Obama … He Is Not the Owner
I was very surprised by both the official and popular response to President Obama’s speech where he tried to clarify the new features of the American strategy in the Middle East and North Africa in accordance with the current changes and revolutions in the area.
The popular response to his speech was that it was altogether disappointing and that it frustrated all who listened. The attacks that came out subconsciously against Obama and his policies were clichéd, even though he was very clear regarding Egypt. He said, “… we do not want a democratic Egypt to be saddled by the debts of its past. So we will relieve a democratic Egypt of up to $1 billion in debt, and work with our Egyptian partners to invest these resources to foster growth and entrepreneurship. We will help Egypt regain access to markets by guaranteeing $1 billion in borrowing that is needed to finance infrastructure and job creation. And we will help newly democratic governments recover assets that were stolen.”
It is clear from the reactions to this that we have not yet learned about the nature of international relations. Relationships between countries and heads of state are not based on love and brotherhood or between a chivalrous leader and his subjects. International relations prevail when based on shared strategic interests between countries. All countries are connected to their neighbors and other countries through shared interests. Obama was clear with his words, confirming that the interests of his country are linked to the interests of the region.
Many were disappointed when Obama decided to forgive democratic Egypt of up to $1 billion of her debt. What were they expecting? Do they expect Obama to be generous to Egypt? His country paid over $1 billion every year in aid throughout the reign of the previous regime. God knows through which pocket the money flowed. Is it expected that we will be ruled by Obama himself?
Obama is like his predecessors and successors; the American president is elected to maintain U.S. interests. These interests are wholly connected to the stability of the Middle East. This stability will not be achieved without a stable Egypt.
We must stop and think about whether or not it is logical to beg. Egypt will not be rebuilt by Obama, or anyone else for that matter. Egypt must be rebuilt by her honorable sons — those with pride and dignity, of the same stock that dug the Suez Canal and built the High Dam.
We must learn to deal with our counterparts throughout the world as equals — for angels do not live on this earth, and Obama is not the owner.
The popular response to his speech was that it was altogether disappointing and that it frustrated all who listened. The attacks that came out subconsciously against Obama and his policies were clichéd, even though he was very clear regarding Egypt. He said, “… we do not want a democratic Egypt to be saddled by the debts of its past. So we will relieve a democratic Egypt of up to $1 billion in debt, and work with our Egyptian partners to invest these resources to foster growth and entrepreneurship. We will help Egypt regain access to markets by guaranteeing $1 billion in borrowing that is needed to finance infrastructure and job creation. And we will help newly democratic governments recover assets that were stolen.”
It is clear from the reactions to this that we have not yet learned about the nature of international relations. Relationships between countries and heads of state are not based on love and brotherhood or between a chivalrous leader and his subjects. International relations prevail when based on shared strategic interests between countries. All countries are connected to their neighbors and other countries through shared interests. Obama was clear with his words, confirming that the interests of his country are linked to the interests of the region.
Many were disappointed when Obama decided to forgive democratic Egypt of up to $1 billion of her debt. What were they expecting? Do they expect Obama to be generous to Egypt? His country paid over $1 billion every year in aid throughout the reign of the previous regime. God knows through which pocket the money flowed. Is it expected that we will be ruled by Obama himself?
Obama is like his predecessors and successors; the American president is elected to maintain U.S. interests. These interests are wholly connected to the stability of the Middle East. This stability will not be achieved without a stable Egypt.
We must stop and think about whether or not it is logical to beg. Egypt will not be rebuilt by Obama, or anyone else for that matter. Egypt must be rebuilt by her honorable sons — those with pride and dignity, of the same stock that dug the Suez Canal and built the High Dam.
We must learn to deal with our counterparts throughout the world as equals — for angels do not live on this earth, and Obama is not the owner.
Next article![]( "Dim Outlook for Obama 2.0")