Tag Archives: William Hague

Egypt, Foreign Affairs, Government, Middle East, Politics, United States

Egypt’s revolution and the ballot box…

EGYPT MUST COMPLETE ITS REVOLUTION

The events in Egypt led the British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, to say that ‘Democratic change is a process, not an event.’ Mr Hague, addressing a Conservative Middle East Council, last week, following the removal of Mohammed Morsi as Egypt’s prime minister, is supported by history with his argument. The revolution that deposed the dictator Hosni Mubarak in 2011 has taken many surprising turns.

Egypt’s election of a president was designed to bring democracy to a country that has been missing for more than 80 years. The democratic legitimacy granted to Mr Morsi, a popular vote of more than 50 per cent at the ballot box just 12 months ago, was a mandate in reshaping the country as an Islamic Republic.

The revolution in Egypt continues following the removal of Mohammed Morsi by the military. But with tensions rising and the Muslim Brotherhood discontent with the democratic process, the revolution that stemmed from the Arab Spring of 2011 is putting democracy in danger.

The revolution in Egypt continues following the removal of Mohammed Morsi by the military. But with tensions rising and the Muslim Brotherhood discontent with the democratic process, the revolution that stemmed from the Arab Spring of 2011 is putting democracy in danger.

But rather than heal the economy or build up secular, civil institutions – a necessary prerequisite given the mix of Secularists, Christians and Muslims in the country – Morsi used his fragile mandate to push through a fundamentalist constitution, while overseeing the country’s descent into anarchy, chaos and economic crisis. The result was that the military stepped in on the pretext of reclaiming the revolution from the country’s democratically elected leader. Whilst its intervention was celebrated by millions who took to the streets, and tens of thousands of people gathered in Tahrir Square, the army’s subsequent actions have been a mix of progressive action and of being troubling. The choice of a civilian judge as interim president suggests that the military’s intentions are good, but it has also started to arrest members of the Muslim Brotherhood, a reflection of the dictatorial authoritarianism of the old Mubarak regime.

President Barack Obama said the new government should ‘avoid any arbitrary arrests of President Morsi and his supporters’. That is surely right, for there should always be a space for Islamists in a country on the road to reform and democracy. Exclusion would only lead to sectarian violence.

Yet, some analysts have commented that part of the febrile situation in Egypt rests with President Obama, who has sent convoluted and mixed signals: first supporting the 2011 revolution and then remaining neutral. Mirthfully, or as ironic as the situation has become, the lack of US involvement convinced some in the Egyptian opposition that Mr Obama supported President Morsi. In May, the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, expressed dissatisfaction with Egypt’s commitment to democracy, but, just a month later, the United States agreed to give the Egyptian army $1.3 billion in aid.

American law is clear on restricting assistance to any country whose elected head of government has been deposed by a military coup or decree – a legal provision in U.S. statute which has given Mr Obama an opportunity to show some leadership.

Washington has stated that it will withhold the $1.3 billion if the generals are judged to have staged a coup, and it is difficult to draw any other conclusion. But this threat should be used by Mr Obama as leverage to compel the military to commit to elections as soon as possible, preferably with a clear itinerary and timetable attached. That would be the best outcome and a necessary condition if Egypt is to complete its revolution.

Standard
Britain, Syria, United States

Decision time over Syria. Avoid making historic mistake…

As world leaders gather for the G8 conference in Northern Ireland, one issue seems certain to dominate all others: the Syrian civil war.

On Friday, President Obama triggered an escalation in this already terrifying crisis by announcing the US will shortly send weapons to moderate elements of the Syrian opposition.

William Hague, the British Foreign Secretary, then rushed out a statement of support, saying ‘we have to be prepared to do more to save lives’ and put pressure on the Russian-backed Assad regime to negotiate.

Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, has been visiting Britain today, and, officially, Downing Street insists no decision has been taken for Britain to deliver arms to the rebels. Worryingly, though, there is every indication that, where the US leads, Britain will wish to follow.

Of course, it’s not difficult to sympathise with politicians wanting to find a solution to a humanitarian disaster which has already claimed more than 90,000 lives. Millions more have been displaced.

But, as Conservative MP John Baron has said: ‘Arming the rebels and escalating the violence could be a mistake of historic proportions.’

In Syria, the ineluctable truth is we simply do not know who the enemy are. There is absolutely no way of preventing the supply of weapons falling into the hands of the extremists who are bolstering the ranks of the opposition forces – including Al-Qaeda.

Nor, even more frighteningly, can Downing Street predict the extent to which ramping up the violence in Syria will further destabilise a wider region which – with tensions simmering in Lebanon, Turkey and Israel – already resembles a fraught tinderbox.

We should not forget how Tony Blair’s egomania (and the subsequent suspension of the democratic process) enabled the former British prime minister to plunge Britain into its worst foreign debacle since Suez.

David Cameron has promised Parliament a say before Britain is dragged any further into Syria. He must honour his word on this. Making a historic mistake with Syria would prove disastrous.

Standard