British Government Must Proceed With Caution in Reviewing Muslim Brotherhood [Globe and Mail]
April 17, 2014
Recently, the British government announced a review into the Muslim Brotherhood, amidst accusations the group is a terrorist organisation. The review raises a number of questions – what will the review find? What are the implications of carrying it out at all? What are the ramifications, both nationally within the UK, and further afield in Europe and the Arab world?
Reviews of groups take place on a very regular basis within the corridors of power in the British state. This one is hardly unique, and quite normal. The Brotherhood has gone through a dramatic change in its fortunes over the past year. Understanding the effects of those changes on the group, particularly if the group is deemed to have enduring relevance is certainly advisable and appropriate.
Even so, the review is off to a bad start. The review apparently will investigate links between the Brotherhood and the terrorist Taba bombings earlier this year. However, no evidence for such a linkage has been provided – even by the Egyptian authorities.
Moreover, as such a review is important, but happens against a highly charged political backdrop where many will try to prejudice the findings of the review one way or another, it is important for the review to be conducted delicately. The British government has appointed its ambassador to Saudi Arabia to conduct the review. It would have been far better for the review to be led by a civil servant that does not have such a sensitive political role, particularly given that Saudi Arabia has already designated the Brotherhood as a terrorist organisation.
The review was also made public – something that was also unnecessary for the review to be effective and comprehensive. This is not a public enquiry, but an internal review – making it public opens the government up to accusations that it is meant as a political message to the Saudi government, as well as others. This happens at a time where several reports indicate Britain is being lobbied by allies in the region on this very point, which would have made discretion more advisable.
The likely outcome of the review is not a terrorist designation, if the evidence being relied upon is the same that has been available thus far. There is evidence to suggest the Muslim Brotherhood is sectarian, permissive of incitement, and other such unsavoury characteristics, including a willingness to engage in violence for political ends. Such characteristics differ widely across the organisation, depending on the country. However, it would be difficult for such evidence to amount to a terrorist designation for the Brotherhood. It is dubious to think that the review will deliver such a verdict unless the Brotherhood changes quite dramatically between now and the time the review is completed. Such a designation, it ought to be remembered, would have to stand up in a British court of law.
The review, therefore, is likely to deliver a rather unflattering picture of the Brotherhood, but not result in a terrorist designation. The timing of its delivery is also quite important to note: it is due to happen in July, which is close to when parliament ends its session in the UK. It is also when the Arab world will slow down owing to the summer holidays, Ramadan and Eid. Indeed, it is entirely plausible the review will be completed, and its results are not even reacted to by very many people at all. However, the UK government will be able to note that it has taken the concerns of its allies in the region seriously, without actually doing very much at all.
There is, however, another concern to be held in mind with regards to this review, beyond the international. The domestic repercussions are not insignificant. There are Muslim British community organisations in the UK that are actively sympathetic to the Brotherhood. The very commissioning of the review, and making such a review process public from the outset will undoubtedly place certain pressures upon them in the public arena. They will automatically become suspect, even without evidence, or before the review is even completed. This aspect, however, seems to have been unwisely left to one side altogether.
The review is not off to a good start, and many of the criticisms could have been avoided from the outset. The shortcomings that have been clear already need not be added to. To avoid any further failings, whether for the national or international arenas, the review will have to be conducted extremely carefully. Cynicism with regards to the results is already the default – the British government ought to make it a priority to engage in even more due diligence to ensure the naysayers are not proven right.
Dr H.A. Hellyer is associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute in London and the Brookings Institution in Washington DC. @hahellyer
Source: Globe and Mail
