UK intervention
Oliver Miles
After the deaths of hundreds this week, and a new wave of protests across Egypt yesterday which brought further bloodshed, many people are asking: What should Britain, our allies and other international players do to help end the unrest?
My first point would be to stay calm, and recognise that doing nothing is an option. The situation is bad, but hardly as bad as Iraq, where 3,400 people have been killed in mainly sectarian violence this year (in a situation which one can argue was created by UK intervention), or Syria, where the numbers are higher, or Sudan, the media ignores. Diplomats don’t take the Hippocratic oath, but the principle is the same: Above all, do no harm.
The US does not have the do-nothing option, because it has a colossal military aid programme in the country, which must continue or not continue. The administration is caught in a legalistic tangle, because there is a law against aid to governments installed by military coup, so it has had to avoid calling it one and have hedged by withholding some hardware and cancelling some joint military exercises. Steps like that may or may not solve problems in Washington, but they won’t help in Cairo. I would question what US interest (other than that of arms manufacturers) has been served by the military programme, or by the larger programme of military aid to Israel which it was designed to balance.
The outside world must ask: What is the objective of any action we might take? The simple answer is to avoid creating another Syria. But the simplicity is deceptive, because Syria, Iraq, Libya and all others are different from each other and from Egypt. Measures that worked in Libya could not be applied in Egypt, whereas the Russian interest which has blocked international action on Syria might not block it on Egypt.
The immediate danger is that the violent confrontation between Muslim Brotherhood demonstrators and the military may be repeated and may escalate into the beginnings of civil war. The UK and the other international players can probably not influence the behaviour and tactics of demonstrators, but perhaps the Americans can influence the tactics of the military. The US military should speak to General Al Sisi in a tone which would convince him that he will pay a painful price — whether in terms of military aid or whatever else — if he doesn’t get his men to deal with demonstrators using well-tried and patient police methods.
Inevitably at a slower tempo, Britain should be mobilising its allies and others, particularly through the EU and the UN. The EU Foreign Policy Representative, Catherine Ashton, has been commendably active: Making two well-publicised visits to Cairo in two weeks, visiting the deposed president Mursi and calling for “utmost restraint” from the security forces and a political process to return to full democracy. The UN Security Council also called for “maximum restraint” after an emergency meeting. This is not just diplomacy for diplomacy’s sake: The EU is a heavyweight; and all the permanent Security Council members, including Russia and China, have some common interest in avoiding another Middle East catastrophe, and can play a useful or harmful role.
The “do nothing” option allows for diplomatic action of this kind. What Britain should avoid is being bounced by events into intervention in Egypt, even of a modest political nature, unless it is clear about the objectives and the exit strategy. I’ve seen it before.
Thirty years ago Britain was pressed hard by the US to reward Egypt for implementing peace with Israel by offering military credits so the Egyptian army could buy fancy hardware. After much sucking of teeth it declined (it couldn’t afford it). In less than two years the US was supporting Egyptian pleas to “forgive” the debts. Others, including the French, lost their stake. Britain didn’t, because it had not put any money on the table.
The Guardian
Oliver Miles
After the deaths of hundreds this week, and a new wave of protests across Egypt yesterday which brought further bloodshed, many people are asking: What should Britain, our allies and other international players do to help end the unrest?
My first point would be to stay calm, and recognise that doing nothing is an option. The situation is bad, but hardly as bad as Iraq, where 3,400 people have been killed in mainly sectarian violence this year (in a situation which one can argue was created by UK intervention), or Syria, where the numbers are higher, or Sudan, the media ignores. Diplomats don’t take the Hippocratic oath, but the principle is the same: Above all, do no harm.
The US does not have the do-nothing option, because it has a colossal military aid programme in the country, which must continue or not continue. The administration is caught in a legalistic tangle, because there is a law against aid to governments installed by military coup, so it has had to avoid calling it one and have hedged by withholding some hardware and cancelling some joint military exercises. Steps like that may or may not solve problems in Washington, but they won’t help in Cairo. I would question what US interest (other than that of arms manufacturers) has been served by the military programme, or by the larger programme of military aid to Israel which it was designed to balance.
The outside world must ask: What is the objective of any action we might take? The simple answer is to avoid creating another Syria. But the simplicity is deceptive, because Syria, Iraq, Libya and all others are different from each other and from Egypt. Measures that worked in Libya could not be applied in Egypt, whereas the Russian interest which has blocked international action on Syria might not block it on Egypt.
The immediate danger is that the violent confrontation between Muslim Brotherhood demonstrators and the military may be repeated and may escalate into the beginnings of civil war. The UK and the other international players can probably not influence the behaviour and tactics of demonstrators, but perhaps the Americans can influence the tactics of the military. The US military should speak to General Al Sisi in a tone which would convince him that he will pay a painful price — whether in terms of military aid or whatever else — if he doesn’t get his men to deal with demonstrators using well-tried and patient police methods.
Inevitably at a slower tempo, Britain should be mobilising its allies and others, particularly through the EU and the UN. The EU Foreign Policy Representative, Catherine Ashton, has been commendably active: Making two well-publicised visits to Cairo in two weeks, visiting the deposed president Mursi and calling for “utmost restraint” from the security forces and a political process to return to full democracy. The UN Security Council also called for “maximum restraint” after an emergency meeting. This is not just diplomacy for diplomacy’s sake: The EU is a heavyweight; and all the permanent Security Council members, including Russia and China, have some common interest in avoiding another Middle East catastrophe, and can play a useful or harmful role.
The “do nothing” option allows for diplomatic action of this kind. What Britain should avoid is being bounced by events into intervention in Egypt, even of a modest political nature, unless it is clear about the objectives and the exit strategy. I’ve seen it before.
Thirty years ago Britain was pressed hard by the US to reward Egypt for implementing peace with Israel by offering military credits so the Egyptian army could buy fancy hardware. After much sucking of teeth it declined (it couldn’t afford it). In less than two years the US was supporting Egyptian pleas to “forgive” the debts. Others, including the French, lost their stake. Britain didn’t, because it had not put any money on the table.
The Guardian
