Morsi Achieved Nothing in Diplomacy
September 18th, 2013 - by Ali Mousavi Khalkhali
How would you describe the events of June 3rd?
This is my belief: a revolution against an ineffective government. The people got angry because not only did they not see any progress made in the affairs of the country but there were also obvious retreats in all the vital parts in Egypt. This was the cause of the revolution.
Do you mean that such a retreat gave the army permission to intervene and launch a coup against Morsi’s government?
We should not say coup d’état. This was a revolution; returning Egypt to the main path of the revolution that happened against Hosni Mubarak on the 3rd of February. What happened in Egypt gave any Egyptian citizen the right to show his anger in any form against the ineffectiveness of the government. If you have problems with the role played by the army in this event, the fact is that it was basically the people who acted and took measures against the government. There were millions of people who poured into the streets not only in Cairo and Alexandria, but also in every small and large city and even in small regions and villages to show their protest against the government. They all demanded one thing and that was to end the presidency of the former president, Mohammad Morsi.
But in the end it was the army that entered the scene and arrested and imprisoned him.
People did not want a civil war. They had clearly shown that. Mohammad Morsi himself had explicitly mentioned the use of violence. He covertly threatened the people directly or indirectly. That is why the army, in my opinion, intervened and arrested him.
You mean the army intervened to prevent the violence Morsi had talked about?
Yes, the army entered the scene and intervened in order to prevent the violence which the former president had talked about whether openly, secretly or explicitly.
Therefore, it should not be claimed that the election was legal and legitimate, as the Muslim Brotherhood claim, because the army has acted and removed the elected and legal president.
No, that is not the case. The election was completely legal and legitimate. But you are talking about the legitimacy of an election where the president is supposed to act in accordance with the interests of the country. The issue is not only the election and the ballot box from which a president is elected. No, the president has certain obligations and commitments and his actions must be aimed at giving service to the people. Don’t forget that Egypt has an exceptional situation; an unprecedented situation wherein huge events have happened. The country is faced with numerous problems and any president must be active and dynamic and understand the situation well in order to act to find a solution. Priorities should not be given to insignificant affairs. Priority should not be given to the Islamic rulership while the country is overloaded with internal problems. The priorities were changed during Morsi’s presidency.
Is that why the “disobedience movement” was formed to punish Morsi?
The “disobedience movement” was a national movement.
And a punishing movement?
You can name it whatever you want but it was a popular movement. This was the result of the people’s anger against the incorrect and undesirable behaviors of the former president and his companions. That is why the people became angry and asked each other to pour into the streets to show their protest.
Does the anger against the Muslim Brotherhood give permission to the army to eliminate them and overthrow their government?
We, the Egyptians, asked ourselves this question: Is it possible for one more year to pass by and for the situation to stay the same as the previous year, meaning that we would have to wait for another eight years to pass in the same manner? For a government to remain in power which is not peaceful, has no achievements, lacks proper relations with the people and does not consider people’s demands and needs? Should we tolerate such a government? You are talking about the elimination and overthrow of an elected government? What elimination? You are eliminating ineffectiveness and failure.
Do you mean that the government of Morsi had no achievement during the last year? Was there absolute failure and ineffectiveness?
If they were successful, this event would not have happened. The issue was not the Muslim Brotherhood. One year passed, one complete year. Did a revolution occur later against a religious movement?
Doesn’t it appear to be the case?
Not at all. This was a revolution against an ineffective and unsuccessful government. Yes, some analysts say that they intended to eliminate the Muslim Brotherhood and take the opportunities away from them. They did not want a political Islam. No, that is not the case. All of these issues should be discussed in detail. The simple and clear fact is that there was a legitimate election and a president was elected to do what? A president was elected to save Egypt. A president was elected to lead Egypt and show a desirable domestic situation to the outside world. None of these objectives were achieved. A change in the situation was necessary.
Should Mohammad Morsi, in your opinion, be tried in court?
Yes, if there are clear accusations. From what I interpret from newspaper reports, there are clear accusations against him. If that is true, then the law must be enforced, as it was enforced about the former president.
Mr. Moussa, there is the accusation that before Morsi resigned, the electricity would go out and there was a shortage of fuel. But were these problems solved when Morsi resigned?
Who has said this?
It was reported in the media. At least this is what the supporters of Muslim Brotherhood claim.
I have also read these reports. Big tankers of gasoline and gas were stored in the Sinai to be exported outside. They were not to be exported but rather smuggled. Why doesn’t anyone answer these questions? Furthermore, the country was mismanaged.