With dialogue between the US and the Muslim Brotherhood now out in the open, observers are keenly awaiting what the future may bring, says Amani Maged It's no longer a secret that the Americans and the Muslim Brotherhood are talking. The Muslim Brothers don't even bother to deny it. After the revolution, everything is possible, and all the cards are on the table. "The game's out in the open," as the Egyptian saying goes. So, political observers were not surprised by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's announcement of US dialogue with the Muslim Brotherhood. They described it as a move to regularise already existing communications and a gesture of support for a group that the US has chosen to talk to out of all other groups. The US has been holding talks with the Muslim Brotherhood for years, albeit in the context of discussions with the 2005 Egyptian parliament, in which Brotherhood members had a significant presence. Brotherhood deputy chairman Kheirat El-Shater made no attempt to conceal the fact that he had met with the Americans during that time. In fact, he regarded the meetings as perfectly normal, having taken place in full view of the authorities of the previous regime, in spite of the buzz of insinuations about them in the press. According to Sobhi Saleh, a prominent Brotherhood member, the recent American move to bring the talks out into the open was in part intended to do away with the Muslim Brotherhood bogeyman that the previous regime had concocted. The Brotherhood has always been the "hidden reality", he said, referring to the open secret of US-Brotherhood talks in the parliamentary framework. But now, he continued, Washington had understood that the Brotherhood and its political arm, the Freedom and Justice Party, rejected any such cover-ups. Clinton's announcement of the US decision to hold talks with the Brotherhood should be seen in the context of her pragmatic policy of engaging all Egyptian forces in dialogue. As El-Shater put it, it signifies "that she realises the weight the Brotherhood has in society, that it is the best-organised political force until now, and that it will form a coalition government in which it will be the majority." However, Brotherhood deputy chairman Mahmoud Ezzat has approached the issue from another perspective. In his opinion, the US-Brotherhood talks have more to do with external factors, specifically US concerns in the region and the question of Israel in particular. "Washington undoubtedly wants to develop a full picture of the Muslim Brotherhood's position with respect to the Zionist entity, which is a strategic ally of the US," Ezzat says. "It hopes to secure an understanding or a firm pledge from the Brotherhood that it will not attempt to alter or to take an antagonistic stance towards the Camp David accord." Moreover, Ezzat believes that the US intends to extend the dialogue or the substance of the dialogue to cover various aspects of the Palestinian cause, such as Hamas and the crossings into Gaza, as well as the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other sensitive issues. Its overall aim, therefore, is not just to affirm its openness to the Islamist trend in Egypt, but also to attain a far-reaching array of goals and reassurances. Brotherhood secretary-general Mahmoud Hussein has officially denied links between the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, as has former Brotherhood deputy chairman Mohamed Habib. Habib, who recently split off from the Brotherhood, refutes any organisational link between the two and maintains that Hamas only shares an ideological bond with the Muslim Brotherhood. However, many observers claim otherwise. "Has Habib forgotten that Khaled Mashaal, commander of the political wing of the Hamas Islamic resistance movement, was a permanent resident in the Brotherhood's headquarters," asks Ammar Ali Hassan, an expert on the Islamist movements. He adds that attempts on the part of the Brotherhood to deny this relationship have been absurd and unacceptable. On the American decision to come out into the open about its talks with the Brotherhood, Hassan said that it was part of an American attempt to take the pulse of the Islamist organisation after the Revolution. Many believe that the US- Brotherhood dialogue will work in favour of the Muslim Brotherhood. For example, they say, it will strengthen its position in domestic political negotiations, enabling it to obtain certain pledges with respect to domestic concerns, such as the rejection of Egypt's dependence on the US. The Brotherhood would like to cut the strings attached to US aid, which it alleges is funnelled into NGOs that further western secularist and anti-Islamic agendas. It would also like to obtain pledges with regard to non- intervention in Egyptian domestic affairs, especially as regards minorities, namely the Copts. Mohamed Beltagui, a leading member of the Freedom and Justice Party, the Muslim Brotherhood's political arm, disagrees. The Brothers have nothing to gain from discussions with the US administration, he says. However, this does not mean that the US should not change its approach to its relationship with Egypt. It can no longer have the type of relationship it enjoyed with the previous regime, whose perpetuation it backed in exchange for its serving American interests, foremost among them the interests of the Zionist entity. Beltagui adds that if there is to be dialogue, then it must be one that strives to realise the mutual interests of the Egyptian and American people, and it must be founded on respect for human rights regardless of nationality. Although the dialogue has yet to begin -- officially -- the Muslim Brotherhood has expressed a willingness to sit down at the table with Washington. However, it has two conditions, which it believes it is in a position to insist upon. The first, according to Brotherhood spokesman Rashad Bayoumi, is that the dialogue should be truly "official" in character, which is to say that it should take place with the knowledge and in the presence of the Egyptian foreign ministry. The second is that it should be treated as a dialogue between equals. Bayoumi went on to say that the Brotherhood was prepared to discuss all issues seriously and that if the US's intentions were good the talks would be fruitful. If they were not, "we will say that the Egyptian people are on the alert to any attempts to drive a wedge between them and the Muslim Brotherhood." In general, the Muslim Brotherhood has two ways of communicating with foreign states, according to Bayoumi. "One is official and takes place in coordination with the Egyptian Foreign Ministry; the other is by communicating with the people and civil society." Whatever the case here may be, if the purpose of the present dialogue is to give the Brotherhood a chance to air its views on various issues, let us see what it has to say to Washington, especially on the more sensitive issues, and where the talks go from there. One thing is for sure: now that it is all out in the open, the dialogue will put the US and the Brotherhood at centre stage in the international arena. (see, Editorial p.16, and 'Not a promising dialogue' p.17)
