CSS Forums - View Single Post

mtgondal · #4 Saturday, June 02, 2007

Egypt’s pivotal role

By Tariq Fatemi

A TRIP to Egypt last week for a series of meetings with its diplomats, scholars and journalists was a most fascinating and rewarding experience. Egypt has always been an important link between North Africa and the Arab world on the one hand and Europe (and later the US) on the other, playing what many consider to be a pivotal role in the region.

In more recent times, Egypt has been in the forefront of the US effort to maintain regional peace with Israel, promote “moderate policies” in the Middle East and contain the spread of extremism.

President Hosni Mubarak has governed Egypt ever since Anwar Sadat’s assassination in October 1981. He has used “an iron fist in a velvet glove” policy to ensure both political order and economic development. Though the status of human rights has improved, Egypt does not yet enjoy a democratic dispensation. The justification advanced is that the government is engaged in the war on terror.

On the economic front, Mubarak’s effort has been to broaden the base by promoting local and foreign investment. A process of successful privatisation has started, the stock exchange has been revived and reform programmes with the IMF and the World Bank, have been signed and implemented.

Egypt is also fortunate in having Ahmad Abu al-Gheit, an extremely intelligent, highly experienced and articulate diplomat as its foreign minister. He has succeeded in building a relationship of trust with the Bush administration that enables him to speak out with unusual candour, thereby giving Egypt’s diplomacy considerable credibility.

I was privileged to get a unique insight into the principles and priorities that drive the country’s leadership. The foreign minister strongly believes that as a powerful and developed country in the region, it is Egypt’s destiny to lead on issues of critical importance. His words remind one of what Dr Henry Kissinger was fond of saying, that there could be no war in the region without Egypt and there could be no peace without Syria.

It was emphasised that the country’s foreign policy has always been subject to strong conflicting trends. There are those who advocate the primacy of an African and Euro-Mediterranean orientation, while others believe passionately in the traditional Arab-Islamic orientation. But the leadership is convinced that the country’s salvation lies in forging a healthy mix of both, ensuring a balance between the two requirements, so that the country can have greater opportunities and wider room for manoeuvre.

If in the fifties and sixties the focus was at ending colonialism and helping national liberation movements, the current policy emanates from the requirement of its peace treaty with Israel and from Sadat’s dictum that the 1973 war should be the last war involving Egypt. Resultantly, the treaty is virtually a “cold” peace, without trade or other relationships. Many Egyptians have also become hostile to anything beyond a formal relationship with Israel, especially in the face of the latter’s brutal policies against the Palestinians and its refusal to even countenance a dialogue with Syria.

It goes to the credit of the Egyptian leadership that it recognised early on that the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003 was having a highly negative impact on the region. It may have extended logistical support to the US invasion, but Foreign Minister Gheit has not shied away from telling his American counterpart that current US policies in Iraq are counterproductive.

This has not been easy, given that Egypt and the US enjoy the closest of relations on a number of issues. Egypt was described during the Clinton administration as “the most prominent player in the Arab world and a key US ally in the Middle East”. The two countries have a convergence of interests in many areas, whether in maintaining regional stability or countering and eliminating extremism and terrorism. In all this, the US wishes to ensure that the “friendly regimes” in the region, especially those that possess massive oil and gas resources, are kept stable and strong.

Military cooperation between the US and Egypt is possibly the strongest aspect of their strategic partnership. General Anthony Zinni, the former chief of the US central command (Centcom) once said: “Egypt is the most important country in my area of responsibility because of the access it gives me in the region.” US military assistance to Egypt has always been considered part of the administration’s strategy of ensuring continued availability of Persian Gulf energy resources and to secure the Suez Canal, which serves both as an important international oil route and as a critical route for US warships transiting the Gulf.

This accounts for the fact that Egypt has so far received more than $50 billion dollars officially since 1978. This has not only contributed to the modernisation of its armed forces and the acquisition of sophisticated weapon systems, but has also enabled the country to engage in important and worthwhile economic projects, in both the agricultural and industrial fields. An opportunity to see some of this was provided on a visit to the “Smart City.” An impressive metropolis of elegantly designed, modernistic buildings, it has brought together the world’s best known IT-related companies, that are likely to make the country the regional leader in this field.

Notwithstanding the extensive cooperation between Cairo and Washington, the latter’s unilateralist policies have nevertheless caused considerable strain in relations between them. The Egyptians are not too enamoured of the Bush administration which they feel has gone out of the way to give a carte blanche to Israel, while exhibiting contempt for Arab sensitivities.

Therefore, on some issues, such as Sudan and nuclear proliferation, Cairo has adopted a somewhat independent line, leading political commentators to describe it as Egypt’s Gaullist foreign policy, meaning cooperation with the US on strategic issues, while maintaining some distance and a degree of independence on tactics and approaches.

Some scholars told me that a couple of years ago, the issue of democracy had become an irritant in ties with the US. While this was welcomed by liberal sections, President Mubarak was not happy with what he suspected was Washington’s encouragement of anti-regime politicians. However, as soon as the US waded deep into the Iraqi quagmire, Washington pulled back, abandoning any pretence of supporting advocates of democratisation in Egypt. When the government decided to crack down on political opponents and dissidents, the Bush administration chose to look the other way, which led liberals and human rights advocates to accuse Washington of betrayal.

However, despite occasional friction between the two countries, US-Egyptian relations under Mubarak have remained strong. In fact, ties between them have evolved beyond the Middle East peace process, becoming an independent bilateral relationship in its own right. The US looks at Egypt as a powerful voice of moderation in the Arab world and as influential enough to persuade others to align themselves with the US.

Some Egyptians do, however, admit that Cairo’s refusal to send troops to Afghanistan and Iraq in peace stabilisation missions had upset Washington. Public opinion in Egypt has swung sharply against continuing American occupation of a fellow Arab country.

My week in Egypt coincided with major developments in the region and this added to the range and depth of my exchanges with the locals. The turmoil in Lebanon was obviously a major story in the Egyptian media, with sharply divided opinions. The government was supportive of the Lebanese army’s efforts to end the turmoil; but sections of the public opinion were sympathetic to the Sunni Islamist group, called the Fatah Al-Islam.

The situation in Palestine, with daily reports of Israeli air strikes, accompanied by kidnapping of Hamas leaders, including government ministers, left the Egyptian government in an untenable situation. Iran too remained in the spotlight when the UN nuclear inspectors confirmed that Tehran had failed to meet another deadline to stop enriching uranium.

In fact, Iran occupies centre-stage on the radar screens of the Egyptian establishment. The Islamic regime is looked upon with deep suspicion for the leadership is convinced that Iran is up to no good and that Tehran is channelling its resources into groups and organisations that are determined to overthrow the conservative pro-US regimes in the region.

Egypt has, therefore, been using its political influence as well as its civil and military intelligence to counter the activities of pro-Iranian groups. The election victories of Hezbollah and Hamas carry little credibility with the leadership, which accuses these parties of promoting Iranian interests, at the cost of larger Arab interests.

As if Iran’s political activity were not enough of a concern for Egypt, Tehran’s nuclear programme has added to its worries. Cairo is convinced that Iran’s ultimate objective is to acquire nuclear weapons that will enable it to bring the Gulf into its sphere of influence. At the same time, Cairo wants to use international concern about Iran’s nuclear programme to remind the world that Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons is also a matter of concern to the region.

On December 25, 2006, the Egyptian foreign minister called for an end to “nuclear double standards”, where sanctions are imposed for enriching uranium but where the Israeli nuclear programme is not subject to any control by the IAEA.

Some Egyptians still reminisce about the 1950s and 1960s, when Gamal Abdel Nasser dominated the Arab world and the African continent. The Egyptians saw themselves then at the centre of three “circles”: the African, the Arab and the Islamic. This permitted Egypt to play the great powers against each other and assume the leadership of the non-aligned bloc. But this is an altogether different world, with the days of the Cold War gone forever. Egypt’s foreign policy may lack the flair and exuberance of the Nasser years, but it goes to the credit of its current leadership that its policies are grounded in realism and pragmatism, aimed at promoting its national interests.

The writer is a former ambassador.