MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD PARLIAMENTARY BLOC LEADER CALLS

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 CAIRO 000197

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

NSC FOR WATERS AND DORAN

E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/24/2017
TAGS: PGOV PREL KISL KDEM EG
SUBJECT: MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD PARLIAMENTARY BLOC LEADER CALLS
FOR DIALOGUE WITH USG

REF: A. 06 CAIRO 7171


B. CAIRO 144

Classified By: Ambassador Francis J. Ricciardone,
for reasons 1.5 (b) and (d).


1. (C) Summary: The parliamentary leader of the Egyptian
Muslim Brotherhood (MB) made a recent public statement
indicating a desire to initiate a "constructive dialogue"
with Western governments, including the USG. Meanwhile,
opposition press and Cairo think tanks are rife with rumors
that some recently arrested senior MB members were advocating
for direct dialogue with the USG directly prior to their
arrests. End summary.


2. (U) On December 15, the MB's English-language website
(ikhwanweb.com) posted a lengthy statement by Dr. Saad al
Katatni, head of the MB's parliamentary bloc (full text of
statement at para 4),calling for dialogue between the MB and
Western governments. Some of his key points:

--"There is really no other alternative for the West or
Islamists but to engage in a constructive dialogue to reach a
common ground based on the mutual understanding and the
appreciation of diversity ... we are not satisfied with the
status quo in the relations between the Islamists and the
Westerners, and we strongly believe that a constructive
dialogue is within reach ..."

-- "Islamists need to revisit their views on the West ...
Islamists have to realize that the West is not fundamentally
anti-Islamic, and that some pro-democratic movements in the
West are in fact willing to engage in dialogue and maintain
relations with moderate Islamists ... Western governments,
especially those of the EU and the United States, must
present a clear vision regarding the democratization process
in the Middle East and their willingness to respect the
choice of the people in free elections regardless of the
outcome ..."

-- "We should work together in a civilized manner to reach a
common ground on our differences without resorting to
arrogant force or hateful violence. Consequently, Western
governments need to answer a decisive question: What do they
really expect from Islamists? In what formula will the West
accept Islamists as partners? The West needs to identify a
clear set of conditions upon which it is willing to deal with
the Islamists instead of giving them an endless list of
demands ..."

-- "Western intellectuals, politicians, and policy makers
need to realize the consequences of their policies in the
Middle East, both in the long and short term. Propping up
oppressive regimes will undermine the opportunity for
peaceful change and reform and will reinforce the sentiment
of radical Islamists, whose cause will become more popular as
the support enjoyed by the moderates is not translated into
political gain ..."


3. (C) In recent weeks the opposition press has carried
allegations that some recently detained MB leaders had been
openly advocating dialogue with the USG prior to their
arrests (detentions reported reftels). According to this
speculation, currently detained Second Deputy Supreme Guide
Khairat al Shatir and Guidance Council member Mohamed Ali
Beshr had been pushing within the MB bureaucracy for direct
dialogue with the U.S. Embassy, prior to being arrested.
While academics at the Al Ahram Center have also raised this
gossip with poloff, we have no basis on which to gauge the
authenticity of such reports.


4. (U) Begin text of Saad al Katatni statement:

Dialogue Between Islamists and the West a Necessity

Over the past several years, the relationship between the
West and Islamic movements has become of vital importance,
for several reasons. First, the Islamic movements have been
on the rise in several Muslim countries for the past decade,
but more so for the past few years. Both radical and
moderate Islamic movements have been gaining more momentum,
and have proved ) in their own way - to be key players in
the political arena in Arab and Muslim worlds. Despite the
ongoing crackdowns by regimes, moderate Islamic movements
have successfully continued their peaceful struggle, and
gained more popular support. Radical movements, on the other
hand, have sharpened their capabilities and carried out more
deadly terrorist attacks in several countries.

The rise of Islamic movements could have been of minimal
significance to Western societies, just as was the rise of
the conservative right wing groups in the United States, for
example, to the people of the Middle East a century ago.
However, in the age of globalization where different corners
of the world are interconnected, and in some cases
interdependent, building mutual understanding is of the
utmost importance to the interest of all parties and to
global peace.

Current relations between the Islamists and the West are not
in their best possible shape. Several obstacles hinder the
development of strong, healthy relations between both sides.
The West,s support of oppressive regimes in the Middle East
is one of the major reasons behind Islamists, growing
skepticism of the West,s genuine belief in democracy. The
provoking example is the Hamas-led government, which has been
democratically elected by the Palestinian people only to find
itself under siege by the international community led by the
United States and Europe. This act clearly illustrates a
huge gap between the West,s political discourse and its
political action in reality, a gap that undermines the trust
between Islamists and the West.

Western governments have been supporting authoritarian
regimes in the region despite their flagrant violations of
basic human rights and their lack of commitment to political
and social reform. Moreover, the West continues to support
the Egyptian regime despite the crimes it is committing
against its political opponents, especially during the recent
parliamentary elections in November 2005 where 11 voters were
killed by police, and tens of others injured in order to
prevent them from casting their votes. In addition, the
imprisonment of political opposition leaders like Ayman Nour,
Talaat al Sadat, and hundreds of Islamists including
prominent, moderate and well known figures such as Dr. Esam
el Eryan and Dr. Mohamed Morsi. The West also supported the
regime in its standoff against judges, journalists, lawyers,
workers, students, and other active elements of the civil
society. At most, the Western governments publicly condemned
the regime's harsh crackdowns, but never really pressured it
for any real change on the ground.

In the post-9/11 world, the rise of the conservative right in
Western countries, such as the United States and some
Scandinavian countries, and its influence over policy makers
and the electoral process in general, added fuel to the
tension between Islamists and Western governments. The
conservative movements not only mistakenly branded all
Islamists with terrorism, but also accused the moderate ones
of working secretively to conquer the West and re-establish
the Caliphate, and consequently rejected any dialogue with
them. Therefore, a growing state of "Islamophopia" has been
on the rise in the West, which created an unhealthy
atmosphere for many Muslim minorities living in these very
societies who have been subject to discrimination and racial
profiling.

Another reason behind the unhealthy relations between
Islamists and the West is the refusal by many intellectuals
and policy makers in the West to recognize the clear
ideological difference between moderate and radical
Islamists, insisting on lumping all of them together in one
basket. In a recent poll conducted by Zogby International,
fifty percent of Americans surveyed did not see any
difference between the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda, which
is a clear indication of the misinformation prevailing in
Western societies about our movement.

Finally, yet more importantly, one should not underestimate
the effect of regimes in the Middle East in destroying the
relations between the West and Islamists. As part of their
survival strategies in power, these regimes try to monopolize
their relations with the West, portraying their political
opponents as undemocratic and anti-western who pose a threat
to their interests, and therefore the regimes appear to the
West as their "best alternative."

Having said that, one has to ask the most crucial question;
could there be a constructive dialogue between Islamists, the
United States and the European Union? If yes, then how such
a dialogue can take place?

The answer to the first half of the question has to be yes.
There is really no other alternative for the West or
Islamists but to engage in a constructive dialogue to reach a
common ground based on the mutual understanding and the
appreciation of diversity. For such dialogue to be fruitful,
openness and sincerity on both sides are a necessity.

Islamists need to revisit their views on the West. They have
to come to realize that different views can be present in one
single Western society. Islamists have to realize that the
West is not fundamentally anti-Islamic, and that some
pro-democratic movements in the West are in fact willing to
engage in dialogue and maintain relations with moderate
Islamists, and accept the fact that Islamists and Islamic
movements in general are the reflection of the people's true
will.

Islamists also need to overcome the obstacles put forward by
the regimes and to reach out to the West explaining their
views regarding issues that are of concern to Westerners.
Islamists also need to present a clear and unambiguous vision
about how the Western presence in the region (on the
economic, political, cultural and military levels) will
change if the Islamists were to come to power. So far,
Islamists, views on these issues have been distorted, either
by the media or by Islamists themselves in their inability to
communicate their agenda in a Western-friendly format, and
even sometimes by the regimes, or special interest groups
opposing the rise of Islamists.

Western governments, especially those of the EU and the
United States, must present a clear vision regarding the
democratization process in the Middle East and their
willingness to respect the choice of the people in free
elections regardless of the outcome. Such a clear vision has
to be reflected in policies not just hollow promises and
slogans.

The West also needs to come to a realization that there will
always be differences between the Islamists and the
Westerners. However, Islamists will not impose their beliefs
or way of life on Westerners just as Westerners should
refrain from doing the same on Islamists. We both need to be
culturally sensitive to each other's preferences and respect
our differences in realizing that diversity will continue to
exist, and is a part of the human experience.

We should work together in a civilized manner to reach a
common ground on our differences without resorting to
arrogant force or hateful violence. Consequently, Western
governments need to answer a decisive question: What do they
really expect from Islamists? In what formula will the West
accept Islamists as partners? The West needs to identify a
clear set of conditions upon which it is willing to deal with
the Islamists instead of giving them an endless list of
demands. Western intellectuals, politicians, and policy
makers need to realize the consequences of their policies in
the Middle East, both in the long and short term. Propping
up oppressive regimes will undermine the opportunity for
peaceful change and reform and will reinforce the sentiment
of radical Islamists, whose cause will become more popular as
the support enjoyed by the moderates is not translated into
political gain.

Inevitably, the spread of radicalism will be manifested in
terrorist attacks, both inside and outside the Middle East.
New generations of frustrated and repressed individuals in
the Middle East will resort to terrorism, which will be
impossible to defeat in the so-called "war on terror". This
"neo-terrorism" has already begun to take shape with the
recent attacks that took place in Dahab, Sharm el Sheikh,
Amman, just to name a few. The concern is that if tensions
continue to mount due to oppression practiced by
authoritarian regimes and sanctioned by their Western allies,
terrorist attacks will be on the rise and will be a plague
across the world.

The West needs also to realize that, sooner or later, the
will of the people will be victorious, as it was already in
various parts of the world, and Islamists will eventually
come to power, yet, they could come to power in completely
different terms. If the West continues to support
authoritarian and undemocratic regimes, and exclude Islamists
from the political process, further stripping them of their
ability to govern democratically, it will create an unhealthy
and hostile relations between the West and Muslim countries
in which Islamists assume partial or total power. Mutual
skepticism will turn into distrust and the world will witness
another phase of instability that threatens an imminent clash
of civilizations. On the other hand, if the Islamists come
to power in a context where there is a mutual understanding
between them and the Westerners, there would be a larger
possibility of building strong relations that reserve the
interests of both sides.

To conclude, we say that we are not satisfied with the status
quo in the relations between the Islamists and the
Westerners, and we strongly believe that a constructive
dialogue is within reach, and that we should nourish these
relations for the sake of humanity and to create a better
future for our children and future generations to come.

End text of statement.
RICCIARDONE