Fig leaf?

Nabil Fahmy, Egypt’s Foreign Minister, spoke today at CSIS.  He was all sweetness and light:  civil liberties, transparency, accountability, participation, inclusivity.  He snarled, politely, on only two subjects:

• relations with Turkey and Qatar are “not good” because of their interference in internal Egyptian politics (read their support for the Muslim Brotherhood), and
• Egypt will seek to improve relations with Russia, which he averred will be possible without hurting relations with the US.

I might even say he relished using improved relations with Russia as a means of keeping the United States on the hook, but that would be reading between his lines.

The questioners were not so placid.  Three or four asked about abuses by Egyptian courts:  in condemning hundreds of people to death after show trials, in trying and convicting American and Egyptian democracy advocates, and in jailing journalists.  Fahmy hid behind independence of the judiciary, reluctance to speak on any cases still before the courts, rule of law, and insistence that the death sentences were merely recommendations to the Mufti.

I’d have asked about the three-year sentence handed down (and confirmed on appeal) against activists of the April 6 movement, which has now been banned as well, for “tarnishing the image” of Egypt.  But I didn’t get the chance.  I admit the case seems small in comparison with some of the others raised, much as I am personally committed to trying to free the April 6 prisoners.

Fahmy said the justice system will evolve, like the rest of Egypt, in an open and democratic direction, but like all other countries it needs to deal with terrorism.  The Egyptian embassy provided a handy fact sheet on “Terrorism in Egypt” to underline this point.  They also provided a fact sheet on “Democratic Elections for a New Government.”  Egypt, we are asked to believe, is headed for democracy at its May 26-27 election, despite the strain of the fight against terrorism.  Note to the embassy:  please post these fact sheets so I can link them!

I wish it were so.  But there is a counter-narrative that appears much more likely.  Egypt is using the courts to squelch any serious political competition (from the Muslim Brotherhood or secularists) while it cracks down in ways that spawn terrorism and conducts a sham election guaranteed to coronate Field Marshall Sisi as the “civilian” leader of a restored autocracy.

Fahmy, in this alternate narrative, is not the smooth-talking vanguard of eventual democracy all his friends in Washington (he served many years here as ambassador) would like him to be, but rather the urbane fig leaf hiding the ugly reality of a return to military rule.  I don’t doubt Fahmy’s sincerity in wanting Egypt to be democratic.  That’s not the issue.  The issue is whether the military is using him and his sincerity to smooth relations with the US, attract diaspora and foreign investment, and avoid the wrath of those in Congress who think we should end aid to a military coup.

I’ll be very glad to see the latter narrative disproven.  But I doubt it will be.  A year from now, I expect to see the Field Marshall enthroned and an elected parliament firmly in his grip.  The Muslim Brotherhood will no doubt still be banned as a terrorist organization.  April 6 will be under lock and key.  Democracy advocates will be allowed only if they are tame and obedient.  Journalists will have to toe the line, or end up in prison.

What will the Americans do?  Most likely nothing.  Contrary to universal Egyptian belief, Washington has been consistent throughout Egypt’s various twists and turns:  it supports whoever gains power.  Its overriding priorities in Egypt are maintenance of the peace treaty with Israel, the fight against terrorists and military overflight rights and access to the Suez canal.  Whoever helps America with those objectives will be considered acceptable, or better.  How Egypt governs itself will be a secondary consideration, rising again in our priorities only if someone new turns up at the top.