On February 12, Egyptian authorities detained a locally employed US Embassy staffer, an Egyptian. He was, according to the NY Times, acting as a liaison to the Muslim Brotherhood. Authorities in Egypt have yet to charge Mohamad Alaiba formally.
Marie Harf, the US State Department spokesperson, did not deny the US’s involvement but confirmed that it is speaking to the Muslim Brotherhood.
The United States does not – has not designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. We have been very clear in Egypt that we will work with all sides and all parties to help move an inclusive process forward. We’ve also repeatedly, both publicly and privately, called on the interim government to move forward in an inclusive manner. That means talking to all parties, bringing them into the process. We’re not saying what the future government should look like specifically other than that it should be inclusive. That, of course, includes the Muslim Brotherhood. We will continue talking to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as part of our broad outreach to the different parties and groups there.
She continues, “Our folks that are on the ground there have been talking to the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups as well.”
And here we come to the original query. What are the responsibilities an embassy undertakes in a host country, other than to promote its own country’s image and self?
**
When the US liaises with the Muslim Brotherhood, a group designated a terrorist one by the Egyptian Government, and states this as a fact through its State Dept. spokesperson, the US is going against Egypt, the host country.** It purposely and intentionally ignores Egypt’s supremacy over its land and decision making, endangers Egyptians, risks causing a national security blunder, and gets itself entrenched in matters that should not concern it. Clearly the US is not abiding to the rules of the land and not playing a politically correct game.
The US gaffe would be similar to the Egyptian Embassy in Washington taking it upon itself to contact Al Qaeda in the US and then confessing to the fact that Egypt will continue to liaise with the “Islamic opposition.” Had such a farfetched scenario occurred, the US would’ve instantly called its ambassador back from Egypt, and bolted the Egyptian embassy in Washington, that is after it detains the US citizen whom Egypt had recruited to do the mediation deeming him a traitor.
The US State Department has no specific role to play in Egypt but to advise. It should not “continue to work with all sides and parties,” because it has not been asked to liaise or do just that. It is the US’s right to consider the Muslim Brotherhood a charitable and benevolent foundation if it so wishes but in the US not in Egypt, but as long as it is operating on Egyptian soil and under the Egyptian roof, it should obey and abide by the Egyptian terms and standards.
This leaves us with a dire question. So what exactly was the locally employed staffer doing? What kind of information was he providing the Muslim Brotherhood with? And is this discussion ultimately for the good of Egypt or the good of the Muslim Brotherhood—the group deemed a terrorist one by Egypt?
**
One last matter: to recruit a local staffer who has no immunity in Egypt to fulfill its objective exposes the US’s underhanded style. Yes, US embassy staff is protected, but the Egyptian local is placed in a hazardous situation, risking his freedom for his employer. At the end of the day, the US will not be able to protect the man it has gotten to do its work for it.**
I hope the world will see this situation for what it truly is: an embassy’s interference in the affairs of a host country. In similar situations, this would be considered espionage.