The EU's willingness to work with Egypt undermines its condemnation of human rights abuses

When Mohamed Morsi, Egypt’s democratically elected president, was ousted in July 2013, the European Union – along with other western powers – was unsure how best to respond. During the months that have passed, it has retained a cautious tone: condemning human rights abuses, while also tentatively praising aspects of the new government’s policy programme.

Following the announcement that General Abdul Fatah Al-Sisi had won last month’s presidential election with a huge landslide, the EU released a statement saying that the group “expresses its willingness to work closely with the new authorities in Egypt in constructive partnership with a view to strengthening our bilateral relations.” It also reiterates concerns about the repressive context in Egypt, saying that the “respect for rights falls short of constitutional principles”. In their respective statements, the White House and Downing Street were similarly cautious in the language they used, alluding to the repression of civil society and the opposition, while also congratulating Al-Sisi and expressing their willingness to work with him.

Of course, this is largely due to Egypt’s position as a vital regional ally to the west. The country – and, specifically, its military – is seen as a key part of western counter-terrorism work in the Middle East.

While the EU and the US are evidently keen to keep this alliance strong, their protestations about the repressive policies of the government have continually fallen on deaf ears. The EU statement on the election contained several specific criticisms:

“Building a deep and sustainable democracy will only succeed with the establishment of democratic, transparent and accountable institutions that protect all citizens and their fundamental rights. In this context the EU reiterates its deep concern with the continued detention of members of peaceful civil society, political opposition and activists. The EU also reiterates its call on the Egyptian authorities to allow journalists to operate freely; to ensure peaceful protest notably by amending the protest law, to launch independent and credible investigations into the violent events since 30 June 2013; to ensure the defendant’s rights to a fair and timely trial based on clear charges; to ensure humane prison conditions in line with international law and standards; to review the numerous death sentences imposed on political opponents in mass trials and to respect due process.”

The same day that the statement was issued, Egypt announced that the prosecution in the case of the Al Jazeera journalists would be seeking the maximum penalty: that’s 15 years imprisonment for the foreigners, and 25 years for the Egyptians. The case – in which more than 20 Al Jazeera journalists are being tried on charges including terrorism and damaging the reputation of Egypt – has attracted enormous international attention. The UK, US, and EU have all called for the release of the journalists, but Egypt’s authorities have held steady.

The timing of the announcement – just as international bodies congratulate Al-Sisi on his win and urge respect for rights – throws into stark relief the limited influence that western powers have in Egypt. This is partly because there is no real incentive for the Egyptian authorities to listen to western allies; military aid, for the most part, continues. Moreover, the government is receiving significant financial support from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. If, in a worst case scenario, the US or the EU cut off all their support, there would be a clear replacement. Yet, of course, it is highly unlikely that this support would ever be cut off in its entirety: Egypt is simply considered too important strategically. When condemnations are accompanied by statements of willingness to continue to work together, it somewhat undermines the message.

Of course, the decision to pursue the Al Jazeera journalists, Muslim Brotherhood supporters, and secular human rights activists – despite international criticism – is mostly the result of the country’s intensely polarized internal politics. The interim government and, presumably, Al-Sisi’s new administration, want to suppress dissent. The authorities do crave legitimacy, taking extraordinary measures to ensure a large turn out in the elections, including extending voting to a third day and threatening fines for those who did not vote. Yet despite these efforts, the EU election observer mission found that the election was “free but not always fair” (in the words of Robert Goebbels, Luxembourg member of the European Parliament) given the winner’s overwhelming advantage in media attention and finances. The Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has made personal entreaties on behalf of Peter Greste, the Australian Al Jazeera journalist on trial, while Barack Obama and William Hague have also intervened. Yet these, as other criticisms, have fallen on deaf ears. One must question the usefulness of condemnatory statements when they are not followed up by action.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.