The sentencing in Egypt of three Al-Jazeera journalists to between seven and 10 years in jail on charges of ‘aiding terrorists’ (namely, the Muslim Brotherhood), ‘endangering national security’ and ‘reporting false news’ has shocked the international community and dealt a major blow to freedom of the press.
The prison terms reveal the autocratic nature of the government of Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the former Egyptian army chief who took power in a coup nearly a year ago which saw the ouster and imprisonment of Egypt’s then president Mohamed Morsi. Sisi was elected President last month with ‘96.1 per cent’ of the vote in an election where voter turnout was 47.5 per cent and which was boycotted by most Opposition parties.
The three journalists sentenced last week are Peter Greste, a former BBC correspondent from Australia, Mohamed Fahmy, an Egyptian-Canadian ex-CNN journalist and Baher Mohamed, an Egyptian producer. They were jailed for seven, seven and 10 years respectively. Another four students charged in the case were given seven-year sentences, while 10-year sentences were handed down to British journalists Sue Turton and Dominic Kane and Dutch journalist Rena Netjes, who were not in Egypt but were tried in absentia.
Amnesty International, whose representatives observed every court session, stated: “The prosecution failed to produce a single shred of solid evidence.” Indeed, many observers believe this trial was a chance for Egypt to get back at Qatar, which is where Al-Jazeera is based, and which had been supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi.
The US strongly condemned the prison sentences, with President Barack Obama’s new press spokesman, Josh Earnest, saying: “The prosecution of journalists for reporting information that does not coincide with the government of Egypt’s narrative, flouts the most basic standards of media freedom and represents a blow to democratic progress in Egypt.”
Australia’s Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, said her government was shocked by the verdict. “The Australian government simply cannot understand it based on the evidence that was presented in the case,” she said.
It is no secret, however, that until now there has been little international criticism of the Sisi government, which is fast becoming as authoritarian as the former Mubarak regime. Egypt under Sisi has imposed death sentences on hundreds of the government’s opponents, imprisoned thousands of others and killed over 1,000 Islamists. However, with the turmoil in Iraq, Syria and Libya and jihadist advances throughout the Arab and Muslim world, it is no doubt tempting to regard Sisi, who has banned the Muslim Brotherhood, as a pillar of stability in a very volatile region.
Even though the Muslim Brotherhood’s Morsi was a divisive president who failed to reach out to his political adversaries and who did not attempt to reach a consensus with his secular opponents, Sisi’s crackdown on and ban of the Brotherhood is certainly not the answer to Egypt’s problems. After all, Morsi did receive over 13 million votes in the 2012 presidential election, or 51.7 per cent of the popular vote. You just can’t ban a party with such electoral support and expect it to disappear.
Egypt’s slide into authoritarianism no doubt presents a huge dilemma for the United States. A week ago, shortly before the verdict in the Al-Jazeera case was announced, US Secretary of State John Kerry was in Cairo restoring Washington’s ‘historic partnership’ with Egypt, where he announced the US would soon resume the military aid that was suspended after last year’s coup.
On Monday, Kerry described the court decision as “a deeply disturbing setback to Egypt’s transition”, but made no mention of once again freezing US military aid. Certainly, there are no easy options for Washington in dealing with Egypt, which is an important US ally and whose leader, President Sisi, is regarded as a bulwark against Islamist extremism and a force for stability.
However, Washington should still review its policy towards Sisi and urge him to end his crackdown on dissent and resume a dialogue with his opponents, both liberal and Islamist. Indeed, Sisi’s banning of the Muslim Brotherhood and his labelling it a ‘terrorist’ organisation can only drive the Brotherhood underground and convince it that violence is the only way to achieve its goals.
The US provides Egypt with billions in economic and military aid, so one would like to think that Washington does have some clout over Cairo. Shouldn’t the US make any future aid to Egypt dependent on a move away from authoritarianism and an opening of a dialogue with all of the government’s opponents?
There are no easy choices, but I believe the US, and also the EU, can afford to exert more pressure on the Egyptian government to be more inclusive.
The worst possible outcome would be the linking up of extremist elements within the Muslim Brotherhood with various jihadist movements in Egypt
It is true that, considering the turmoil, sectarianism and instability in the Arab world, it is tempting to support the emergence of a strongman in Egypt as a guarantor of stability. In all probability, things will settle down in Egypt in the short term, but in the long term I have my doubts, especially if the Brotherhood resorts to terrorism.
The worst possible outcome would be the linking up of extremist elements within the Muslim Brotherhood with various jihadist movements in Egypt, some of whom already operate in the Sinai Peninsula, and resorting to violence and terrorism. This is an outcome that needs to be avoided at all costs.
Reconciliation between political Islam and secular forces, however difficult, must be the ultimate aim of any Egyptian government. After all, this has been achieved in Tunisia, so why not in Egypt? Both sides will have to make compromises, of course, but that is the only way forward.