The hypocrisy that underlies Cameron’s Muslim Brotherhood 'review'

So after much prevarication, a summary of Cameron’s “intelligence-led” review into the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood has finally been released, sneaked out just before the Christmas break where it will gain little attention from press or MPs.

What a farce this document is – or at least the 12-page summary of the full (secret) review, which is all that has been released. As I predicted from the start, this was a political stitch-up, concocted to keep tyrants in the Gulf and Egypt happy, and to keep arms deals with the bloody kings and princes of Saudi Arabia and the UAE flowing.

In a written statement to MPs Thursday, Cameron said that the review supports “the conclusion that membership of, association with, or influence by the Muslim Brotherhood should be considered as a possible indicator of extremism” and that “parts of the Muslim Brotherhood have a highly ambiguous relationship with violent extremism.”

There are many problems with the document. It talks about how “In some Arab states” the Muslim Brotherhood is now banned as a “terrorist” organisation – as if this is a remotely credible designation. There’s no mystery as to why the tyrants in Cairo, Riyadh and the United Arab Emirates hate and fear the Muslim Brotherhood: it is often the most credible and most organized democratic force, and often the only one that that could win elections, were credible polls ever to be allowed. It’s no accident that the first democratically elected president of Egypt was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and so could only be removed after a military coup – he was kidnapped and now languishes on death row after a farcical show trial.

The irony and hypocrisy is exquisite: at the very same time as British spooks are aiding, training, and likely arming rebel groups in Syria who are in open alliance with al-Qaeda’s branch in that country, a top British spook (who co-authored this review) is accusing of “extremism” the very same group which has done much to combat the ideology of al-Qaeda in the UK, the Muslim Brotherhood.

But the prime minister has stopped short of banning the movement. This would have been a step too far, even for some in the intelligence community. As the summary itself admits: “The Muslim Brotherhood has not been linked to terrorist related activity in and against the UK” and the Brotherhood “has often condemned terrorist related activity in the UK associated with al Qai’da.”

The long gap between completion of the review in July last year and the publication of the summary this week is yet another clear sign of a stitch-up. It’s obvious to me that the government was ensuring that its allies amongst the regional dictators in the Middle East would be happy with it before publication. This seems to have worked, with the Egyptian military coup regime welcoming the document on Friday.

While the bloody regime of the dictator Sisi seems to have had plenty of opportunity to comment on the “findings”, there seems to have been no right to reply offered to the Brotherhood itself. Speaking through ITN, its London lawyers Thursday, the movement said that it had repeatedly asked for assurances from the government’s lawyers that it would be given right to reply before publication. According to ITN, “a series of clear assurances, as recently as mid-November, were provided by the GLD [the Government Legal Department] … that the report would not be released until the government made its position clear on the Muslim Brotherhood’s right to reply.” The Brotherhood now says it intends to challenge the findings in court.

Cameron’s bottom line seems be that the Brotherhood will not be banned, for now. But the whole effect of the report is to say to the movement, and indirectly to politically active Muslims in the UK in general: be careful, we are watching you; don’t get too big for your boots, don’t get ideas above your station. Stay in your mosques and leave the politics to us.

This is a deeply undemocratic and sinister message, leaving a Sword of Damocles above the heads of the movement’s leaders, spokespeople and activists in this country. This is not about politics so much as it is about democracy and the hypocrisy of the British state. As a socialist, I am deeply opposed to many of the Muslim Brotherhood’s political prescriptions: it is a deeply conservative movement at heart.

But, as the UK’s alliances in Syria prove, it is not remotely credible to imagine that this is the reason for the government’s hostility to the movement. The real reason is simply that the Muslim Brotherhood is a democratic force in the region and that the UK’s allies there are entirely hostile to democracy.

Asa Winstanley is an investigative journalist who lives in London and an associate editor with The Electronic Intifada.

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