Posts
Up
to now there has been no coverage, and little acknowledgement of the
NAM summit in Tehran – until now when there is difference.
First,
the westerrn version of events and then, below, an interview which
gives more context to President Morsi's speech.
Egyptian
leader stuns Iran with plea to back Syrian rebels
President
Mohamed Morsi uses speech in Iran, which is key sponsor of Syrian
regime, to assert Cairo's regional ambitions
30
August, 2012
Egypt's
president Mohamed Morsi has said that the "oppressive"
Syrian regime had lost all legitimacy, in a blistering speech in
Tehran that provoked the Syrian delegation to storm out and amounted
to a stunning rebuke to his Iranian hosts.
During
the first visit by an Egyptian leader to Tehran since the 1979
Islamic revolution, Morsi said the world had an "ethical duty"
to support Syria's rebels.
"Our
solidarity with the struggle of the Syrian people against an
oppressive regime that has lost legitimacy is ... a political and
strategic necessity," he said.
"We
all have to announce our full solidarity with the struggle of those
seeking freedom and justice in Syria. [We should] translate this
sympathy into a clear political vision that supports a peaceful
transition to a democratic system of rule that reflects the demands
of the Syrian people for freedom."
Morsi's
comments to a meeting of the 120-nation Non-Aligned Movement in
Tehran amounted to a verbal handgrenade tossed at Iran's shocked
leadership. Iran is the key regional sponsor of Syria's embattled
president, Bashar al-Assad, and one of his few remaining
international allies.
The
remarks are also a bold assertion of post-revolutionary Egypt's
renewed regional leadership ambitions. With the Middle East now
dividing sharply along sectarian lines, Morsi has thrown his weight
behind a powerful group of Sunni states including Saudi Arabia, Qatar
and Turkey that support Syria's rebels – with only Shia Iran,
evermore isolated, backing Assad and his Shia Alawite-led regime.
Syria,
predictably, responded with fury. Its foreign minister, Walid
al-Moallem, walked out. Damascus accused Egypt of interfering in its
internal affairs and instigating bloodshed. In his own speech, Iran's
supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, failed to mention the
17-month Syrian conflict, while Iran's state-run media blanked out
Morsi's criticism of Assad.
Morsi,
a moderate Islamist, has proposed that Iran take part in a
four-nation contact group including Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia
that would mediate in the Syrian crisis. Morsi declared: "The
bloodshed in Syria is the responsibility of all of us and will not
stop until there is real intervention to stop it. The Syrian crisis
is bleeding our hearts."
Morsi
was apparently referring to diplomacy rather than any potential
foreign invasion. He also hailed both Syrians and Palestinians for
their "brave" struggle against oppression. He later met
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Analysts
said the week-long summit had not been the smooth diplomatic triumph
Iran might have hoped for.
"The
Iranians rolled out the red carpet for Morsi. But he didn't follow
the Iranian script. It was embarrassing for the Iranians," said
David Hartwell, senior Middle East analyst at IHS Jane's, adding:
"The non-aligned movement tries to be fairly anodyne and focused
on anti-imperialism. But Syria has made it problematic. Egypt also
views Iranian influence in Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian
territories as particularly unhelpful. It sees it as an Iranian/Shia
attempt to spread influence in the region."
Of
Morsi, he said: "We are learning about him. We don't know what
his foreign policy is going to be."
Morsi
is the first Egyptian leader to visit the Iranian capital since the
1979 Islamic revolution. Egypt and Iran fell out over Cairo's support
for the Shah and its peace deal with Israel. Despite recent
improvements, neither has upgraded ties to ambassadorial level.
Iran,
meanwhile, faces diplomatic isolation and sanctions because of its
alleged nuclear programme....
'We
can't take Morsi at face value'
It’s
no surprise that Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi delivered a speech
calling the Syrian government an “oppressive regime,” journalist
and broadcaster Neil Clark says.
RT,
30
August, 2012
Egypt still depends on billions of dollars of US aid, so it was predictable that Morsi would turn up at the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit and denounce Syria, Clark said.
Morsi’s
controversial remarks prompted members of the Syrian delegation to
walk out on the speech in protest.
Clark
spoke with RT about the consequences of Morsi’s statement.
RT:
Syria’s foreign minister has said that Morsi’s comments amount to
inciting further violence in the country. What do you think?
Neil
Clark: The problem I have with the speech is that it was so
imbalanced. He didn’t criticize the rebels at all. The rebels have
been responsible for much of the violence in Syria. The government
too – that’s fair enough. But there were bombs going off this
week at funerals, with 12 people killed, and he didn’t make any
mention of that. So I can understand the Syrians feeling very
aggrieved by what he said.
RT:
Morsi would have foreseen that his statement, however accurate or
inaccurate, would have angered Syrians and the hosts of the summit.
What do you think his motivation was here?
NC:
We’ve got to bear in mind the fact that Egypt receives about $1.56
billion US in aid. On top of that, back in August, they received $2
billion from Qatar. And of course, the US and Qatar are two of the
leading hawks on Syria. So when you’re receiving that much money
from the US and Qatar, it’s hardly surprising for Egypt to turn up
at the summit and criticize Syria.
RT:
The new Egyptian leader Mohammed Morsi is perhaps already signaling
his friendship with the West, or possibly with Capitol Hill. Do you
think the 120 member-states attending the summit can come up with a
way to resolve the ongoing crisis in Syria?
NC:
The key player in this is the US. Unless we get a change of position
from the US and its allies, I don’t see what the NAM movement can
actually do. I think the ball is in America’s court, and all we’re
getting from Washington is more right-wing rhetoric about arming
rebels. So unless we get a major shift, it’s not going to help. And
I’m afraid Egypt’s position isn’t helping at all.
RT:
Mohammed Morsi appears to be on friendly terms with Iran, China,
Israel and the US. There had been a talk of a possible geo-political
shift in the Middle East. But do you think we can really take this
new Egyptian leader at face value?
NC:
I don’t think we can. I think people who are expecting a shift will
be disappointed because of the financial hold that the US has over
him. He’s trying to be all things to all people. He’s trying to
be friendly with Israel and Iran. It doesn’t work. You have to make
a choice and make a stand. If he wants to support the Palestinian
people, then he can’t be friends with the current Israeli regime.
RT:
Do you think Morsi was trying to undermine the summit with his
comment? Even Ban Ki-moon, who attended the summit against the US and
Israel’s wishes, hasn’t said anything as harsh as what Morsi
said.
NC:
Absolutely. I think it’s all part of the plan to go there and
sabotage the summit. A lot of people were very naïve about Egypt.
They thought there was going to be a meaningful change in Egypt’s
foreign policy after what happened last year, but it’s continuing.
It’s more of the same. I think that’s part of the game. The US
will be very pleased with what Morsi said.
RT:
Some possible plans have been put on the table to resolve the crisis
in Syria – both Egypt and Iran have put forward plans to form
mediator groups. Morsi suggests involving Egypt, Iran, Turkey and
Saudi Arabia. Ahmadinejiad suggests Egypt, Iran and Venezuela. Which
one do you fancy the most?
NC:
Well, if you look at the first choice, you’ve got three countries –
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey – who actually want regime change
in Syria, so they don’t want a peaceful, compromise solution. So I
don’t think anything involving Saudi Arabia or Turkey is in the
cards. The second option is better, but it doesn’t matter what
mediator groups we set up. The key player in all this is the US. The
US has to change its policies and allow Syrians to sort out their own
futures and back out of Syria. Then we can get some peace and
dialogue.
RT:
Washington has said the Non-Aligned Movement Summit isn’t worthy of
any high-level attendance. Do you think such criticism is justified?
NC:
It’s two-thirds of the world and the US has the arrogance to say it
doesn’t count. The US wants us to believe that only it and its
allies represent the international community. The international
community is meeting now in Tehran and the US doesn’t like it. The
fact is that the US is getting more isolated on a series of issues.
South America, African countries, China, Russia: That is the world
and I think we’re going to see more of a shift in years to come.
And the US power is in decline – that’s the reality. And that’s
what they don’t like.
