by Elliott Abrams
I write from Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, where headlines Sunday report "94 Emiratis charged with compromising UAE security."
The defendants were
arrested months ago, and it was not until now that it has become clear
what these cases were about. I was among those who asked UAE authorities
how they could defend keeping dozens in detention without making
charges, and was told that the men would indeed be charged and trials
would be held. It’s now clear that these cases are the government’s
reaction to Muslim Brotherhood activities in the UAE, which it views as
subversive and ultimately aimed at seizing the state:
"Prosecutors allege
that the organization [the Muslim Brotherhood] infiltrated societies,
schools, universities, ministries and families under the pretence of
doing social work to conceal their actions and 'divert their loyalty to
the organization and its leadership after preparing a general climate in
society to accept this by turning public opinion against all the
authorities of the state,'" said the report.
"Most of the 94 accused
are members of Al Islah, an organization linked to the Muslim
Brotherhood. They have been in the custody of the Public Prosecution in
Abu Dhabi since arrests began last summer.
"They were charged with
violating Article 180 of the penal code, which bans the formation of
any political organization or any organization that compromises the
security of the state, and with having connections with foreign bodies
to harm the political leadership. Several of the detainees confessed to
setting up a secret organization with an armed wing with the aim of
seizing power and establishing an Islamist state in the UAE, a security
source said last year.
"[The attorney-general]
said yesterday the organization's members had invested funds raised
from their subscriptions, alms money, zakat [charity] and contributions
in commercial and property companies, and bought and sold residential
and industrial properties and agriculture land with the aim of hiding
funds from the authorities."
The importance of the
case lies not so much in the details, which have yet to be proved, as in
its exposure of the attitude here toward the Muslim Brotherhood. The
Brotherhood is viewed as a sinister organization acting secretly to
build an invisible human and financial network, not as a group of devout
individuals just trying to improve society.
As to any suggestion
that the Brotherhood is merely seeking democracy rather than the system
of governance in place here, officials — and many outside the government
— scoff at this as Western naivete. People should look at Tunisia,
Libya, and Egypt, I am told, before they argue that the Brotherhood's
real goal is democracy or even that its members can be transformed into
democrats. In fact, there is considerable surprise that the United
States appears to be buying the Brotherhood's line about itself, when
the evidence continues to mount where the Brotherhood rules — from the
arrests of journalists and editors, to the arrests of individuals for
"insulting the president," to outrageous and primitive statements about
Jews, to efforts at writing constitutions that limit full religious
freedom — that it does not fit Pollyannaish Western descriptions of its
goals and methods.
The government here is
firmly determined to prevent the Brotherhood from implanting itself any
further and rejects complaints that these prosecutions violate human
rights. Of course, the trials must be fair and the evidence must be
clear, but for officials here the critical point is to show what the
Brotherhood is up to, and show that its activities are about seizing
power rather than building respect for human rights or promoting
democracy.
From “Pressure Points” by Elliott Abrams. Reprinted with permission from the Council on Foreign Relations.
Elliott Abrams is a senior fellow for Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. This piece is reprinted with permission and can be found on Abrams’ blog “Pressure Points” here.Elliott Abrams
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=3334
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the
authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment