Egypt Update: Muslim Brotherhood Declared Terrorist Organization (And Doesn't Seem Happy About It)

Egypt's ruling government threw kerosene on an already-raging fire this past Wednesday when it declared the Muslim Brotherhood to be a terrorist organization.

The impetus for the latest act of one-upmanship in the ongoing power struggle -- a court already banned participation in the Brotherhood back in September -- was a deadly car bombing on Tuesday that left 16 dead and more than 100 wounded.  Immediately after the attack, government officials tied the Muslim Brotherhood to the attack and claimed the organization had shown its "ugly face as a terrorist organization shedding blood and messing with Egypt's security."  The Brotherhood, meanwhile, condemned the terrorist attack and denied any involvement.

Egyptians survey the destruction in the aftermath of Tuesday's deadly terrorist attack (NYT).

On Wednesday, the al Qaeda-linked group Ansar Beit al-Maqdis -- which has been responsible for two notable terrorist attacks in recent months -- claimed responsibility for Tuesday's car bombing.  This was not exactly a surprise, given that security analysts had already noted that Ansar was likely behind the attack.

With Ansar Beit al-Maqdis' claim of responsibility, the Egyptian government shifted its line of attack against the Muslim Brotherhood by claiming there are links between the Muslim Brotherhood and Ansar Beit al-Maqdis.  Without addressing Ansar Beit al-Maqdis' claim of responsibility, moreover, the Egyptian government labeled the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization and again blamed it for the terrorist attack:

Deputy Prime Minister Hossam Eissa announced the move, which will give the authorities more power to crack down on the Brotherhood.

He said that those who belonged to the group, financed it or promoted its activities would face punishment.

The decision was in response to Tuesday's suicide bombing of a police headquarters in Mansoura, in the Nile Delta, which killed 16 people and wounded more than 100, he said.

"Egypt was horrified from north to south by the hideous crime committed by the Muslim Brotherhood group. . . . This was in context of dangerous escalation to violence against Egypt and Egyptians and a clear declaration by the Muslim Brotherhood group that it still knows nothing but violence. It's not possible for Egypt the state nor Egypt the people to submit to the Muslim Brotherhood terrorism."

Egypt would notify Arab countries who had signed a 1998 anti-terrorism treaty of the decision, he added.

(BBC).

Additionally, although the deputy prime minister did not specifically mention Ansar Beit al-Maqdis, other government officials stepped in to claim a link between the groups:

Ansar Bayt Al-Maqdis, an Al-Qaeda inspired group based in the Sinai Peninsula, claimed responsibility for the Mansoura bombing. However an Egyptian security official, speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat on condition of anonymity, affirmed that the Muslim Brotherhood had formed an alliance with the Al-Qaeda-linked Ansar Bayt Al-Maqdis and another group, the Al-Furqan Brigade.

To date, however, the Muslim Brotherhood has denounced the attacks and no evidence of any supposed alliance has been forthcoming.

The designation of the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization will likely lead to the closure of Brotherhood-affiliated organizations that "provide health care and other services to rural and urban areas that lack infrastructure."  Additionally, the government swiftly moved to act upon the new label this past Thursday, arresting people for membership in the group:

Sixteen of the arrests were in the Nile Delta province of Sharkiya. The state news agency said those held were accused of "promoting the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood group, distributing its leaflets, and inciting violence against the army and police". Security sources gave a country-wide total of 38 arrests on terrorism charges.

From now on, anyone taking part in Brotherhood protests will be jailed for five years, Interior Ministry spokesman Hany Abdel Latif told state TV. Jail terms for those accused under the terror law stretch up to life imprisonment. "The sentence could be death for those who lead this organization," he said.

Unsurprisingly, the Muslim Brotherhood has denounced the government's actions, stating on Twitter that the move is a "worthless decision from an illegal gov't without any evidence and will not change anything in reality."  The move has also intensified Brotherhood-led protests against the current regime.

The government's action may well be an effort to bolster support before the constitutional referendum scheduled next month.  Whatever the outcome of the referendum, however, protests and clashes between the Brotherhood and the interim government will likely continue.  The reason is that the two groups, both of which participated in the 2011 protests that ousted Hosni Mubarak, do not view the other as legitimate.  The Muslim Brotherhood won the first democratic elections in post-Mubarak Egypt, but its ineffectual governance led to massive protests and regime change by way of a coup.  The anti-Brotherhood elements, meanwhile, have consistently struggled to adapt to a political system of voting in lieu of protests.  Their current move of designating the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization reflects a desire to marginalize, rather than successfully compete against, its only viable competitor on the Egyptian political scene.  If anything, however, the government's thinly-veiled pretense only makes its own rule appear more illegitimate.  Like the Brotherhood's Morsi, the current government is discovering that ruling the fractured country is much more difficult than gaining power.

Diplomatic Row: Indian Diplomat's Arrest and Treatment Spark Outrage

News is quickly spreading of a female Indian diplomat's arrest, subsequent treatment, and the ensuing diplomatic fallout.

The diplomat in question is Devyani Khobragade, who up until recently was India's Deputy Consulate General in New York for Political, Economic, Commercial, and Women's Affairs.  According to the criminal complaint, in November 2012, Khobragade hired an Indian woman as her maid and nanny.  The complaint further alleges that Khobragade and the maid entered into an agreement for the maid to receive approximately 30,000 rupees per month for her services.  The complaint then alleges that Khobragade lied on the visa application for the maid and had the maid lie about her anticipated salary -- all due to the fact that the 30,000 rupee/month salary would not comply with New York's minimum wage laws.

Fast forward to last week, when Khobragade was arrested as she was dropping her daughter off at school.  What happened next has sparked outrage in India.  In Khobragade's own words:

Although I must admit that I broke down many times as the indignities of repeated handcuffing, stripping and cavity searches, swabbing, in a holdup with common criminals and drug addicts were all being imposed upon me despite my incessant assertions of immunity, I got the strength to regain composure and remain dignified thinking that I must represent all of my colleagues and my country with confidence and pride.

(BBC).  After Khobragade's bail was set at $250,000 and posted, India announced it was transferring Khobragade to its UN mission, where she would be granted full diplomatic immunity.  In the meantime, the Indian government responded to the perceived slight by refusing to meet a U.S. congressional delegation and removing security barricades outside the U.S. embassy in New Delhi.  Those road barriers were apparently an extra safety barrier specifically for the U.S. embassy -- in other words, in the spirit of diplomacy, India was giving the U.S. embassy favorable treatment.  Protesters in India also burned posters of U.S. flags and President Obama during a demonstration in Bhopal, India.

Khobragade intends to challenge the arrest on the grounds of diplomatic immunity.  The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, or "VCCR," establishes the grounds for immunity.  Specifically, Article 43 notes that "Consular officers and consular employees shall not be amenable to the jurisdiction of the judicial or administrative authorities of the receiving State in respect of acts performed in the exercise of consular functions."  Khobragade's alleged criminal activities appear to fall outside the scope of those official duties; accordingly, this defense may not carry much weight.

A closer call than the full consular immunity is whether Khobragade should be subject to arrest and detention pending trial.  Article 41(1) states: "Consular officers shall not be liable to arrest or detention pending trial, except in the case of a grave crime and pursuant to a decision by the competent judicial authority."  The treaty does not go on to define a "grave crime," which could lead to a claim that the crime itself was not sufficiently "grave" to warrant Khobragade's arrest and detention.

Meanwhile, the actual treatment itself -- aside from its political shortsightedness -- may violate the VCCR.  Article 40 states: "The receiving State shall treat consular officers with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on their person, freedom or dignity."  Article 41(3) notes: "If criminal proceedings are instituted against a consular officer, he must appear before the competent authorities. Nevertheless, the proceedings shall be conducted with the respect due to him by reason of his official position."

The U.S. Marshals Service ("USMS") confirmed that Khobragade's treatment -- which included a strip/cavity search -- followed "standard arrestee intake procedures."  USMS also confirmed that Khobragade was placed in "general population" in accordance with how prisoners are typically handled.  Even if such treatment conforms to "standard arrestee intake procedures," it is doubtful that it conforms to the language of the VCCR requiring states to "prevent any attack on [one's] person, freedom or dignity."

In short, U.S. officials may have treated Khobragade similar to any person accused of a crime.  In doing so, however, the U.S. likely violated its treaty obligation that mandates a different standard of treatment for foreign diplomats.  The consequences of violating that treaty obligation will be political, as opposed to legal (legal action for VCCR violations is possible in more egregious violations -- such as failure to notify a country that its citizen was arrested --  even though that is itself a hotly contested issue).  Such consequences are already starting to take place, such as the snub of the U.S. congressional delegation and the decision to lift barricades outside the U.S. embassy.  Those barricades, it will be remembered, were placed near the embassy as additional security to specifically benefit the U.S. embassy.  If the U.S. hopes to continue receiving such courtesies, it may have to learn how to handle the arrest of high-ranking foreign diplomats in a more...diplomatic manner.  Of course, what may really get the United States' attention is India placing a freeze on the import of duty-free alcohol for U.S. diplomatic staff.

Update 12/19/13, 11:41am: An excellent analysis of whether Khobragade could be granted retroactive immunity may be found here.

Ukraine Protests Grow, Government Wavers, World Begins to Take Notice

Evidence of a split within the Ukrainian populace has not felt so clear as it does during the current protests in quite a while. Even government officials are failing to keep a coherent front, with differing claims of a complete lean toward Russia and a continued lead toward Europe. Moreover, pro-government protesters are being bused in from the East and South, which may only lead to further societal divisions. No matter - the faux protests are no match for the 200,000 rallying of their own accord.

Meanwhile, under all the protests, what comes next is still a question. Foreign Policy points out the waning influence of Russia's geopolitical energy strategies. This has been a concern for several years now, as Russian oil production has begun to collapse and its natural gas strength challenged by the early development of an international market (led by new technological development out of the United States).

Russia has not really developed a mixed economy, so were its geopolitical arsenal to weaken, it could become increasingly unpredictable politically. Has Ukraine become a battleground? Well, there's little other reason for current United States Congressmen to be addressing Ukrainians in Kiev, is there?

Ukraine, Overlooked, Underreported

It's interesting to read about the ongoing protest movement in Ukraine and then examine the lack of coverage in the United States. Throughout the 2000s, color revolutions were widely praised and reported on. They were viewed as clear indicators that democratic progress could not be halted and was organic to populations throughout the world. However, the 2010s brought out the Arab Spring, which has led to a more convoluted environment in the Middle East than anyone can truly outline. Moreover, those color revolutions, in many senses, only half-panned out - democracy, where it was itching to flourish, has stagnated.

In case you were wondering, this is going on in Ukraine:

    (source: Sergei Chuzavkov/AP via Guardian)

What is that, you may be asking? Those are opposition protesters toppling and destroying a statue of Lenin that has stood since 1946, a la the famous toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein (more photos via the previous link). Shortly thereafter, a European Union (EU) flag was raised where the statue had stood. These protesters are not yet at "revolution status," but they sure are making a point.

That point is that Ukraine is a deeply divided country, politically, linguistically, and, to an extent, culturally, though outsiders often ignore this. Though Ukraine is one nation-state, it is surprisingly evenly cut in half between East and West.

One part of Ukraine wishes to align itself with Russia, which is gradually building up its own outsider-EU political superstructure via the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and the more recent Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia. Both historically, and in present day, Russia has wielded extraordinary influence over landlocked regions of Eurasia. Russia has served as an outlet to both West and East, and as a protector of limited sovereignty to those who follow it.

Meanwhile, the other part of Ukraine wants to continue its ongoing, lengthy process with the European Union. Eventually, this groups wishes to break free from Russia's grasp and join the European Union outright. This would greatly extend the borders of the European Union and the extent that those borders parallel Russia's.

And that's where the trouble started. Ukraine's president, Viktor Yanukovych, who has kept his opponent from the previous election Yulia Tymoshenko languishing in jail on largely dubious grounds, and his government elected to halt discussions with the EU and instead lean toward Russia. Part of the wedge is the jailing of Tymoshenko, which Western nations feel is unjust and illegal. The rest is a nation still feeling its way out of the shadows of the USSR, all these years later.

Perhaps this won't be a color revolution, but a real revolution, unlike those seen since the 1990s. 100,000 protesters can't be a quiet voice. Then again, this could all the same tear the country in half, an effect that has been brewing for decades.