reversal of the minor democratic gains made  by the Egyptians following the 2011 Revolution.