Ban on Brotherhood may extend to others

THAT the administration of US President Donald Trump has been busy issuing a host of executive orders is well known. The orders issued have included the infamous one that banned nationals and green card holders from seven Muslim countries for 90 days and all refugees for 120 days (refugees from Syria indefinitely). Enforcement of that order has been stayed because of an injunction issued by a district court judge, whose ruling was recently upheld by a court of appeals. Other orders have included one that prohibits government agencies from passing any new regulations unless two other regulations are expunged and three orders instruct the department of justice to confront drug cartels, fight violent crime and reduce attacks against the police. President Donald Trump is not done issuing executive orders, however. According to reports from the new White House, one of the orders under consideration would designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organisation.

Former presidential contender Senator Ted Cruz, have argued that the group, which operates primarily in Egypt and Jordan, “espouses a violent Islamist Ideology with a mission of destroying the West”. Cruz has also introduced a bill in the US Senate that aims to do the same thing. Supporters of the Bill and the executive order under consideration have argued that diaspora American-Muslim organisations such as the Islamic Society of North America, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the North American Islamic Trust are all front organisations for the Muslim Brotherhood, suggesting that restrictions may also extend to these groups. While many Trump advisers and supporters, have long opposed the Muslim Brotherhood, the new move has caused concern. Opponents of such a move stress the following: first, equating the group with terrorist organisations like Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State casts too broad a net and deflects attention away from actual terror groups.

Second, the broad transnational and loosely connected group has long participated in elections. Its candidate Mohammed Morsi won the 2012 presidential election in Egypt before he and his allies were swept from power in a military coup. It is because of this that the previous two US administrations have both refused to apply the designation. Third, given that the Muslim Brotherhood has offshoots beyond Egypt, in countries like Morocco, Jordan and Turkey, the designation would imperil alliances in which America needs cooperation. Among policy experts in Washington, there is widespread disagreement. The issue of the Muslim Brotherhood’s designation is likely to put American Muslims, particularly those from Arab countries where the Brotherhood has a strong presence, more on edge. With the terrorist designation, money that is sent to any entity associated with the Muslim Brotherhood would come under scrutiny. Disbursements and connections to the Muslim Brotherhood could be prosecuted under the US “Material Support for Terrorism” statute. While there may be little truth to the premise that American-Muslim organisations are fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood, it is quite likely that the latter’s designation as a terrorist organisation will affect American Muslims.

While the Muslim Brotherhood does not itself have a presence in Pakistan, several other Islamist parties do. If the Brotherhood is designated as a terrorist organisation, it indicates the Trump administration’s willingness to cast a very broad net. An Islamist political organisation like the Muslim Brotherhood is not the same as terrorist organisations such as Al Qaeda, Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan or IS. Still, the broad nature of designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organisation is unlikely to accomplish any security objectives for the US. it is likely to enable all sorts of wrongful prosecutions of Arab-Americans; in the long term, it will likely make the American-Muslim community even more insular, increasing the possibility of alienation and ultimately radicalisation.

By arrangement with Dawn