America At A Crossroads - Caution Needed When Dealing With the Muslim Brotherhood

By Victor Comras

PBS’s week-long “America at a Crossroads” series presented many of the issues and dilemmas now facing America in the War on Terrorism. The series got mixed reviews on content and temper. There were criticisms about its objectivity from both the left and right. But, despite its flaws, the series provided viewers with a heavy dose of food for thought. Hopefully, it will help stimulate discussion and debate among a growing number of Americans, and perhaps even lead to more close scrutiny and questioning of aspects of Administration policy.

I intend to write several blogs on issues discussed in the series. I had the opportunity to participate in one of the films, The Brotherhood, so I shall begin there.

The film is strong as journalism, but weaker as analysis. The documentary misses the main question – what is the Muslim Brotherhood and what do its members want and believe. Answering these crucial questions is critical to understanding the Brotherhood and to formulating appropriate policies to deal with it.

Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff are both top notch investigative reporters, and that sets the tone for the film. Using investigative reporting techniques they focus on four individual members of the Brotherhood, seeking to expose differences between the activities of its various members and how the organization now seeks to portray itself. One protagonist, Kemal Helbawy, represents the image the Muslim Brotherhood now seeks to secure – that it is a benevolent spiritual-based organization that seeks to promote Islamic values and Muslim spiritually, morality, and welfare through peaceful and democratic means. Kemal, who lectures regularly for the Muslim Brotherhood was refused entry last year into the United States.

The other characters in the film represent various malevolent aspects of the Brotherhood. Like Kemal, they also seek to portray the Brotherhood and themselves as moderates, seeking to pursue their objectives through legitimate channels. But, the methods they have used are far from legitimate. Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian exile to Germany maintains a normal business façade, but is linked to the 1998 embassy bombings and to several of the 9/11 hijackers; Abdulrahman Alamoudi, an American resident, passed himself off as a promoter of pluralism while fronting for radical fundamentalist groups. He is now serving a 23 year prison sentence in the United States after pleading guilty to racketeering charges rather than stand trial on terrorism financing. And then there is Youssef Nada, one of the original old-line Muslim Brotherhood members, who served, and perhaps continues to serve, as a principal banker, financial backer, and money-raiser for the Muslim Brotherhood. He has also been linked to financing al Qaeda and Hamas.

The film devotes considerable footage to Nada, who represents the sophistication of Muslim Brotherhood leaders. Nada continues to maintain his innocence when it comes to supporting terrorism. He tells the reporters that he abhors terrorism, but provides justifications for Hamas and Iraqi Insurgent suicide bombers targetting innocent civilians. The Swiss sought to prosecute Nada for terrorism financing, but were unable to obtain the documentation necessary from the Saudi government, or other supporting evidence from the United States. So, Nada continues to operate freely from his home in Campione and to flaunt the UN sanctions against him.

The activities of these four individuals touch directly on the debate currently underway in the United States as to whether, and how US authorities should engage with the Brotherhood. Some maintain that the US should work with moderate Brotherhood elements to better present US perspectives for peace in the Middle East and to foster democratic values and human rights reform. They see the Muslim Brotherhood as a potential viable alternative to dealing with the repressive non democratic regimes in the region. They find it difficult to turn their backs on the brotherhood’s claims that it represents the best (and currently the only) force for democratic change in several authoritarian ruled countries in the Middle East. They argue that we should not fear dealing with the Brotherhood as our interests would be better served through such discussion and communication. We are not likely to stem the Brotherhood’s growing influence, they maintain, and we should strive to moderate its attitudes.

On the other side of the debate are those who believe we must continue to isolate the Brotherhood. They focus on what the Muslim Brotherhood has done or caused to be done, rather than on its rhetoric. The Brotherhood, in concert with Wahhabi theology and Saudi money, has succeeded over the last three decades in spreading radical Islam and laying the foundation for such terrorist groups as Al Qaeda and Hamas. They caution that now giving the Muslim Brotherhood greater legitimacy would prove deleterious to US interests throughout the Middle East. While supposedly “forswearing” terrorism, Muslim Brotherhood leaders continue to support Hamas and Hezbollah. They also maintain that suicide bombers in Israel and Iraq are “freedom fighters” and not terrorists. They regularly claim that suicide bombings are “understandable,” and justified by the “illegitimate occupation” of their lands.

Acknowledging that the Muslim Brotherhood represents the best organized opposition to repressive regimes in the Middle East, there is still every reason to fear that a regime under their leadership would be no less authoritarian, given their singular commitment to fundamentalist, non-tolerant perceptions of religious and morale conduct. Nor can we forget that the Muslim Brotherhood’s clearly stated ultimate objective to achieve world religious hegemony for Islam is irreconcilable with our own commitment to work for increasingly harmonious pluralist communities in the Middle East and elsewhere.

So, while we should keep our channels open to the Muslim Brotherhood, in the same way we do with other adversaries, we should deal with them only as US interests dictate. And, we should always do so with great caution, and attention to the precise interests that motivate such contacts and such discourse. We cannot afford to allow the Muslim Brotherhood to take advantage of our own respect for democratic values to pursue their own very undemocratic goals.

TrackBack