America and Cairo

I was struck by an analysis written by an American journalist, stating that Washington leaders cannot say they are standing at the same distance between the two contenders for the Egyptian presidency, while they are maintaining 14 declared and secret military bases in the region. The bases are located both on the perimeter of the Republic of Iran and in al-Qaida strongholds in Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan and North Africa. It is no longer a secret that tens of millions of dollars have found their way to Egypt, to cover some candidates’ television ads, mass media and campaign expenses. Observers have noted a change in the expressions U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when she mentioned the “uprising” of the Egyptian people, substituting it for the word “revolution” opted for in the literature of Tahrir Square. Also, they have taken notice of her insistence on “the respect for universal human rights,” which in political jargon means proceeding to restore respect and political rights to Copts and all religious minorities, affirm women’s equality to men and ensure basic freedoms of expression, political organization, opinion and assembly. When statistical figures are revealed, we realize that 54 percent of registered voters did not go to the polls to vote in the first round, and that now makes them valuable prey for candidates vying for the presidency.

Both candidates have changed the bright and irrational slogans that they had used in the first round, and both have set out to establish new alliances with their old opponents. This is to be accomplished with a realistic blueprint and promises to involve minorities in the political decision-making committee.

Among the most important electoral lessons that could be learned from the elections in Egypt is that candidates Amr Moussa and Abdel Moneim Abu al-Fotouh launched election campaigns to win the whole nation, instead of focusing on a specific province and polarizing their constituencies by meeting local and current needs rather than major national or public Islamic ones. Thus, these two candidates had the lowest proportion of votes.

A political analyst would say that America has major interests in Cairo’s political attitudes toward Israel, including its respect for peace and border treaties and obligations in Sinai and al-Arish.

It is also worth noting that the annual billions of aid provided by Washington to the Egyptian people are particularly important in maintaining open liberal economic policies, not quasi-socialism. In order for the support to continue, it is necessary for Cairo to maintain its pivotal role in the Arab world and Middle East region.

So, we should not be surprised that if a reminder is issued to Egyptian voters just before the second round of the presidential elections. The purpose of a reminder would be to alert them to strategic relations between Cairo and Washington, which the electoral vote will play a role in strengthening. Therefore, those hints would not be regarded as an interference in the affairs of the Egyptian state, or as an encroachment on its sovereignty.

The U.S. political analyst confirms that Ahmad Shafik, representative of the former regime, will win. Shafik is pursuing a policy of moderation, economic openness and restoration of the Egyptian role on regional and Arab levels, and imposing security, stability and respect for middle-class and business forums.

Dr. Mursi will lose in spite of the leaders of Tahrir Square’s alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood cadres, leftwingers, communists and poor people.