 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 25 February - 3 March 1999 Issue No. 418 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
 |
 |
|
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 25 February - 3 March 1999 Issue No. 418
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
|
|
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Features Travel Living Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Understanding Europe
By Ibrahim Nafie
Enhancing cooperation and coordination with Europe is one of Egypt's top foreign policy priorities, alongside peace, integrating with the international economy and bolstering our relations with the US, which as the single global superpower is inevitably the most influential external influence on the Middle East today.
As is the case with any relationship between two independent parties, there are bound to be differences of interest between Egypt and Europe. Although such differences are not about to destroy our close political and economic ties, they must nevertheless be addressed if we are to achieve a level of common understanding that will allow our cooperation to bear fruit.
Egyptian-European partnership is a case in point. Egypt is one of the member states of the European-Mediterranean Partnership, which was inaugurated by the Barcelona Declaration of November 1995. This programme, which brings together the 15 nations of the EU and the 12 Mediterranean zone nations, aims to establish a European-Mediterranean Free Trade Zone by 2010. To this end, the EU is currently hammering out individual partnership agreements with each of the 12 Mediterranean countries to define the basis for bilateral trade deregulation.
While Morocco, Tunisia and Israel have already concluded partnership agreements with the EU, negotiations with Egypt have got bogged down over several issues. One major area of concern involves the proposed quota for Egyptian agricultural exports eligible for partial -- and possibly total -- customs exemptions. In Egypt's opinion, the current proposal is too restrictive, as it is based on the country's current agricultural capacities, and ignores the huge potential that will be developed through the mega-projects already underway in the Sinai, East Oueinat and Toshka. To thus limit the scope of our exports to Europe runs counter to one of the primary aims of the Euro-Med Partnership, which is to encourage development in the countries south of the Mediterranean. Furthermore, the very notion of quotas conflicts with the principle of free trade, which has recently achieved universal recognition through the establishment of the World Trade Organisation.
When it comes to Egyptian industrial exports, the EU has shown itself rather more flexible, largely because of the considerable competitive advantage European industrial products enjoy. Nevertheless, there are still important differences over the application of the rules of origin. Such rules have proved a major stumbling block in implementing free trade zones around the world. Egypt has asked that the rules of origin be applied in such a way as to enable a larger quantity of Egyptian products to enter European markets free of tariffs and other restrictions. Egypt is also arguing that the principle of cumulation should be applied in assessing the origin of goods produced in the Mediterranean zone, an arrangement that would both foster economic integration within the Arab world and permit for a more equitable partnership between these countries and the EU.
Despite vigorous argument over controversial points such as these, the partnership negotiations between Egypt and the EU have still managed to cover much important ground. Indeed, Germany, which has held the EU presidency since the beginning of the year, has expressed hopes that these negotiations will be concluded before it relinquishes the helm in June. There is thus good cause for optimism that the outstanding problems will be resolved. Moreover, one senses in the various European capitals which President Hosni Mubarak visited recently, among them Rome, Bonn and Paris, a certain sympathy for the Egyptian perspective and a commitment to signing an agreement with Egypt.
Nevertheless, we should not raise our hopes unduly. The EU is a vast and complex entity, itself representing a broad array of diverse, and sometimes conflicting, opinions and interests. European countries that are heavily dependent on their agricultural production, for example, naturally have different priorities from the more industrialised nations. Also, within every nation there are competing interest groups, and the pressure they bring to bear as they vie for influence is a very efficient tool for slowing up the European decision-making process.
It is sometimes tempting to interpret European foot-dragging in negotiations, among other problems that may arise, as the consequence of a unified stance taken by a monolithic EU against Egyptian interests. To succumb to this temptation, however, would be both erroneous and counter-productive. Rather, a more rational approach is to learn to deal with this enormously complex amalgam of nations and interests as it really is. To do this requires a two-pronged approach. Firstly, we should seek to develop closer links with various interest groups in Europe, attempt to persuade them of the Egyptian point of view and mobilise those with whom we share common interests to coordinate our actions in their defence. Secondly, we should seek to enhance our ability to deal with problems as they arise by building on the various forms of legal and technical expertise already available to us, while also drawing on the considerable assistance the EU can offer us through other existing frameworks for cooperation.
Yet, the importance of Egyptian-European cooperation to Egypt transcends any purely economic or commercial concerns. The EU is a major international power and one that is deeply concerned for the future of this region. The Middle East stands at a crossroads. The peace process is at a standstill as a result of the policies of Israel's right-wing Likud government. Israel is now in the run-up to elections, while the PA is preparing itself for 4 May, the date set for the end of the interim phase of the Oslo Accords, the beginning of the final status negotiations, and -- possibly -- the declaration of a Palestinian state.
Against this background, Europe looms as a major source of international support which might be rallied in the cause of peace. Again, it is vital to recall that the force of the EU's incipient foreign policy cannot simply be analysed as the sum product of the foreign policies of its diverse components. These components have, and will continue to have, their own priorities. If anything, an EU foreign policy would represent the minimum common denominator of these policies. Perhaps it is for this reason that the primary role of the EU in the peace process to date has been to furnish the main part of the financing necessary to implement the US-bartered settlements. One important focus of this European financing has been the economic and social development of the areas under Palestinian control. The EU has thus been instrumental in enabling the PA to generate the necessary institutional structures for eventual statehood. Nevertheless, there is still room for Europe to play a more pro-active role -- forcing Israel to abide by its commitments and at the same time pressuring the US to be a little more even-handed in its dealings with the various sides.
To sum up, the Egyptian-European dialogue is a dialogue between two parties whose importance as international powers is uncontested. Europe is the second most powerful economic power in the world today. Egypt is in the vanguard of the Third World nations. As a leading member of the Group of Fifteen and as one of the most promising emerging economies in the world, Egypt is and will remain crucial to ensuring sustained development in the countries of the Third World.
As the events that rocked Asia, Russia and Latin America over the past two years have demonstrated, the international financial order is beset with problems and flaws that continue to hamper even the best efforts of Third World countries to realise their development aims. At the same time, in today's global village, the industrialised world, and particularly Europe, is no longer immune to the crises that beset the economies of the South.
As the recent talks in Davos showed, the developed nations, and with them the EU, are desperately seeking to reorder the global economic system in order to remedy the more dangerous of its present deficiencies. It is imperative that the countries of the Third World actively contribute to these efforts, if they are to ensure that the new international arrangements reached are conducive to the equitable realisation of their interests.
In this regard, the Egyptian-European dialogue, along with the Arab-European dialogue, is certain to be a force for positive change.
