Obama: New Relations with Egypt

As expected, the spotlight will shine on the new American President, in a new era of international relations, which can be attributed to the past eight years of the Bush administration and his conservative party. The world has been thrown into a vicious circle of financial, economic and political chaos. Consequently, the actions of this next president shall have high resonance on the world’s current situation.

In this light, I would like to tackle some issues that I regard as vital. They are as follows:

First, the new American president has to deal with a legacy that does not give his intended policies an easy path to implementation. Furthermore, the current domestic circumstances will indeed affect his plans and attitudes.

Secondly, the foreign priorities of Barak Obama were detailed in his inaugural address. They centered on withdrawal from Iraq, taking a firm stance with terroristic groups in Afghanistan, adopting more understanding diplomatic attitudes to better the image of the U.S., and lending a hand to the Islamic world. This would ideally be accomplished without any sensitivity regarding what is called the “green danger” of the political Islam.

Third, Obama is considering the possibility of a negotiations meeting with Iran, in light the country’s powerful impact in the geostrategic field. According to The Guardian, Obama demonstrated his eagerness to reply to the congratulatory message. Further actions will be determined by the Iranian elections next June, the Iranian nuclear rows with Washington, and the commissioning of an American delegate to Iran, likely to be Denis Ross.

Fourth, Obama will not be handling the Palestinian case just yet. Yet, the bloody and tragic events of the Gaza strip make this matter urgent.

Fifth, the current financial, economic, and domestic limits of the U.S. will structurally bridle its military force, at least for the time being.

If commenting on the Obama administration’s relationships with Egypt, I can say that such a subject has become very important. This was especially true at the end of Bush’s second term, when Egypt-U.S. relations were not strong. This was due to Egypt’s disagreement with American policy towards the Middle East, especially in respect with Iraq and Sudan. Ever present is the American notion of combating terrorism, along with Washington’s self-declared right to interfere in the domestic affairs of Egypt and trespass its sovereignty. It is imperative for Egypt to scrutinize Obama’s future foreign policy plans, which were outlined in his inaugural address. Nonetheless, his speech laid out his political perspectives, defined since the beginning of his campaign. The first decision he made was to close Guantanamo Bay Prison Camp within the next twelve months. On his second day as president, he appointed two foreign policy delegates to the Middle East. First is George Mitchell, who has been granted certain power in dealing with the Palestinian- Israeli matter. The other nominee is to focus on Afghanistan. It needs to be said that no one can dispute that Mitchell was a good choice. Mitchell always presents objective opinions, contrary to Denis Ross and Daniel Kurtz, who are both known for always taking sides with Israel. However, Mitchell’s early moves might be hindered by the Israeli elections, and the current situation in the region. Mitchell has been directly involved in the region since the report he completed as Head of the Facts-Finding Committee, which was sent to Palestine and Israel in June 2001.

In light of these aforementioned points, Egypt must take a pragmatic role, starting with the following goals:

Firstly, Egypt is a powerful regional force in the area, and has a direct relationship with the Palestinian cause. The security of Palestine and that of Gaza as well, has a direct effect on its neighbor, Egypt.

Secondly, it is now too late for Egypt to retake a role in reviving the Palestinian Liberation Authority. Due to the absence of a cautious and reasonable resistance force of Palestine that encompasses the active and qualified political cadres, they are able to take upon their shoulders the political, tactical and strategic burden of the resistance. This has encouraged some to bargain for the Palestinian cause and speak out for the legitimate resistance. The Liberation Authority of Palestine will have to set out its priorities when negotiating with Israel, especially after the unveiling of Israeli targets in an effort to reach a peace agreement. I believe that a strong Palestinian Authority will support any Palestinian negotiator.

Thirdly, Egypt should immediately adopt a firmer attitude when it comes to national security. Mubarak’s deeming of Egypt’s borders as a “redline” has significant meaning for American-Israeli relations. Egypt should follow more strict policy in dealing with the current situation, and should not accept a regional security scheme that includes the military presence of NATO, EU and other forces. Let’s not forget the Israeli-U.S. agreement calling for a halt on smuggling weapons into the area, something that Egypt disagrees with. Egypt is involved in settling the Palestinian cause by forwarding its initiative. The country should be internationally applauded for its role in reaching a truce, and for bringing about reconciliation within Palestine. Furthermore, Egypt pressured Israel to open the crossings and end the blockade on the Gaza Strip, and distributed aid to the Strip as well.

In conclusion, Egypt’s consideration of Israel as an invader has changed the playing field. Egyptians will stand alone, as neither moderates nor extremists.