A fragile alliance: how the crisis in Egypt caused a rift within the anti-Syrian government block
by Ahmed E. Souaiaia*
Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United
Arab Emirate (UAE), Turkey, and the West condemned in unison the Syrian government
for its harsh treatment of Syrians from the first day of the uprising in that
country. Many observers were skeptical of the stated reasons for this sudden interest
in human rights issues given that the Gulf States are in fact models of
repressive governance. As the reaction to the Egyptian crisis revealed, the
opposition to the Syrian government was not motivated by the stated goals (support
for democracy and condemnation for authoritarianism). It was dictated by narrow
political, ideological, and sectarian interests.
For the West, the Syrian
government was not to be trusted because it is part of the “non-moderate” clique
of countries. It was therefore a welcomed development when the Arab Spring
reached Syria’s shores. Countries that hesitated to support the uprisings that
ousted Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak (both dictators, but part of
the “moderate” group of Arab nations as defined by the West) were eager to
throw their support behind al-Qaeda elements, or have looked the other way as
governments and private entities supplied al-Qaeda-like fighters with deadly (and
possibly chemical) weapons in Syria.
The rulers of Qatar, who
leveraged money, media, and the Muslim Brotherhood to play a disproportionately
significant role, turned against Assad in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood. They
used Aljazeera to bolster the propaganda for the opposition and spent nearly $4
billion on weapons and salary to the Syrian rebels.
Saudi Arabia and the
United Arab Emirates are the two main patrons of Salafism, a brand of Islam
that is dogmatically opposed to any expression of Islam that does not fit
theirs. Rulers of these two countries see Shi`i Islam as a heretic deviation
that must be eliminated. Moreover, they see in the Iranian model of governance
(wilāyat al-faqīh) a direct threat for their clannish rule. For them, Assad’s
regime was the door through which Shi`i Islam and Iranian influence entered the
Arab world. They wanted that door shut.
Turkey, under the rule
of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the leadership of Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, gravitated towards a form of religious conservatism not
dissimilar from the Muslim Brotherhood’s. Without doubt, Erdoğan, like the leaders of Muslim Brotherhood, acted on his
sectarian impulses in dealing with Iraq, when he harbored a fugitive
politician, and in dealing with Syria.
An alliance united by
hate and narrow interests is not a reliable or sustainable one. The second
uprising in Egypt that removed Mohamed Morsi, an elected president who governed
with the singular aim of entrenching the Brotherhood into the institutions of
governance instead of solving the critical problems facing the country, revealed
the uneasy terms of an alliance that united disparate actors.
Immediately after the
June 30th uprising and the subsequent military intervention in Egypt,
Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Kuwait pumped vast amounts of money and energy
assistance to help the new rulers of Egypt overcome the difficult economic
conditions facing the country. Qatar, now ruled by the son of the ailing Emir,
kept a low profile—although Aljazeera gave away the country’s position when it
continued to broadcast news sympathetic to Morsi’s supporters.
Saudi Arabia on the
other hand, launched strong diplomatic, political, and economic campaign to
legitimize, support, and sustain the military-installed rulers of Egypt.
Meeting with European leaders in France and Germany, al-Faysal, the Kingdom’s
foreign minister, insisted that what happened in Egypt on July 3rd was
not a coup and that the military was not suppressing Egyptians. It was fighting
terrorism (i.e., the Muslim Brotherhood). He argued that the military acted
because 30 million Egyptians wanted it to do so. Dismissing Western threats to
the Egyptian army, he promised that Saudi Arabia would replace any cuts in
Western aid.
The hypocrisy could not
be more obvious: in two days, the
Egyptian military regime killed as many people as the total number killed in
Syria in the first two months of the Syrian uprising. Yet, the Saudis and their
allies armed all kinds of fighters, including known terrorists, to fight the
Syrian regime. Yet, Saudi Arabia did not see a problem with a regime that had
reportedly killed nearly 2000 Egyptians in two separate days.
Highlighting the
fragility of this alliance and the hypocrisy of its members, Turkey’s rulers lashed
out at Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, and UAE accusing them of bankrolling a military
coup in Egypt, undoing legitimacy, and killing Egyptians. The so-called "Friends
of Syria" are now enemies because of Egypt.
(Reacting to the Gulf
States’ role in the ouster of Morsi, a Turkish pro-APK news outlet dubbed the
rulers of UAE, Saudi Arabia, PA, Jordan, and Kuwait the “axis of evil.”)
These developments have
serious implications for each of the members of this alliance.
The United States’
credibility will be further and irreparably damaged. Pursuing a hostile policy
against a repressive regime in Syria while appeasing an equally repressive
regime in Egypt relativizes its commitment to its declared values. Taking cues
from Saudi Arabia about the U.S. foreign relations in the region is not a wise
approach.
Turkey will continue to
lose economically and politically for pursuing a foreign policy built on
sectarianism and imperial ambitions and contradicting its own principles of
pursuing a zero-problem foreign policy in favor of economic opportunities.
If Saudi Arabia manages
to control Egyptian Salafi Jihadists and prevents an armed struggle in Sinai and
other Egyptian provinces, its role as the sole patron of global terrorism will
be reaffirmed. If Egyptian Salafi Jihadists engage in armed struggle in Egypt,
it will signal Saudi Arabia’s loss of control over a sect that it created and
nurtured financially and ideologically since the 1980s in Afghanistan and
Pakistan. Both possibilities are evidenced by two key developments.
(Unlike the Kingdoms official
media coverage and the Egyptian Salafis’, Saudi Salafi websites’ and TV channels’
coverage of Egypt is decidedly anti-military; screen capture date, August 25,
2013).
First, as indicated by
conservative satellite channels’ programming, Salafis within Saudi Arabia remain
supportive of Morsi and continue to attack the leaders of the coup. Second,
Egyptian Salafis have supported the military and are hoping that the crackdown
against the Muslim Brotherhood will enable them to become the sole voice for
Islamists in the next elections.
Money and sectarianism
are not the only tools that enable Saudi and Emirati meddling in Egyptian
affairs. Social and economic factors are generally overlooked, but they are equally
important in determining Egyptian relations with the Gulf States. An estimated
9 million Egyptians live abroad and contribute about US$ 14.6 billion annually to
the Egyptian economy. Many of these Egyptian
migrants live in the Gulf States (1.8 million in Saudi Arabia, 550,000 in UAE, and
500,000 in Kuwait). The Gulf States have used the presence of Egyptians to
influence its foreign relations: for instance, they often threaten to expel
workers in response to political disputes. Most recently, UAE threatened
Egyptians after discovering an alleged plot by the Muslim Brotherhood. In
addition, the Gulf States acting as a block within the Gulf Cooperative Council
(GCC) collectively threatened extreme measures against Lebanese workers unless
the Lebanese government acted in line with the GCC foreign policy.
These social and
economic factors, along with sectarian and ideological issues, must be taken
into consideration when attempting to explain the fall of the rule of the
Muslim Brotherhood and resurrection of military rule in Egypt. The U.S
administration should develop new calculus for its Middle East policy,
especially in the light of the Arab Spring events and the possibility of energy
independence. Outsourcing U.S. foreign policy to allies who do not share a
commitment to combating racism, sectarianism, and (takfiri) terrorism will
continue to diminish U.S. standing and credibility.
____________
* Prof. SOUAIAIA teaches at the University of Iowa.
Opinions are the author’s, speaking on matters of public interest; not speaking
for the university or any other organization with which he is affiliated.
No comments:
Write commentsShare your thoughts...