West Speaks with a Forked Tongue on the Arab Spring
Published on Sunday, July 8, 2012 by The Toronto Star
by Haroon Siddiqui
We profess fidelity to democracy, especially in the Arab world. But our commitment seems to come with the caveat that the will of the people is acceptable only if it confirms our prejudices. If not — as in Egyptians’ choice of the Muslim Brotherhood for both parliament and the presidency — some of our leaders, thinkers and media eminences get antsy and irrational.
They begin to echo the logic of Algeria, Iran, Israel and the dictatorships and monarchies of the Middle East that have resisted democratic outcomes.
In 1993, the Algerian military annulled the election of an Islamic party, tarring it as terrorist. In 2006, Israel did the same with the electorally victorious Hamas, with the full support of Stephen Harper. The Iranian clerical regime routinely rejects candidates it does not like, and fiddles with elections to favour those it prefers. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and others hold elections for councils and parliaments that have little or no power.
All these culprits are our allies, except Iran.
In varying degrees, Barack Obama, Harper and other western leaders have paid lip service to the Arab Spring. They have failed to stand by pro-democracy forces at key times.
They have been silent on the series of measures taken by the ruling Egyptian military junta to consolidate its power and even attempt to derail Mohammed Morsi’s election as president.
Yet Washington lectured him on the need to respect the rights of women and Coptic Christians.
This is not surprising coming from a capital that was complicit in the crimes of Hosni Mubarak, who banned the Brotherhood and jailed and tortured hundreds of its members for years.
Morsi himself was detained in 2006 for seven months. His sons Ahmed, Osama and Omar were detained during last year’s pro-democracy revolt and the latter two assaulted, as were thousands of others. But the White House remained mostly silent — as it has for decades about violations of human rights by tyrannical American client states.
When the West speaks up, it does so mostly on behalf of selected constituencies — non-Muslim minorities, in particular. When it advocates for the rights of women, it does so for certain types of women — secular, pro-western, often anti-Islamic. It did not go to bat for the women belonging to the Brotherhood who suffered for long periods under Mubarak.
All this contradicts the West’s cardinal position that there can be no cultural or religious exceptions to universal human rights.
The double standards get more pronounced when it comes to defaming election winners we don’t like.
• Morsi and the Brotherhood are demonized for criticizing the Egypt-Israel peace treaty. But the treaty does not have popular legitimacy in Egypt. That’s why even Mubarak never fully normalized relations with Israel, and had the state media spew poison at Jews.
So long as Israel does not end the occupation of Palestinian land, Arabs of all political and ideological stripes will remain antagonistic. Anti-Israeli sentiment is not confined to “Islamists” and it is not all motivated by anti-Semitism.
Morsi’s position on Israel may be far more moderate than, say, that of those Americans, Israelis and Canadians who are advocating war on Iran. We treat the latter as acceptable political rhetoric or strategic positioning but go berserk at the far less radical positions of the Brotherhood.
• Morsi and the Brotherhood are deemed dangerous radicals.
Sure, Morsi and colleagues have made extremist statements in the past, such as that Christians and women be barred from the presidency (a proposal never adopted by the Brotherhood) or that sharia law be implemented.
Arguably that’s no worse than a significant portion of Americans saying that a Mormon or a black should not be president. Or leading Americans insisting that Christian principles should guide public policy.
• It is said that the Brotherhood does not show sufficient commitment to liberalism. Does the Republican party? The Brotherhood is also accused of being too centrally controlled. Are the Harper Conservatives not?
The Arab world is going through a historic transition. So are several religiously inspired groups, from Egypt to Tunisia and Libya. Emerging from oppression and moving into the democratic arena, they are learning to moderate their ideology, just as Christian and Communist groups did in Europe in another era.
This is a slow and painful but peaceful process. If we hope to influence it, we need to be credible on democracy and human rights. We need to be more principled, less hypocritical.e profess fidelity to democracy, especially in the Arab world. But our commitment seems to come with the caveat that the will of the people is acceptable only if it confirms our prejudices. If not — as in Egyptians’ choice of the Muslim Brotherhood for both parliament and the presidency — some of our leaders, thinkers and media eminences get antsy and irrational.
They begin to echo the logic of Algeria, Iran, Israel and the dictatorships and monarchies of the Middle East that have resisted democratic outcomes.
In 1993, the Algerian military annulled the election of an Islamic party, tarring it as terrorist. In 2006, Israel did the same with the electorally victorious Hamas, with the full support of Stephen Harper. The Iranian clerical regime routinely rejects candidates it does not like, and fiddles with elections to favour those it prefers. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and others hold elections for councils and parliaments that have little or no power.
All these culprits are our allies, except Iran.
In varying degrees, Barack Obama, Harper and other western leaders have paid lip service to the Arab Spring. They have failed to stand by pro-democracy forces at key times.
They have been silent on the series of measures taken by the ruling Egyptian military junta to consolidate its power and even attempt to derail Mohammed Morsi’s election as president.
Yet Washington lectured him on the need to respect the rights of women and Coptic Christians.
This is not surprising coming from a capital that was complicit in the crimes of Hosni Mubarak, who banned the Brotherhood and jailed and tortured hundreds of its members for years.
Morsi himself was detained in 2006 for seven months. His sons Ahmed, Osama and Omar were detained during last year’s pro-democracy revolt and the latter two assaulted, as were thousands of others. But the White House remained mostly silent — as it has for decades about violations of human rights by tyrannical American client states.
When the West speaks up, it does so mostly on behalf of selected constituencies — non-Muslim minorities, in particular. When it advocates for the rights of women, it does so for certain types of women — secular, pro-western, often anti-Islamic. It did not go to bat for the women belonging to the Brotherhood who suffered for long periods under Mubarak.
All this contradicts the West’s cardinal position that there can be no cultural or religious exceptions to universal human rights.
The double standards get more pronounced when it comes to defaming election winners we don’t like.
• Morsi and the Brotherhood are demonized for criticizing the Egypt-Israel peace treaty. But the treaty does not have popular legitimacy in Egypt. That’s why even Mubarak never fully normalized relations with Israel, and had the state media spew poison at Jews.
So long as Israel does not end the occupation of Palestinian land, Arabs of all political and ideological stripes will remain antagonistic. Anti-Israeli sentiment is not confined to “Islamists” and it is not all motivated by anti-Semitism.
Morsi’s position on Israel may be far more moderate than, say, that of those Americans, Israelis and Canadians who are advocating war on Iran. We treat the latter as acceptable political rhetoric or strategic positioning but go berserk at the far less radical positions of the Brotherhood.
• Morsi and the Brotherhood are deemed dangerous radicals.
Sure, Morsi and colleagues have made extremist statements in the past, such as that Christians and women be barred from the presidency (a proposal never adopted by the Brotherhood) or that sharia law be implemented.
Arguably that’s no worse than a significant portion of Americans saying that a Mormon or a black should not be president. Or leading Americans insisting that Christian principles should guide public policy.
• It is said that the Brotherhood does not show sufficient commitment to liberalism. Does the Republican party? The Brotherhood is also accused of being too centrally controlled. Are the Harper Conservatives not?
The Arab world is going through a historic transition. So are several religiously inspired groups, from Egypt to Tunisia and Libya. Emerging from oppression and moving into the democratic arena, they are learning to moderate their ideology, just as Christian and Communist groups did in Europe in another era.
This is a slow and painful but peaceful process. If we hope to influence it, we need to be credible on democracy and human rights. We need to be more principled, less hypocritical.
by Haroon Siddiqui
We profess fidelity to democracy, especially in the Arab world. But our commitment seems to come with the caveat that the will of the people is acceptable only if it confirms our prejudices. If not — as in Egyptians’ choice of the Muslim Brotherhood for both parliament and the presidency — some of our leaders, thinkers and media eminences get antsy and irrational.
They begin to echo the logic of Algeria, Iran, Israel and the dictatorships and monarchies of the Middle East that have resisted democratic outcomes.
In 1993, the Algerian military annulled the election of an Islamic party, tarring it as terrorist. In 2006, Israel did the same with the electorally victorious Hamas, with the full support of Stephen Harper. The Iranian clerical regime routinely rejects candidates it does not like, and fiddles with elections to favour those it prefers. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and others hold elections for councils and parliaments that have little or no power.
All these culprits are our allies, except Iran.
In varying degrees, Barack Obama, Harper and other western leaders have paid lip service to the Arab Spring. They have failed to stand by pro-democracy forces at key times.
They have been silent on the series of measures taken by the ruling Egyptian military junta to consolidate its power and even attempt to derail Mohammed Morsi’s election as president.
Yet Washington lectured him on the need to respect the rights of women and Coptic Christians.
This is not surprising coming from a capital that was complicit in the crimes of Hosni Mubarak, who banned the Brotherhood and jailed and tortured hundreds of its members for years.
Morsi himself was detained in 2006 for seven months. His sons Ahmed, Osama and Omar were detained during last year’s pro-democracy revolt and the latter two assaulted, as were thousands of others. But the White House remained mostly silent — as it has for decades about violations of human rights by tyrannical American client states.
When the West speaks up, it does so mostly on behalf of selected constituencies — non-Muslim minorities, in particular. When it advocates for the rights of women, it does so for certain types of women — secular, pro-western, often anti-Islamic. It did not go to bat for the women belonging to the Brotherhood who suffered for long periods under Mubarak.
All this contradicts the West’s cardinal position that there can be no cultural or religious exceptions to universal human rights.
The double standards get more pronounced when it comes to defaming election winners we don’t like.
• Morsi and the Brotherhood are demonized for criticizing the Egypt-Israel peace treaty. But the treaty does not have popular legitimacy in Egypt. That’s why even Mubarak never fully normalized relations with Israel, and had the state media spew poison at Jews.
So long as Israel does not end the occupation of Palestinian land, Arabs of all political and ideological stripes will remain antagonistic. Anti-Israeli sentiment is not confined to “Islamists” and it is not all motivated by anti-Semitism.
Morsi’s position on Israel may be far more moderate than, say, that of those Americans, Israelis and Canadians who are advocating war on Iran. We treat the latter as acceptable political rhetoric or strategic positioning but go berserk at the far less radical positions of the Brotherhood.
• Morsi and the Brotherhood are deemed dangerous radicals.
Sure, Morsi and colleagues have made extremist statements in the past, such as that Christians and women be barred from the presidency (a proposal never adopted by the Brotherhood) or that sharia law be implemented.
Arguably that’s no worse than a significant portion of Americans saying that a Mormon or a black should not be president. Or leading Americans insisting that Christian principles should guide public policy.
• It is said that the Brotherhood does not show sufficient commitment to liberalism. Does the Republican party? The Brotherhood is also accused of being too centrally controlled. Are the Harper Conservatives not?
The Arab world is going through a historic transition. So are several religiously inspired groups, from Egypt to Tunisia and Libya. Emerging from oppression and moving into the democratic arena, they are learning to moderate their ideology, just as Christian and Communist groups did in Europe in another era.
This is a slow and painful but peaceful process. If we hope to influence it, we need to be credible on democracy and human rights. We need to be more principled, less hypocritical.e profess fidelity to democracy, especially in the Arab world. But our commitment seems to come with the caveat that the will of the people is acceptable only if it confirms our prejudices. If not — as in Egyptians’ choice of the Muslim Brotherhood for both parliament and the presidency — some of our leaders, thinkers and media eminences get antsy and irrational.
They begin to echo the logic of Algeria, Iran, Israel and the dictatorships and monarchies of the Middle East that have resisted democratic outcomes.
In 1993, the Algerian military annulled the election of an Islamic party, tarring it as terrorist. In 2006, Israel did the same with the electorally victorious Hamas, with the full support of Stephen Harper. The Iranian clerical regime routinely rejects candidates it does not like, and fiddles with elections to favour those it prefers. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and others hold elections for councils and parliaments that have little or no power.
All these culprits are our allies, except Iran.
In varying degrees, Barack Obama, Harper and other western leaders have paid lip service to the Arab Spring. They have failed to stand by pro-democracy forces at key times.
They have been silent on the series of measures taken by the ruling Egyptian military junta to consolidate its power and even attempt to derail Mohammed Morsi’s election as president.
Yet Washington lectured him on the need to respect the rights of women and Coptic Christians.
This is not surprising coming from a capital that was complicit in the crimes of Hosni Mubarak, who banned the Brotherhood and jailed and tortured hundreds of its members for years.
Morsi himself was detained in 2006 for seven months. His sons Ahmed, Osama and Omar were detained during last year’s pro-democracy revolt and the latter two assaulted, as were thousands of others. But the White House remained mostly silent — as it has for decades about violations of human rights by tyrannical American client states.
When the West speaks up, it does so mostly on behalf of selected constituencies — non-Muslim minorities, in particular. When it advocates for the rights of women, it does so for certain types of women — secular, pro-western, often anti-Islamic. It did not go to bat for the women belonging to the Brotherhood who suffered for long periods under Mubarak.
All this contradicts the West’s cardinal position that there can be no cultural or religious exceptions to universal human rights.
The double standards get more pronounced when it comes to defaming election winners we don’t like.
• Morsi and the Brotherhood are demonized for criticizing the Egypt-Israel peace treaty. But the treaty does not have popular legitimacy in Egypt. That’s why even Mubarak never fully normalized relations with Israel, and had the state media spew poison at Jews.
So long as Israel does not end the occupation of Palestinian land, Arabs of all political and ideological stripes will remain antagonistic. Anti-Israeli sentiment is not confined to “Islamists” and it is not all motivated by anti-Semitism.
Morsi’s position on Israel may be far more moderate than, say, that of those Americans, Israelis and Canadians who are advocating war on Iran. We treat the latter as acceptable political rhetoric or strategic positioning but go berserk at the far less radical positions of the Brotherhood.
• Morsi and the Brotherhood are deemed dangerous radicals.
Sure, Morsi and colleagues have made extremist statements in the past, such as that Christians and women be barred from the presidency (a proposal never adopted by the Brotherhood) or that sharia law be implemented.
Arguably that’s no worse than a significant portion of Americans saying that a Mormon or a black should not be president. Or leading Americans insisting that Christian principles should guide public policy.
• It is said that the Brotherhood does not show sufficient commitment to liberalism. Does the Republican party? The Brotherhood is also accused of being too centrally controlled. Are the Harper Conservatives not?
The Arab world is going through a historic transition. So are several religiously inspired groups, from Egypt to Tunisia and Libya. Emerging from oppression and moving into the democratic arena, they are learning to moderate their ideology, just as Christian and Communist groups did in Europe in another era.
This is a slow and painful but peaceful process. If we hope to influence it, we need to be credible on democracy and human rights. We need to be more principled, less hypocritical.
posted by Hanan Elbadry at 9:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home