Millions take to the streets all over Egypt to condemn the political rule of President Mohamed Morsi. People are calling for early elections., a photo by Pan-African News Wire File Photos on Flickr.
Editorial Comment: Western duplicity astounding
Friday, 05 July 2013 00:53
Zimbabwe Herald Editorial
Days of massive anti-government protests in Egypt resulted in the ousting on Wednesday of the country’s first democratically-elected president, Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood, a year after he came to power.
Morsi was elected in June 2012 in the country’s first multi-party elections in over four decades. The world cheered as Egypt’s Arab Spring of 2011, which toppled former leader Hosni Mubarak, seemed focused on turning the country on a path of democratic rule and respect for the rule of law.
Military chief General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi accused Morsi of “failing to meet the demands of the people”, while his opponents accused him of Islamising the government by having members of the Muslim Brotherhood and also deviating from the 2011 Arab Spring revolution.
These might be genuine concerns, but we also ask why the people of Egypt who have been able to exercise their right to protest could not also use the newly found democratic window to engage their government through their parliamentary and local authority leadership?
Expecting Morsi to have undone four decades of what took the people onto the streets in so short a time is unrealistic.
It is also unfortunate that only the anti-Morsi view was regurgitated and in the process muzzling the voices of the 51 percent that voted for him in last year’s election.
However, Wednesday’s coup d’etat also raises a number of fundamental issues, especially the western community’s reaction to the toppling of a democratically elected leader.
The initial responses by world powers are indicators of the dynamics at play.
The first such point are the blatant double standards regarding the toppling of president Morsi, his arrest and the arrest of members of his inner circle by the military.
The United States, which is one of Egypt’s close allies because of Israel through president Barack Obama said soon after the overthrow, “We believe that ultimately the future of Egypt can only be determined by the Egyptian people . . . Nevertheless, we are deeply concerned by the decision of the Egyptian armed forces to remove president Morsi and suspend the Egyptian constitution.”
This is notwithstanding that the Egyptian saga played while the US president was on a three-nation tour of Africa. This is also notwithstanding that a US citizen was killed during last Friday’s protests.
Obama could not even call Morsi’s overthrow a coup, with the Associated Press writing on Thursday, “Was the overthrow of Egypt’s Islamist government a coup? Much hangs on the exact words used to describe what happened. If the US government determines the Egyptian military carried out a coup, it could affect the US$1, 5 billion in economic and military assistance Washington gives Egypt each year . . . In Egypt, too, the legitimacy of the military’s action hangs on how it is publicly viewed”.
Are we then to understand that this painstaking effort to redefine the overthrow of a democratically elected government is being selectively applied depending on the level of relationship?
Britain, Egypt’s former coloniser reacted equally the same with foreign minister William Hague saying, “We will always be clear that we don’t support military intervention but we will work with people in authority in Egypt.
That is the practical reality of foreign policy.”
Hague also said he had spoken to his Egyptian counterpart. Which counterpart, since the Egyptian foreign minister was among the last key cabinet ministers to resign?
Germany just called it a “major setback for democracy in Egypt”.
If this coup had occurred in one of the sub-Saharan countries, we would have heard not only all-round condemnation, but stringent measures like economic sanctions would have been imposed by now to compel the coup leaders to restore democracy. There would also be talk of military intervention.
Since last week, emergency meetings of major regional and international institutions would have taken place. Some countries would by now have severed diplomatic ties with the military rulers. But this has not been the case.
Instead, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon just said that “it will be crucial to quickly reinforce civilian rule in accordance with principles of democracy”.
Members of the Arab League were also not supportive. The world expected them to be the first to condemn the coup and also sever ties with Egypt until civilian rule is restored. With the exception of Turkey, a number of them have condoned and/or celebrated Morsi’s ousting.
Turkey seemed to be the lone voice for democracy in Egypt as its deputy prime minister Bekir Bozdag said “The power change in Egypt was not a result of the will of the people. The change was not in compliance with democracy and law”.
If those that preach democracy allowed it to be usurped in such a manner, who then will be the guardian of the democracy they claim to have been exporting to other parts of the world? And, why the double standards?
The flagrant disregard for international law was also evident in another unfortunate incident involving Bolivian president Evo Morales whose presidential jet was denied entry into French, Spanish, Italy and Portuguese airspace over unfounded suspicion that the wanted US whistleblower Edward Snowden was on board.
This act flew in the face of international law, especially the Geneva Conventions, to which all these countries are signatories. This was also total disrespect to a world leader which threatened his peace and security and that of the people on board.
In that one act, the West trampled on diplomatic privilege, possibly the last vestige of civility left to them after they long dumped truth, honour, justice, and international law.
The question is, who will bell the cat?
No comments:
Post a Comment