Today I'd like to discuss Egypt, a subject which I could certainly do with more understanding, but so could anyone who might eventually find their way to this blog. The past few days have seen tragic developments, as riots in Egypt have erupted with deaths totaling in the hundreds. The most recent developments involve the ousting of former (if it can be considered former at this point) President Mohammed Morsi, previously considered the first truly democratically elected President of Egypt. Morsi was associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization poorly understood and even less trusted in the West. The Muslim Brotherhood, as its name would indicate, has some theocratic and extremist ideological ties, although due to its significant size it has been hard for reliable sources to accurate gauge.
Previously, Hosni Mubarak had been "the" power in Egypt. Mubarak was long considered a relatively reliable ally to the United States and a non-participant in radical Islam, something which the United States has strong dislike of following the September 11th attacks. During the tumultuous "Arab Spring" that rocked 2011, Mubarak stepped down with, and has since been under scrutiny by Egypt itself for human rights abuses. Interestingly, the United States has not come down hard on one position or another towards the man, but several hawkish members of the Federal government (particuarly the old codger John McCain) have voiced intense distrust for the Muslim Brotherhood. These voices will doubtlessly feel vindicated, as official Muslim Brotherhood platforms have urged participation in "a day of rage" or a "march of anger" over Morsi's ousting.
Between July 1st and July 3rd, just as the United States was beginning its Independence Day celebrations domestically, the Egyptian Armed Forces (a trusted, but volatile and undemocratic entity of political power in Egypt) called for Morsi to step down; Morsi refused this demand, and insisted that he would continue working towards national reconciliation. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Minister of Defense, General, and Commander in Chief of the Egyptian Army, declared the constitution suspended and Morsi under an interim arrest for not acting in Egypt's interest. While not exactly complying, Morsi also did not resist, and he was "transitioned" in relative peace. However, demonstrations, riots, and protests between pro-Morsi and anti-Morsi advocates have understandably broken out, and several of them have been violent. A serious curfew, previously not taken overly seriously, is in absolute effect, and the roads of Cairo are reportedly empty at night.
A former co-worker currently in Egypt posted an excellent post of his current thoughts. It's difficult, as an outsider and possibly (from how I read this) for an insider as well. The United States has been put into a pickle as well; we have continued sending aid to Egypt, despite technically "not being allowed to" due to restrictions on funding nations under government coups. However, the Morsi government allegedly was falling into similar habits as the Mubarak regime, again including violations of human rights. Then there is the Muslim Brotherhood, and its influence on geopolitics.
The Muslim Brotherhood, according to my brief online research, was founded in 1928 in Egypt itself. It's mission statement is, again to quote the Internet, to "instill the Qur'an and Sunnah as the sole reference point for ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community, and state." The last part is particularly frightening, seeing as so-called "Islamic states" are by definition theocratic. As Christopher Hitchens would probably say were he alive, the first step to totalitarianism is theocracy. I would have to agree.
Wha's more, beyond simple founding words and mission statements, are the actual calls to violence. These are not the "Sarah Palin/ Ted Nugent" calls to arms that are usually either dismissed or minimalized. People are literally dying on the streets while these pronouncments continue to be released; this is not moral seriousness, and it is not the cry of the casual believer. These are the types of morally compromised statements made by those men who believe they have "God on Their Side". Or maybe they don't, and are cynically using the vast institution of Islam to further their political goals. Or, as is so often the case in the United States, it is some mix of the two. The stakes, however, are much higher, and the historical and legal separation of Church and State are nowhere near as sacrosanct (pun intended, of course).
No comments:
Post a Comment