By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Egypt has further restricted Syrian entry, barring all Syrian nationals except those with temporary Egyptian residency permits. This follows a previous ban targeting Syrians with Western residency permits and Schengen visas, requiring pre-approval for entry. The move comes amidst a large, albeit unregistered, Syrian population in Egypt and recent restrictions on Palestinians entering from conflict zones. These actions reflect Egypt’s heightened security concerns. The discrepancy between Egyptian and UN figures regarding the Syrian population remains significant.
Read the original article here
Egypt’s recent ban on Syrian entry, regardless of their point of origin, is a complex issue with deep-seated political and security concerns at its core. The decision isn’t simply a reaction to a humanitarian crisis; rather, it appears to be a calculated move driven by anxieties surrounding internal stability and the potential for political upheaval.
The Egyptian government, under the leadership of President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, is demonstrably wary of the political implications of the Syrian conflict and its potential ripple effects within Egypt’s borders. The overthrow of Bashar al-Assad, while met with ambivalence in the West, is viewed with considerable apprehension in the Arab world, particularly by authoritarian regimes. El-Sisi, who came to power through a military coup following the Arab Spring, clearly sees parallels between the events in Syria and the potential for similar unrest within Egypt.
The economic situation in Egypt is dire, exacerbating existing societal tensions and increasing vulnerability to social unrest. El-Sisi’s regime, having already brutally suppressed the Muslim Brotherhood following the overthrow of Mohamed Morsi, demonstrates a zero-tolerance approach to any perceived threat to its authority. The fear isn’t simply about Syrian refugees; it’s about the potential for the Syrian experience to inspire similar uprisings within Egypt’s own population. This explains the Egyptian government’s efforts to discredit the Syrian opposition.
The ban also extends beyond concerns of direct rebellion. The Egyptian government’s actions suggest a broader fear of destabilization, even from those Syrians who might not explicitly intend to incite revolution. The ban includes Syrians holding Schengen visas, suggesting a distrust not only of refugees but also of individuals with established ties to the West, perhaps stemming from a suspicion of foreign influence or involvement in any potential opposition. The inclusion of Syrians married to Egyptian citizens further highlights the depth of the government’s concern, demonstrating a determination to prevent any potential support networks from forming.
The ban has to be viewed in the context of the complex relationship between Egypt and Syria. While they shared a brief period of unification decades ago, their current relationship is fraught with distrust and geopolitical rivalry. Furthermore, the historic rivalry between different groups within the Arab world and long-standing tensions between certain Arab nations and the Palestinians add further layers of complexity. These historical tensions are likely fueling Egypt’s desire to keep its borders tightly controlled.
The assertion that the ban is solely based on a fear of the Muslim Brotherhood is only part of the narrative. While it’s undeniable that the Egyptian government is deeply concerned about the resurgence of Islamist ideology within the country, other factors significantly contribute to the ban. The fact that Egypt has already struggled with a large influx of Syrian refugees, coupled with its own economic hardships, must be considered.
While some might argue that many Syrians are returning to their homeland, this doesn’t negate the ongoing threat. The possibility of even a small number of individuals entering Egypt with intentions to destabilize the country remains a genuine concern for a regime sensitive to potential uprisings. The ban, therefore, represents a proactive, perhaps even overcautious, measure to mitigate potential risks. The Egyptian government’s priority is clearly maintaining its power, even if it means taking actions that seem harsh or disproportionate to outside observers.
Finally, the broader international context matters. Egypt, navigating a delicate geopolitical balance, is also wary of perceived interference from external actors. The ban might be influenced by a desire to avoid alienating key allies, including maintaining a strategic distance from external influences and to retain its sovereignty in the face of regional instability. The situation is far from straightforward; it’s a combination of internal fears, regional dynamics, and a government desperate to cling to power. The ban on Syrian entry, therefore, is not simply a measure to control refugees; it is a multifaceted strategy to safeguard the Egyptian regime’s stability at almost any cost.