The Ugly Faces of Foreign Intervention In Internal Affairs

The first face is that it is illegal. Why? Sovereignty is absolute. That is unless two or more sovereignties agree to reciprocate exchanges. Like in granting diplomatic immunity to another country within national boundaries. Even such reciprocity is limited to the premises of the foreign mission, the ambassador's residence, the diplomatic vehicle when engaged in official functions, and the diplomatic mailbag (pouch).

The second ugly face of intervention in domestic affairs is that it invites bad national feelings. Sooner or later, such resentment might bring about retaliation and a push-back amounting possibly to armed conflict.

The third ugly face is that it makes a mockery of cross-border cooperation which was born about 2000 years ago, well before the birth of the UN. That early birth took place along the shores of the Italian north Mediterranean. When such cooperation is disturbed, the average citizen loses the fruits of the give and take.

And the fourth ugly face of foreign intervention is that the intervening government, though feeling good about its illegal interventions, would soon be emboldened to intervene in the private lives of its own citizens. For illegal intervention abroad is infectious internally, and soon boomerangs on the populace of the abusing government.

Having set forth a framework for the ills of intervention in domestic affairs, let us also recall the only exception to what is set forth above. That exception is what came to be known as of the 1950s as the "international humanitarian intervention doctrine." It is activated only when the sovereign brings about havoc and mayhem to large groups of its population, thus triggering an outside corrective mechanism to end the internal aggression.

Now beyond the above-stated theories and exceptions, we now need to cite examples drawn from the world scene of today. For good measure, we start with the latest episode of Mr. Trump, while visiting the United Kingdom, attacking the policy of the UK government as regards its exit from the European Union.

By doing so, the American President, who was a guest of Great Britain, personified the face of "The Ugly American," immortalized in a novel. That novel signaled the distance between being rich internally, and stupid externally. Though a narrative, "The Ugly American" also evokes the natural hostility of any culture to be scorned by other cultures. In cultural terms, poverty is not a sin. It is a temporary status.

Trump, who by his own confessions, does not read much, had violated earlier this month in Great Britain more than one taboo (called red line). He whimsically spoke about what he doesn't know or is capable of grasping. He embarrassed Theresa May, his hostess and Prime Minister. He ignited the wrath of the British populace in England and Scotland. He was scorned by the European Union and by NATO. And he elevated even to greater heights, the blimp fashioned in his image: an angry baby, floating with a cell phone over London. How could any of these results help the American people?!

As I am of dual nationalities, both Egyptian and American, I turn my attention to various forms of American intervention in Egyptian domestic affairs. Let us start with the recent hearings in US Congress regarding the American financial aid to Egypt since the signing of the Egypt/Israel peace treaty of 1979.

The way US Senators addressed this matter on the floor of the Senate 8 days ago manifested, not only ignorance about the framework of that issue. But, more importantly, an imperial tilt in the way they, in their Republican majority, disparaged the governance of 103 million Arabs who call themselves Egyptians.

They should bear in mind that the annual aid of $1.3 billion is not a unilateral gift. It is mostly spent in the U.S. on American products, mostly military equipment. It is an integral part of a treaty, whose guarantor is the US itself. Disturbing that treaty, or any of its provisions, could be tantamount to disturbing peace in the Middle East. And how could either America or Israel benefit from that?

In that explosive context, the attacks on Egypt, through impugning the legitimacy of its Government, came feigned concern for human rights in Egypt through the back door. The question therefore naturally arises: Have these senators objectively compared between the status of human rights in America and those in Egypt, even if they are entitled to do so?

The U.S. Executive, through an annual State Department Human Rights Report on several countries, states the following in 2016 about Egypt: "Domestic and international observers also concluded that government authorities professionally administered the parliamentary elections that took place October through December 2015 in accordance with the country's laws, while also expressing concern about restrictions on freedom of peaceful assembly, association, and expression and their negative effect on the political climate surrounding the elections."

From the above, one could see stark contradictions in the above assertions, representing an erroneous value judgment on the internal affairs of another sovereign -Egypt. Aside from that, the language of that official American concern embodies the very language set forth in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Egypt is constituted on the basis, not of the US Constitution, but of its own constitution of 2014. Its preamble states in Arabic reads: "We women and men members of the Egyptian populace, are the masters of this sovereign country. This is our will, and this is the Constitution borne out of our revolution." The language of that constituent document is the bulwark against all the ugly faces of foreign intervention in internal affairs.

But as a defense attorney, I need to go beyond the standard to attempt a comparison intended to show how foolish are these calls which generate this adversarial comparison. The "holier than thou" attitude propagated by today's reclusive and retreating Trumpist America does not take into account the following facts:

• Egypt is a country presently engaged in a brutalizing campaign on three fronts: terrorism, reconstruction, and massive reallocation of newly-found natural resources. During periods of transition, nations need to place the rights of the general community above individual rights, at least provisionally;
• In the same vein, President Abraham Lincoln, during the American Civil War in which 600,000 Americans perished, was obliged to suspend the operation of sections of the US Constitution;
• Egypt, which demographically comprises one third of the entire Arab Nation, has no military forces occupying foreign territory. By contrast, America, through what can be described as imperial security policy, has troops of various sizes in 120 countries around the world;
• Comparing the Egyptian regulations of public protest with that of the U.S. regulations, the Egyptian equivalent is more liberal than its American equivalent. The latter imposes police-enforced restrictions on permits for demonstrators in terms of Time, Place, and Manner. Witness the way the American movement of "Occupy Wall Street" was crushed brutally by the security forces in less than 2 hours;
• America, under its present tilt to the conservative right, whether religious or political, is still trying to cope with its past of enslaving Afro-Americans. The rise of Trumpism has been in part energized by the elections of a black American, Barack Obama, to the presidency twice from 2008 to 2016. By historical comparison with Egypt, the white slaves of the Ottoman Empire, the Mamelouks, were able to advance to the rulership of Egypt until their military defeat by Napoleon in 1798, and Muhammad Ali in 1808;
• On the international scene, Egypt, a State of 7000 years, has never abrogated a treaty. On the other hand, the present American administration sees in treaties shackles that could be broken liberally, even if they were security commitments to friends and allies. Note here that Egypt's nationalization in 1956 relative to the Suez Canal, was not in terms of the Canal itself (a sovereign territory), but of the Company which ran the Suez Canal;
• And let us remind those in America who see in the intervention in the internal affairs of others, a "modus operandi" -sometimes called "divine destiny," that Guantanamo shall always stand for a stain on the honor of the enterprise called "The USA." No Rule of Law has been applied to 700 Muslims incarcerated as of 2002 without arraignment, charges, right to counsel, or the benefit of Habeas Corpus. Only one, Khalid Sheikh. Muhammad -was so tried.

Trump, while being a guest of the UK's Prime Minister, Theresa May, said to the British press that Boris Johnson, a rival of the PM that he "would make a great prime minister." An unthinkable intervention in the UK's internal affairs.

Here is an early example of Egypt's hostility toward foreign intervention. Muhammad Ali, the great founder of modern Egypt was opposed to the construction of a Suez Canal in Egypt. His famous opposition was expressed in the following words: "I do not want a Bosporus in Egypt." In reference to Turkey's problem with outside powers because of the channel separating between Asian and European Turkey.

This narrative is not intended to disparage the good which is still rendered by America in various ways around the world.

The main objective is to prove the folly of foreign interference in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations. A principle stressed by the UN Charter in Article 2 (para.7) as a means to fostering friendly relations among nations.