|
 |
|
01/09/00
Special
ReportTIES between the United States and Egypt have been going through a serious test of strength over the past few months exposing some weaknesses but at the same time proving to each side the importance of the other to their interests. Riad Kahwaji reports. It was only 25 years ago that Cairo and Washington restored their diplomatic relations after late Egyptian leader Anwar Sadat parted with his former strategic ally, the Soviet Union, and moved towards the Western camp during the days of the Cold War. Until then the US was frequently under fire from the Egyptian media, particularly for its role in supporting and arming Israel. US-Egyptian relations were sealed with the signing of the Camp David peace treaty in 1979 between Egypt and Israel, the first peace accord between an Arab country and the Jewish state. Ever since, Egypt has been high on the list of countries receiving annual military and economic aid from Washington. On the other side Egypt de-escalated tension along its borders with Israel and in the 90s led the Arab world into the Middle East peace process, designed to end Arab-Israeli conflict. Stalled peace talks
These issues have arisen at a critical time, amid the agitation caused by the stalled Middle East peace talks. There has not been any real progress in these negotiations since the signing of the Jordanian-Israeli peace pact in 1994. Talks on both the Lebanese and Syrian issues have hit an impasse, while Palestinian-Israeli talks have witnessed a series of signed agreements but minimal results on the ground. The Arab and Egyptian media have continuously blamed Israel for hindering the peace process and, at the same time, accused Washington of being biased and siding with Israel. This situation has created bitter feeling among Arabs, particularly in Egypt, towards the US. Egypt had to take a tougher stance on the US and Israel at the peace talks, at the very least for the purposes of domestic media consumption, in order to prevent Islamic dissidents taking advantage of the situation to gain public support. Islamic groups, such asal-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, have been trying to overthrow the Egyptian government and establish an Islamic state. They waged a terror campaign against foreign tourists and Egyptian security forces in their efforts to topple the regime. The situation has been relatively calm in the past year, but there is no assurance that the campaign will not resume, especially after Gama'a hinted recently that it might suspend its unilaterally-declared truce. "Egypt is walking a thin line," said one Egyptian analyst. "It cannot afford to look lenient on issues sensitive to Muslims and Arabs like East Jerusalem to avoid a public uproar." Outspoken attacks Phone calls were made between President Bill Clinton and Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat on the one side and Egyptian President Husni Mubarak on the other to discuss the fate of Jerusalem, the most thorny issue obstructing a final status agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. According to well-informed sources the Egyptians refused to press Arafat to make concessions, and declared that the fate of East Jerusalem concerned the whole Arab and Islamic world, not just the Palestinians. This has apparently upset the Americans. An article in the New York Times (August 1), by American journalist Thomas Friedman, vehemently criticised the Egyptian government. It took the form of an open memo from Clinton to Mubarak, and asked: "What exactly are we getting out of our relationship with Egypt - not to mention $30 billion in aid to Egypt since 1978?" Friedman ridiculed democracy in Egypt referring to Mubarak being "re-elected in a one-man election by 94 per cent of the votes", and democracy activists such as Sa'ad al-Din Ibrahim being arrested and held without charge. He made a clear reference to Mubarak's failure to pressure Arafat at Clinton's request, and concluded by stating that "now the Cold War is over" the US does not 'owe' Egypt 'diddly' or "need to buy you (Egypt) away from the Soviets". The article sent shockwaves throughout Cairo because the author was perceived as a close friend of Clinton's. The response from the Egyptian press was so vicious that one pan-Arab daily compared the mood in Egypt in early August to that which existed during the late 60s and early 70s prior to the restoration of the ties between Cairo and Washington. The Egyptian press, which is mostly government-controlled, then went out of its way to link Friedman's article, and other so-called anti-Egyptian moves in the US, to "a campaign by the global Jewish lobby" to tarnish Egypt's image and damage ties between the two countries. Observers, following up recent exchanges between the two, believe that both sides had messages to pass to the other, and both chose various channels and means to achieve their goals. The arrest of pro-democracy campaigner Ibrahim, a professor of sociology at the American University of Cairo who holds dual American and Egyptian nationality, was a message to Washington to halt its campaign on the lack of democratic elections in Egypt. Ibrahim had chaired an independent and non-official committee that criticised general elections in the country a few years ago. After his release on bail on August 10, he told reporters that the public prosecutor could not find any evidence to substantiate any of the allegations that were brought against him, which included conspiring against the state and spying. He said his arrest was most likely linked to his campaigning for free elections, especially as general elections are due to take place in Egypt in November. Some observers believe that Cairo was particularly upset with Washington's attempts to use Ibrahim, a known human rights activist, as a middleman to pass on messages. "His arrest was to end this situation," one observer said. Vital role This drew an angry reaction from the Egyptian media and public. Observers expect both Washington and Cairo to 'bury' the issue in a bid to avoid bad feeling. However, the most important message sent out by Egypt was about its vital role in the peace process. The Palestinian leadership has been relying on Egypt as a strong Arab political cover, having fallen out with Syria and most of the Gulf states. Damascus has refused to receive Arafat ever since he signed the Oslo agreement with Israel, breaking a pledge he had made not to abandon Arab solidarity, and his ties with Gulf states have worsened ever since he backed Iraq during the Second Gulf War. Egypt's support is essential for Arafat to secure Arab backing for his policies. It seems that Cairo wanted to remind the US about Egypt's role in the peace process and that it was the one who started the peaceful initiative towards Israel and that it was the one who could derail the whole process if its interests or role were neglected. Egyptian analyst 'Imad 'Abd al-Hadi, said that "the $30 million Friedman had mentioned was not much for what Egypt had done in ending the Arab-Israeli wars and making possible the establishment of the US-led coalition against Iraq in 1990, and confronting the expansion of Islamic fundamentalism in the region". Observers noticed
recently that Washington was giving more weight to the Saudi role in the
peace process. This might have angered the Egyptians who like to see themselves
as the centre of gravity in the Arab world. Friedman's response, if it
is to be taken as an official US reaction, seems to imply that Washington
could easily find a replacement for Egypt to serve its interests in the
region. Most analysts believe that both sides need each other and, most
importantly, the survival and success of the peace process largely depends
on maintaining strong US-Egyptian relations.
|
 |
 M
i d d l e E a s t /
A f r i c a S p o n s o r :
Sentinel - The Balkans Sentinel - Eastern Mediterranian Balkans Reconstruction Counter Terrorism Intelligence Review Foreign Report Intelligence Digest Geopolitical Library CD-ROM
SECURITY |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
© 1999 Jane's Information Group. All rights reserved |
