Minister of Defence General Abdel-Fattah Al-Sisi addressed six messages to various parties on Saturday while attending artillery training manoeuvres in the area classified militarily as the Central Zone. The first message emphasised the priority the military is giving to enhancing the combat capabilities of the army. According to military sources, General Al-Sisi has been pursuing this priority since he assumed the defence portfolio. He has been conducting military exercises and inspections which had had to be deferred during the interim phase when, as a member of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), he was preoccupied with government. The second message was that the army would not intervene in politics. Al-Sisi rejected calls for the army to assume power, insisting “the notion of inviting the Egyptian army into the country's political life again is extremely dangerous. It could turn Egypt into another Afghanistan or Somalia”. Message three was two-fold. It stated, firstly, that investigations into the murder of 16 Egyptian soldiers during Ramadan last year are still in progress and that those responsible for the attack would be identified. “If we knew the killers we would not leave them alive,” Al-Sisi said. “The investigations are still in progress and the identities of the perpetrators of that incident will be revealed soon. I reiterate what I have said previously, which is that we will never forget anyone who killed one of us. To my officers I say never forget anyone who kills us.” Al-Sisi was at pains to deny rumours in the press that Palestinian elements belonging to Hamas or to jihadist groups were involved in the incident. At the same time he stressed that the Armed Forces Engineering Corps was continuing with the closure of tunnels between Egypt and Gaza. The fourth message concerned the Suez Canal Development Axis Project. Al-Sisi was keen to alleviate concerns that the project might pose a threat to Egypt's national security. “There is no cause to fear for Egypt's national security because of the Suez Canal Development Axis Project. All our demands regarding the preservation of national security have been met immediately,” he said. Al-Sisi went on to explain that areas where development projects could not be constructed because of security considerations had been identified and removed from the development zone. A source from the government committee in charge of the Suez Canal Project told Al-Ahram Weekly that the committee includes representatives from the army and General Intelligence and there had been no problem whatsoever over areas identified as “no-go” areas owing to their military/strategic sensitivity, including the two-kilometre wide vacant zones that the army had demanded along sections of the canal. “No party can intervene to obstruct the demands of the army with respect to the foundations of national security. These demands were scrupulously observed in redrawing the general plan for Suez development,” said the source. The fifth message was addressed to Hazem Abu Ismail, founder of the Islamist Raya Party, who on his evangelist TV programme “The Abu Ismail Files” accused General Al-Sisi of acting emotionally during a ceremony at the Future University marking the anniversary of the liberation of Sinai. In his programme aired on the Amgad satellite network two weeks ago Abu Ismail said: “Two days ago Abdel-Fattah Al-Sisi stood there playing the emotional actor in order to win people over to relying on the army. The next morning Wael Al-Ibrashi, Ibrahim Eissa and all those other newspaper people were saying, ‘Depend on the army.'” In his speech on 11 May Al-Sisi responded: “They say I'm an emotional man. Fine. But please understand the culture of the army. Words can sting an army man. Bullets can't sting him, but an [unkind] word from his brother and his family can... There are people who say that I'm humbling myself before the people. Well they're right. I do humble myself before the people. Why would anyone be haughty towards his own family? I might be haughty towards my enemies, but with my own family I'm modest.” Al-Sisi's last message was directed to the media. The morale of the army is fundamental, he said. “The army follows what is published about it and it does not like to see its soldiers and officers offended.” A military source told the Weekly, “the message is clear. The military establishment has resolved not to return to politics.” He stressed that this decision was not new but dates from 30 June last year when it was agreed at all levels of the military establishment that the army should focus on reconstructing its public image which had been damaged during the interim period. Opinion polls conducted among all military units confirmed the desire of the army to resume a purely military role. “This is the policy of the army now,” the source insisted. “No politics, especially in light of the sharp divisions between political forces. The army affirms that it is with the people who should express their will. The army supports this fully and will not intervene unless it perceives that the people do not have the ability to express their will.” The source agreed that the army's experience in politics during the interim period had been dispiriting. “This has made the army more reluctant than ever to plunge into the political fray again. As General Abdel-Fattah Al-Sisi said this could drag the country back decades.” The Muslim Brotherhood read Al-Sisi's messages as a defence of its constitutional legitimacy and an avowal of his support for the people. Shura Council member Gamal Hishmat, who sits on the central committee of the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, told the Weekly: “General Al-Sisi has put paid to many lies circulated in recent months by those seeking to fabricate crises and foment strife. Whether politicians, journalists or political forces that failed in the elections, these are the same people who once hoisted the banner, ‘Down with military rule', and who subsequently were unable to appreciate the danger of calling for the return of the army to politics.” “Some people were hoping for a military coup,” Hishmat continued. “In the Muslim Brotherhood we did not believe that the army would act against a government that has revived Egypt's prestige at home and abroad, or a president who has achieved progress and continues to lead the national effort in spite of all the obstacles placed in his path by those who want him to fail.” The FJP official argued that political forces have adopted a new tactic after their bid to bring the army back into politics failed, predicting that the campaign to withdraw confidence from President Mohamed Morsi will meet a similar fate. “I say to these people if you can collect so many signatures why don't you go to the polls?” said Hishmat. Hishmat believes stability will follow from the parliamentary elections. “The president will then be able to complete his term and follow through on the policy he has designed. The people should bear in mind the importance of the rotation of authority in Egypt and of not sliding backwards because if that happened Egypt will be heading towards a disturbing scenario.” The National Salvation Front (NSF) read Al-Sisi's messages in a different light. The army, it believes, might not want to return to power in the sense of running the government but this does not signify a complete rupture with politics. “The basic role of the army now, according to our reading of General Al-Sisi's speech, is to regain its combat strength and professionalism and not to engage in politics,” says NSF spokesman Hussein Abdel-Ghani. “But we have to put this message in its natural context. The Egyptian army was forged in the furnace of the Egyptian nationalist movement and, consequently, remains a party in Egyptian politics. It supported the January Revolution even though it did not make this revolution. Its priorities today are those of a professional military establishment but this does not mean that it is not concerned about the total failure of the ruling establishment and the Muslim Brotherhood and their inability to meet the aspirations of the people. The masses have understood these messages and placed them in their proper context.” Contrary to the claims of the Muslim Brotherhood and the political forces in its orbit, Abdel-Ghani denied that the NSF had ever called for the army to return to government. He points out that there are compelling regional circumstances that the army has to take into account. “General Al-Sisi sent a message during his inspection of the military that has been missed by some political forces. This message was of a regional nature and addressed to Israel. It told Israel to stop its belligerence in the region and reminded Israel that the Egyptian army is present and that Egypt will not allow Israel to trample on others as it pleases. The Egyptian army is working to improve its combat strength. As we look around us, we see what has happened to the army in Libya and to the army in Syria. This message is extremely important.” Some Salafi politicians interpreted Al-Sisi's message as an attempt to strike a balance between the Muslim Brotherhood and the NSF. Salafist Front spokesman Khaled Said described the messages conveyed by General Al-Sisi as “responsible” and “indicative of profound awareness”. The messages, he says, were aimed at those who seek to provoke the army, whether by encouraging a coup against the legitimate government or to give Al-Sisi power-of-attorney to run the country. “The army supported the revolution. It did not support the continuation of Mubarak's rule and it did not support the continuation of military rule. It realises the toll it sustained during the interim phase and General Al-Sisi has acknowledged that the army made some mistakes. The army does not want to revert to that phase now that the country has made the transition to civil rule.” The Salafist Front spokesman stressed that there was no justification for calls for the army to return to politics. “We must respect every institution that abides by the role assigned to it. The army is the first institution that merits our respect because it represents the dignity and prestige of the country and is the guardian of Egypt. We do not want it to become preoccupied with politics again because to do so will lead to disaster,” said Said. Abu Ismail's description of Al-Sisi as an emotional actor has elicited criticism from across the political spectrum. “It is inappropriate to provoke the army in this manner,” insists Muslim Brotherhood member and FJP official Gamal Hishmat. He believes the NSF, in its call for the army's return to power, and Abu Ismail in his remarks, are on the wrong track. “What is needed today is to equip the country to confront the challenges it faces by strengthening all its institutions.” NSF spokesman Abdel-Ghani described General Al-Sisi as “the moral model of the ancient traditions of the Egyptian military establishment as an army of the people”. Al-Sisi, he said, feels that “it is the greatest honour to serve the Egyptian people and to seek the people's sympathy. The army will always be by the people's side the moment the people need it.” Some observers believe Washington is impacting on the Egyptian army's political involvement. They cite several interventions in this regard, including the US embassy's questioning of the role of the army after it issued an invitation to dialogue to political forces following November's mass demonstrations in front of the presidential palace. More recently, the US embassy came under criticism when, during a Rotary Club meeting last month, US Ambassador Ann Patterson cautioned against the intervention of the Egyptian army in politics. At least one Egyptian political activist who spoke with Patterson believes her remarks have been distorted. “The ambassador's words were taken out of context,” he told the Weekly. She said that the transition to a peaceful rotation of authority in Egypt was a great achievement and signalled the end of military rule. She added that Egypt should build on this achievement.” “It is difficult to determine whether Washington was a party to the messages conveyed by the minister of defence,” says military expert General Talaat Muslim, “particularly Al-Sisi's statements that the army would keep clear of politics. At the beginning of the revolution the US had wanted to keep Mubarak but that proved impossible. It did not want the army to intervene during the revolution but the army entered on the side of the people. Today, the Armed Forces have made it clear they are not prepared to stage a coup or to venture into politics again. There is no real backing or popular force calling for the intervention of the army, that much is obvious. Everyone must bear his responsibilities. The president must shoulder his responsibility toward the country and political forces must shoulder their responsibilities to society. The army is not a subcontractor of any party. It is one of many institutions though it bears a great burden by virtue of historical status.” “The Americans bow to reality,” argues Hishmat. “They have a known agenda, certainly with respect to their support for the Zionist project which opposes a strong Egypt. They also support the NSF with money and ideas.” Stressing that he was speaking in a personal capacity rather than on behalf of the FJP or the Muslim Brotherhood, Hishmat added that the nature of the relationship between Egypt's generals and the US, and their pro-American loyalties during the Mubarak era, were well known. “Today, under General Al-Sisi's leadership, the army has rectified this. His loyalty is to Egypt. We have an army that is 100 per cent patriotic and that fully understands and appreciates the foreign policy of the state. Even the matter of the alliance with the US, because of the arms issue, is not a window for US intervention in Egypt.” General Talaat Muslim best summed up the situation. “The army will not play by rules that are imposed by political forces. This explains the resolve not to return to politics which will cast us 40 years back in time, to before the 1973 War, courting the spectre of foreign intervention, disintegration on the domestic front, civil war and possible occupation. The army will play politics only as the cornerstone of the preservation of the state. The army's political agenda is restricted to establishing a military establishment for anyone who governs Egypt in the future regardless of political orientation.”
