Egyptian-American Relations and International Plurality
Published in Al Ahram
(Egypt) on 9 March 2009
by Dr. Abdel Moneim Al Mashat (link to original)
(Egypt) on 9 March 2009
by Dr. Abdel Moneim Al Mashat (link to original)
Translated from
by Asmaa Sharaf El Deen.
Edited by Annie Moulton.
Right from the start, no one can deny that the Egyptian-American relationship is marked by change - from the tensions witnessed in the 1950s and 1960s, to their closeness after the Camp David Agreement in 1978 and the Egyptian- Israeli peace accord in 1979. They are based on each other’s national interests and attitudes towards regional and international issues.
Indeed, some consistencies govern the strategic Egyptian-American relationship; the first is Egypt’s unique regional status, its capabilities and ties within the international system, and its consistent and unbiased policies. American strategic regional interests in the Middle East extend American domestic interests. Egypt has an essential role in the region. We also cannot ignore common interests, such as fighting against international terror and securing trade passages in the Middle East.
The bilateral relationships between US and Egypt have been, in recent years, damnably clouded by the U.S.’s adoption of such policies as aggression against Iraq that entangled the U.S. in its current unenviable situation. This was invariably opposed by Egypt. This situation supported the regional scheming of Iran. More importantly, the indifference of the last American administration to an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement must be noted. Furthermore, its current interference in certain internal Egyptian issues, pertaining to political reform and human rights is relevant. All of these factors can potentially increase religious, ethnic and sectarian fanaticism and drive a deeper wedge between the two allies.
In the same sense, the recent human rights’ report issued by the American State Department on February 25th, 2009 ranked Egypt 11th among countries that regularly violate human rights. Furthermore, the National Security Council’s slamming of the Egyptian state in December 2008 intensified the hubbub that already surrounds American-Egyptian relations.
However, an ideological shift has certainly occurred from a world controlled solely by the U.S. - from the collapse of USSR to the end of 2008 - to a harmonious multilateral one, embracing the U.S., the E.U., China, Russia and Japan. It is based on reconsidering the heart and soul of the relations among the leading regional powers and international players. And let us not forget the acute international economic crisis that has seriously harmed moderate capitalism, or the American government’s venturing into the purchase of bad debts, numerous bank shares, and financial entities, which has caused a sudden and unprecedented recession, afflicting the economies of America and the capitalist world. This situation has motivated the U.S. to accept the role of partner, representing a move toward a harmonious system of multiplicity!
Such a new system may increase the flexibility with which countries in the center of the region, led by Egypt, manage their foreign affairs by taking advantage of the opportunity to not be limited by a single pole of power, increasing the number of choices available to all parties.
However, such a change has many prerequisites:
- First: Countries in the region must propose constructive solutions to international and regional problems.
- Second: Each country must be filled with the desire to establish regional coalitions through which relevant parties can stand up to interference .
- Third: Effort must be made to establish and gain support for a united regional system.
Seventy-six countries and various international organizations have answered Egypt’s call to international actors for a conference in Sharm El Sheikh in late January and again in early March to raise funds for Palestine and rehabilitate Gaza. It was nothing but a demonstration of highly anticipated initiatives. However, if willing, the Egyptian state can adopt more effective and internationally and regionally accepted attitudes, and pragmatically address the attempts of neighbors and others to organize regional interactions. It can also have an impact on the priorities of the Arab regional system.
Still, Egyptian-American relations, naturally strategic, and within the context of international plurality, are of ultimate importance, as they enable the two countries to understand each other’s interests and priorities, and to adopt a plan to boost their roles and influence.
As the U.S. arranges its withdrawal from Iraq and shows good intentions towards Iran, it will have clearly to frame its Iranian policies without doing any harm to Egypt’s vital position or upsetting the balance of interests of the Gulf States. Also, America carries the burden of convincing the incoming Israeli government of the fact that regional, even international, stability hinges on the ability of Israel to recognize an independent Palestinian state. Egypt shall, during the coming era, present itself as an example of democracy to the whole Arab world, dwarfing the insignificant attempts of irrelevant parties, which negatively affect regional stability and societal development.
In summary, the likely and desired progress in Egyptian-American relations makes imperative the taking of control, and the going beyond, the hubbub that surrounds these relations. “Counterpart” diplomacy has a pivotal role in the political and strategic coordination of these two countries, both regionally and internationally, to promote the success and welfare of the Egyptian and American peoples.
Indeed, some consistencies govern the strategic Egyptian-American relationship; the first is Egypt’s unique regional status, its capabilities and ties within the international system, and its consistent and unbiased policies. American strategic regional interests in the Middle East extend American domestic interests. Egypt has an essential role in the region. We also cannot ignore common interests, such as fighting against international terror and securing trade passages in the Middle East.
The bilateral relationships between US and Egypt have been, in recent years, damnably clouded by the U.S.’s adoption of such policies as aggression against Iraq that entangled the U.S. in its current unenviable situation. This was invariably opposed by Egypt. This situation supported the regional scheming of Iran. More importantly, the indifference of the last American administration to an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement must be noted. Furthermore, its current interference in certain internal Egyptian issues, pertaining to political reform and human rights is relevant. All of these factors can potentially increase religious, ethnic and sectarian fanaticism and drive a deeper wedge between the two allies.
In the same sense, the recent human rights’ report issued by the American State Department on February 25th, 2009 ranked Egypt 11th among countries that regularly violate human rights. Furthermore, the National Security Council’s slamming of the Egyptian state in December 2008 intensified the hubbub that already surrounds American-Egyptian relations.
However, an ideological shift has certainly occurred from a world controlled solely by the U.S. - from the collapse of USSR to the end of 2008 - to a harmonious multilateral one, embracing the U.S., the E.U., China, Russia and Japan. It is based on reconsidering the heart and soul of the relations among the leading regional powers and international players. And let us not forget the acute international economic crisis that has seriously harmed moderate capitalism, or the American government’s venturing into the purchase of bad debts, numerous bank shares, and financial entities, which has caused a sudden and unprecedented recession, afflicting the economies of America and the capitalist world. This situation has motivated the U.S. to accept the role of partner, representing a move toward a harmonious system of multiplicity!
Such a new system may increase the flexibility with which countries in the center of the region, led by Egypt, manage their foreign affairs by taking advantage of the opportunity to not be limited by a single pole of power, increasing the number of choices available to all parties.
However, such a change has many prerequisites:
- First: Countries in the region must propose constructive solutions to international and regional problems.
- Second: Each country must be filled with the desire to establish regional coalitions through which relevant parties can stand up to interference .
- Third: Effort must be made to establish and gain support for a united regional system.
Seventy-six countries and various international organizations have answered Egypt’s call to international actors for a conference in Sharm El Sheikh in late January and again in early March to raise funds for Palestine and rehabilitate Gaza. It was nothing but a demonstration of highly anticipated initiatives. However, if willing, the Egyptian state can adopt more effective and internationally and regionally accepted attitudes, and pragmatically address the attempts of neighbors and others to organize regional interactions. It can also have an impact on the priorities of the Arab regional system.
Still, Egyptian-American relations, naturally strategic, and within the context of international plurality, are of ultimate importance, as they enable the two countries to understand each other’s interests and priorities, and to adopt a plan to boost their roles and influence.
As the U.S. arranges its withdrawal from Iraq and shows good intentions towards Iran, it will have clearly to frame its Iranian policies without doing any harm to Egypt’s vital position or upsetting the balance of interests of the Gulf States. Also, America carries the burden of convincing the incoming Israeli government of the fact that regional, even international, stability hinges on the ability of Israel to recognize an independent Palestinian state. Egypt shall, during the coming era, present itself as an example of democracy to the whole Arab world, dwarfing the insignificant attempts of irrelevant parties, which negatively affect regional stability and societal development.
In summary, the likely and desired progress in Egyptian-American relations makes imperative the taking of control, and the going beyond, the hubbub that surrounds these relations. “Counterpart” diplomacy has a pivotal role in the political and strategic coordination of these two countries, both regionally and internationally, to promote the success and welfare of the Egyptian and American peoples.
One can only hope the day will come that peace rather than wars will someday be the order of the day.
We humans never seem to tire of killing one another or want others resources or play bully to the world under the pretense of super power status.
We Americans have 700 hundred military bases around the world and we are broke in fact bankrupt. We are not about to give up our super power status even when broke and bankrupt. We are willing to borrow one trillion dollars and thousands of lives for that 40 years of oil reserves in Iraq.
Anyone that does not believe that war is about oil is living on another planet.
Even with America’s massive decline of wealth she is going to increase the size of her army. The Iraqis were easy to defeat in the open desert but the Afghanistan’s will not be so easy. They sent the Russians packing and will send America packing also.
Vietnam had the jungle; Afghanistan has the mountains and the safe havens of Pakistan.
Afghanistan will be Obama’s Vietnam.
It is a national ego thing. Kind of like the bully on the block wanting everyone on the block to fear him.
As far as those peace agreements they were and are bought and paid for by a country that is broke and thinks it can buy its way out of everything.
Watch America now try to buy off the tribal leaders in Afghanistan like they bought off the Iraqis not to kill one another.