To understand Egypt ’s foreign policy, one must be
familiar with the character of the Egyptian people. Foreign observers who go by
the behavior of government officials will most likely be misled because the
ruling elites in Egypt
– like everywhere else – respond to the realities of the world as it is; not
always in accordance with what the public wants them to do.
Whereas most of the people are fiercely independent,
continually telling the government that Egypt can go it alone and they are
willing to suffer the consequences if life will at first get hard, the rulers
fear a backlash from those who will be most impacted when life does get hard.
Experience tells them there will be a percentage of the population that will
not like having to wait for when the situation will improve … and it will
object loudly.
This being the background against which the foreign policy
give-and-take unfolds in Egypt ,
it is useful to remember that the country was always considered a pivotal
nation. Because of this, the great powers have tried to influence its
trajectory, forcing the rulers to try and balance the national interest with
the need to remain independent. The golden age for those who believe in Egypt 's ability
to do well when pursuing an independent foreign policy, came in the era of
President Gamal Abdel Nasser. That's the time when he got together with
Jawaharlal Nehru of India
and Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia ,
and founded the Non-Aligned Movement.
Things worked well for the country, and the President
remained popular till he died despite the setbacks. Vice President Anwar Sadat
became President, took back the Sinai thus opened the door for the paradigm to
change. He instituted the policy of “infitah” which means opening. In fact, it
meant that Egypt
was now open for business with the rest of the world. No one knows how Sadat
would have handled that policy had he lived. But he died, and his successor,
Hosni Mubarak, did a poor job at balancing the economic interests of the country
with the Egyptian yearning to act independently.
And so, despite the fact that the economy was booming at the
growth rate of 7 percent annually, the people were unhappy because they
detected foreign interference in their internal affairs. They blamed every
problem the country was facing on foreign meddling, and demanded that Mubarak
leave office. They got their wish and 3 years of turmoil till the advent of Al
Sisi. As President, the latter pursued a Nasser-like foreign policy with a
difference. It is that the paradigm has shifted, and Sisi will have to be
creative in navigating the new landscape.
Some of the specifics that Sisi is facing are told in the
article which came under the title: “Egypt Juggles Its Friendships as Russian
Influence Surges” and the subtitle: “A United Nations Security Council vote
shows the new regional calculus at play for Cairo.” It was written by Yaroslav
Trofimov and published on October 13, 2016 in the Wall Street Journal.
There is no doubt the writer has done his best to explain
what he believes is true and relevant, but he did not have a good grasp of what
makes the Egyptian population tick. As a consequence, he described something
profound using a simplistic cliché that cheapens his article. Here is that
passage: “Egyptian newspapers engaged in Saudi-bashing, playing on Egyptians'
longstanding aversion to the much wealthier Gulf Arabs. That hostility was
already inflamed by the decision to transfer to Saudi
Arabia two islands controlled by Egypt ”.
The fact is that the Egyptian people do not develop an
aversion toward someone because of their wealth. Had the writer consulted
history, he would have discovered that Egypt ,
which was a monarchy, had a falling out with all the Arab monarchies –
especially Saudi Arabia
– after the revolution that deposed King Farouk. At the time, all the Gulf
Arabs were as poor as a church mouse, and Egypt looked like the rich kid on
the block. Like today, there was a civil war in Yemen ;
unlike today, Egypt and Saudi Arabia
were on opposite sides. More recently, the people of Egypt
resented Qatar
when it tried to interfere in Egyptian affairs. And they resented Saudi Arabia
for the same reason. What all this boils down to is that the nations that wish
to have a fruitful relationship with Egypt must understand the Egyptian
character, not go by false clichés.
There is one more thing. Look at this passage in the
Trofimov article: “Criticized in the West for widespread human-rights abuses,
Mr. Sisi has grown increasingly close to Russian President Vladimir Putin.”
This is juvenile talk. The fact is that governments – especially that of Egypt – do not
react to the verbal criticism of pundits. They react to the way they are
treated by another government. In fact, Jewish pundits in America can
scream all they want about one thing or another, and they will annoy some
Egyptians but will not change anything.