Let SCAF reconsider the transgression rather violation of the limits of the army in the presence of an elected parliament in Egypt, pleadsDR. S. AUSAF SAIED VASFI
Are Islam and its followers– to the United States of America – what a red rag is to an inebriated bull?
Does the schizophrenic America change leaderships in foreign countries which it deems uncomfortable for its hegemonistic objectives?
Does the power-drunk Washington stage coups in foreign lands to further its unwritten commitment to its much-denied Pax-Americana?
These oft-heard and oft-repeated questions arose in the thinking minds, once again, on June 14, when Egypt’s Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), without any rhyme or reason, dissolved the Brotherhood-led parliament. Was, or is, any legal or moral justification for the military action? Neither the parliament nor those who lead it – as far as the world knows – had committed a crime of any sort. Has Egypt’s ruling military junta, which took the helm after the overthrow of dictator Hosni Mubarak in February 2011, entered into an agreement with the United States of America to complete a planned coup, rather a planned plot, to declare Mr. Ahmad Shafiq a winner.
To a large section of the Egyptians, to the world Muslims, this came as a bolt from the blue. How is it? A day earlier the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mr. Mohamed Morsi had won the country’s presidential runoff. It was a well-confirmed and reliable report by the Election Commission as officially the result was scheduled to be made public on June 21. Because of the unwarranted military intervention, it is palpably clear that announcement of the election results stands postponed and officially delayed.
SECOND SALE OUT
Of course the military transgression would be challenged. But how all this broad-daylight rigging happened? Surely there are seasoned hypocrites at the highest level in the military which is closer to America than to the Egyptians. This perhaps is the second sale out. The first sale out took place in September 1978 in the shape of Camp David.
It goes without saying that the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) candidate, Mr. Morsi had won by a margin of 51.8 per cent of votes. This victory included the votes of the Egyptians living abroad.
Prior to the stunning announcement, the military junta had handed down power to itself. This is what an independent Egyptian newspaper, Morsy Alyoum told the nation:
The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) has introduced de facto martial law, given itself control of the legislature and the national budget and has armed itself with veto power on a new constitution to be written by a panel it will pick.
Obviously it is an assault on the upcoming Islam in Egypt, an assault on the oncoming democracy, an assault on the well-established norms of civil libertyand an assault on the commonsense. Now Egypt is under the direct control of new dictatorship.
WEIGHTY AND
STRONG ARGUMENT
What the People’s Assembly Speaker, Dr. Mohamed Saad Katatny has said in this regard deserves serious consideration of the military top brass. Dr. Katatny has rejected the improved constitutional declaration authored by SCAF. He has stressed that the decision to dissolve the parliament is null and void because it is not based on any constitutional legitimacy and principle of procedure. His view is that since the decision to dissolve parliament and the resultant actions does not rely explicitly or implicitly on any text on the constitutional declaration, currently governing the country, SCAF should have maintained the free will of the people that brought parliament into existence. Dr. Katatny further added that what the SCAF has done clearly infringes on the legislature, which has the inherent right to legislate. He touched the raw nerve of the military when he said that the referendum of March 19, 2011 did not give SCAF the right to assume the power of legislation in the presence of an elected parliament.
Our feeling is that this argument is weighty and strong. If projected by powerful advocates, the junta will not remain in a position to argue its non-case.
The option available to the various leaderships in Egypt is revolution at the level of ballot boxes. It is a long run battle. No revolution, much less an Islamic revolution, comes in 18 days.
The military forfeited its right to respect simply because it sold the country it was supposed to safeguard. Field Marshall Mohamed Tantawi should consider himself dwarfed by devil, under whose guidance he perhaps signed the sale deed.
Most probably the demand of the military to control the country’s economy and foreign policy proved a bone of contention. But the simple question is: Does the military consider Israel and America friends of Egypt? Let Tantawi reconsider the transgression rather violation of the limits of the army in the presence of an elected parliament. The image of the Egyptian army has taken a severe beating. It has been charged with mortgaging the country, pawning Egypt.
The struggle for the supremacy of Islam shall have to be continued in Egypt. The military rule has an inherent weakness. The weakness for feeling its inevitability or the ‘deluge after me’. This weakness has already undone Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey and several other countries like Egypt. Africa and Latin America are not far behind in this regard.
We are inclined to believe that one of the fundamental reasons behind America’s itch to tame the Egyptians emanated from the fear of abrogation of the past pacts, treaties and diplomatic obligations signed by Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak. The apprehension appears to be genuine on the surface and is a by-product of their guilty conscience. But the Brotherhood never talked of fire and brimstone. It has not threatened anybody till date. Then why the shadow-boxing on the part of America and Israel?
AMERICAN INTERVENTIONS
Without any shred of doubt, the United States unnecessarily intervenes in the domestic affairs of foreign countries. It changes leaderships and transplants its own puppets over there. It gets assassinated uncomfortable dissenters. And so does Israel. Every student of world affairs knows that although America had no vital interests in Vietnam, Taiwan, Korea, Lebanon, the Dominican Republic and the Arab-Israeli conflict yet it did take interest of international dimensions as a preeminent power. What interests had US in Iraq, or has in Iran or Afghanistan? It got liquidated unfriendly leaders like Jumeo Kenyata, Sir Abubakr, Tafawa Balewa, Malik Feisal, President Ziyaul Haq of Pakistan.
And what about Osama bin Laden? If the US had a case against him, there is no justification of his summary assassination. He could have been brought alive in Washington to face justice. It would have benefited the world simply because he had a case against America’s foreign policy. And at the end of the day, one can ask:Who contributed to the making of Osama bin Laden? Was it not the United States and its allies who support and protect a transplanted state, which is of Palestinians and not of the land grabbers?
UNFAIR TO ISLAM
America reserves a very special treatment for Islam and its banner-holders. It teaches its military “hate Islam” courses. Its ultimate aim is to capture and destroy the Haramain in Saudi Arabia, which happens to be the friendliest country to America.
Washington could not stomach the emergence of Islam in the Sudan and Algeria and changed their leaderships. If Islam emerges as an alternative to imperialism or socialism through purely democratic means, it is not acceptable to Uncle Sam. Is it fair?