It was widely reported last month that Turkish President Erdogan, a very prominent Muslim Brotherhood (MB) supporter, believesthe Third Reich presidency ofAdolf Hitler is a good example for him to follow.
This is nothing new.
When the MB was created, it reached out in the 1930s to Hitler and the Nazi Party to further cooperation between the two organisations.
Nevertheless, on the last day of Britain’s parliament for the year 2015, the government released the Jenkin’s Report insummary form regarding the MB. What was supposed to be a full-fledged report offering policy prescriptions for howto treat the extremist elements within the MB in the UK and abroad stated nothing new nor remarkable.
The report shows that the MB is a “deliberately opaque, habitually secretive” organisation, and “both as an ideology and a network it has been a rite of passage for some individuals and groups who have gone on to engage in violence”. As a result, the government would treat membership of, or influence by, the Muslim Brotherhood as a “possible indicator of extremism”. No kidding.
Unrecognised by the so-called policymakers and armchair pundits, a big factor in Cameron’s deliberations is that Turkey’s leader and government are not only MB but also NATO members and ISIS supporters. A bizarre paradox.
Why was the Jenkin’s Report commissioned in the first place? At the time, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates pushed the government to recognise that the UK harboured extremists that sought to overthrow monarchies on the Arabian Peninsula. London became the epicentre for MB operations abroad from the Gulf Arab point of view.
But as the Jenkins Report was being finalised, something extraordinary happened; the MB decided on a new strategy to win Saudi support, and it worked.
The UK government, in a surreptitious way, released their MB summary document just before Christmas, to ensure minimum media attention. Also noteworthy is that it is without policy recommendations, presumably its original intent?
Cameron does not want to alienate the Muslim Brotherhood entirely, given the role that the group may play in future governments
One can surmise that there are three main reasons.
First, Cameron is trying to position the UK in multiple Middle East negotiations regarding not only Syria’s future but also Libya as well as the pointless bombardment of Yemen by Saudi. Cameron does not want to alienate the MB entirely, given the role that the group may play in future governments in these beleaguered countries. That itself is potentially a mistake of epic proportions by Cameron.
The second reason is Cameron’s desire to align with the US’s MB policy, though there are signs that policy might change in the near future. US President Barack Obama is well known to have empathy for the MB. Even before his presidency, Washington think-tanks were churning out pro-MB policy papers calling for the DC establishment to accept the MB as the voice of reason. The phenomena worsened under Obama and has upset the US’s GCC allies specifically the UAE and, of course, Egypt, who have declared the MB as illegal.
Finally the fact that the UK summary document came out within a day after Saudi deputy crown prince Mohammed bin Salman’s lightning announcement of a 34-nation Sunni Muslim coalition to fight ISIS and al-Qaida is also part of Cameron’s supposed calculus. Cameron, sensing a volte face by Saudi towards the MB, wanted presumably to see what the Saudis intended to do with the Brotherhood in this new emerging religio-political coalition.
Although the MB was placed on Saudi Arabia’s terrorist list in March 2015, under this new King Salman, Riyadh is undergoing a radical change of policies. Additionally, the bond between the Salman family and the young Qatari Emir is also growing and Riyadh has already started toning down its harsh anti-MB rhetoric from just a month ago.
Cameron got most of his worse fears answered following the Erdogan visit to Riyadh; a bilateral security cooperation agreement between Turkey and the Saudis and what quickly followed, coincidence or not, was the execution of Saudi Shiite Cleric Nimr al-Nimr. This Saudi provocation resulted then in a critical turning point; the consequent break in diplomatic relations between Tehran and Riyadh considerably widening the Shiite-Sunni divide. What is now very clear is that Ankara and Riyadh are now in bed together in regards to the MB.
It is as if there is now a Turkish Fascist-Saudi Wahhabist alliance with the MB as a tool of mutual choice for the “final solution” in the near East for both Christians and Jews.
The West’s reactions, or lack thereof, to these regional shifts illustrates just how dangerously behind the curve the UK and the US are.