Paper
Networks—from international payments platforms to key economic sectors—underlie many aspects of U.S. power. But they are suffering under an extractive approach to foreign policy.
Daniel W. Drezner
{
"authors": [
"Michele Dunne",
"Andrew Miller"
],
"type": "commentary",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "menaTransitions",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "MEP",
"programs": [
"Middle East"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North Africa",
"Egypt"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
Commentary
Nine Reasons Why Declaring the Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Organization Would Be a Mistake
U.S. President Donald Trump wishes to designate the Muslim Brotherhood, a collection of loosely affiliated Islamist groups, as a terrorist organization. Here is why that would be deeply unwise.
Published on May 3, 2019
There are legal, diplomatic, pragmatic, and civil rights reasons why such a designation would undermine efforts to keep Americans safe from terrorism.
- The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) does not fit the legal definition of a foreign terrorist organization. There is no credible evidence that, as an organization, it is using violence to pursue political aims, and it has not deliberately targeted Americans.
- The few offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood that have become violent—Hamas, Hassm, Liwa al-Thawra—have already been designated as terrorist organizations. Designating the Muslim Brotherhood more broadly would not give the United States added tools to go after these groups.
- Sweepingly targeting the Muslim Brotherhood would create a cascade of diplomatic problems because political parties with Brotherhood roots serve in parliaments and even governments in many countries. But even a narrower designation of a single Muslim Brotherhood chapter, such as the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, would still do just as much damage to U.S. interests for all the reasons that follow.
- U.S. law does not permit designation based only on ideology rather than violent actions. To do so would politicize the process.
- By joining countries (for example, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the U.A.E.) that designate groups as terrorist for political reasons, the United States would tarnish the international legitimacy of its other designations and erode the credibility of its counterterrorism efforts.
- Anti-U.S. sentiment among Muslims worldwide would rise. Most Muslims around the world would see the designation as the latest of a series of anti-Muslim steps by the Trump administration, such as the travel ban and the changed U.S. policy on Jerusalem. The U.S. president already stands accused of stoking Islamophobia internationally.
- The self-proclaimed Islamic State and al-Qaeda would celebrate such a designation as vindication of their argument that non-violent political activity is futile. They would use the designation in their efforts to recruit desperate and isolated Islamist youth, who once believed in peaceful politics.
- Designation could bring devastating consequences for Muslims in the United States, who currently make up less than 2 percent of the population. Anyone suspected of ties to the organization could risk having their assets frozen, or could be deported if they are not citizens. Islamophobic groups—with contacts inside the Trump administration—would press the FBI to investigate every U.S. mosque or Muslim charity for possible ties to Muslim Brotherhood-supported hospitals, clinics, and religious organizations throughout the world.
- Designating the Muslim Brotherhood would inevitably divert U.S. counterterrorism resources away from the real terrorists that are actually seeking to kill Americans, such as branches of the Islamic State and al-Qaeda.
In the end, designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization would be a counterproductive political stunt that would make all Americans less safe.
About the Authors
Michele Dunne
Former Nonresident Scholar, Middle East Program
Michele Dunne was a nonresident scholar in Carnegie’s Middle East Program, where her research focuses on political and economic change in Arab countries, particularly Egypt, as well as U.S. policy in the Middle East.
Andrew Miller
Former Nonresident Scholar, Middle East Program
Andrew Miller was a nonresident scholar in Carnegie’s Middle East Program.
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Network and Structural Power: The Four Trend Lines Weakening U.S. Leverage
- Why Europe Cannot Negotiate a New Yalta with RussiaCommentary
While Russia is not ready to sue for peace on Europe’s terms, it could still either seek a ceasefire in Ukraine or try escalation. Brussels needs to prepare for both and prioritize that preparation over normative discussions.
Kadri Liik
- A Thousand Days After October 7, Washington Still Has No Strategic PlanCommentary
Five major trends are shaping U.S. policy in the Middle East.
Daniel C. Kurtzer, Aaron David Miller
- Will American Power in Europe Run Out?Paper
American power is entrenched in Europe. Yet the depth of this relationship has become a source of unease in Europe and Europeans are working to reduce their exposure to the vicissitudes of U.S. politics wherever they can.
Sophia Besch, Tara Varma
- When AI Agents Attack: Autonomous Cyber Operations and Europe’s Governance GapPaper
Autonomous AI agents are increasingly prevalent in cyberspace. The EU needs a real-time monitoring strategy, to invest in AI defenses, and to reduce its strategic dependence on U.S. frontier models.
Raluca Csernatoni, Patryk Pawlak
