 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 13 - 19 May 1999 Issue No. 429 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
 |
 |
|
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 13 - 19 May 1999 Issue No. 429
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
|
|
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Profile Features Books Travel Living Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters In a different world
By Ibrahim Nafie
We have witnessed many changes since Mubarak came to power in 1981. At the time, the world was in the throes of the end of the Cold War, while the nation was still growing accustomed to the fact that it had won back the last portion of Israeli-occupied land in Sinai by the force of arms, and then by a vigorous peace offensive fought in most of the world's capitals. Perhaps Egypt's struggle with war, and then with peace, was not only the end of a phase of uncertainty and struggle: it was also the beginning of a new dawn.
When Mubarak assumed his responsibilities, he knew that Egypt's achievements in peace and war had laid the basis for the construction of a new world, in which it would play a crucial partnership role. This role was reflected in courageous initiatives in peace and war: the attempt to change the status quo and bring about a new reality, based on stability and permanence. In war, Egypt's forces braved enemy fire to cross the Suez Canal; in peace, Sadat braved the world's amazement and travelled to Jerusalem.
President Mubarak first discovered what "appropriate change" really means as a pilot in the armed forces, then as general commander of the air force and, finally, as Egypt's leader. He learned how to guide a complex and dynamic system toward a specific goal in the midst of changing circumstances, expending minimum energy while guaranteeing maximum security. The essence of leadership is the ability to initiate change and control the course it takes. We can measure how appropriate such change is to a given environment by examining its stability and permanence. Mubarak's policies have consistently been guided by the watchword "stability is a necessity for change". The same understanding of leadership also underpins the dynamic of the global system as a whole, and the creation of the new world order.
Scholars and intellectuals the world over have long pondered the question of how to create and manage a world system that could offer an environment conducive to peace. This question is posed with increasing urgency every time there is a qualitative change in the international order. The last such change occurred between 1989 and 1991, with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the demise of the Soviet Union. The Gulf War, the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the unification of the two Germanies all took place in the aftermath of the initial transformation. Naturally, these and other events brought to the fore the question of whether the new world order, with the US at its helm, could indeed bring about peace, stability and development for all.
Following the Gulf War, an optimistic view prevailed; the conflict, and the method adopted to contain it, were presented as a model in international crisis management, a method to be adopted across the board in dealing with global flash points. This approach, however, soon revealed its inadequacies. The lessons of the '90s showed that such a view was, at best, simplistic and reductionist.
Now, as the decade draws to a close, it is patently clear that many variables must be taken into account. A more informed and complex view should be adopted if we are to understand the multifaceted world in which we live. The variables that must be included in any complete analysis may be classified along several main axes.
First, the technological revolution has effected a fundamental change in work, communications, travel and even leisure. Second, in certain parts of the world, social, economic and political interaction is managed through complex and extended networks of relations such as the OECD, the IAEA, the GATT, and the G-8. It is now possible to expand these networks; it has also become possible to extend the world market and intensify economic activity to an unprecedented extent.
Finally, these developments have defined new priorities, goals and spheres of action. While the arms race and proxy wars preoccupied the international community in the wake of World War II, now the problems facing North and South are unemployment, inflation, the regulation of financial markets, trade barriers, communications and cultural exchange. Other phenomena also demonstrate that it is no longer possible to think in the narrow terms of the nation-state: pollution, terrorism, drugs, the movement of peoples across borders, and new epidemics made the idea of frontiers risible.
Egyptian policy in the '90s has been influenced by all these changes. In turn, it has been characterised by an earnest effort to enrich the debate focusing on the challenges of the new era. Egypt has always avoided blind compliance with the prescriptions of experts and international institutions, although policy-makers have avoided the trap of conspiracy theory and unjustified suspicion. Thus, we have been able to interact with global change without sacrificing our freedom of choice or independent thinking.
In our dialogue with the world, Egypt's main goal has been to enhance stability on the international and the regional levels, while achieving economic reform domestically. Mubarak's theory of appropriate change has allowed Egypt to control the pace, degree and timing of change, while adapting to new domestic and international circumstances. The success of Egypt's reform experiment has led many international institutions to reformulate their one-dimensional analyses, at the root of so many "development" catastrophes.
Mubarak, too, drew the world's attention to the fact that terrorism was an international problem with cultural and ideological dimensions. This was a revelation at a time when the prevailing view held that terrorism was a phenomenon specific to the Third World related solely to poverty, the absence of democracy and the abuse of political power. Egypt allowed the West to realise that terrorism is a global problem. Unfortunately, many Western countries had to suffer its worst effects before coming to this realisation.
Again, Egypt's active opposition to the indefinite extension of the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) was influential in revealing the serious flaws in the structure of the treaty, which simply rationalises the existence of a nuclear world. Today, Egypt is still presenting initiatives before international fora, with the constant aim of bringing about a more stable and secure global environment.
On the international front, Egypt has also had a say in evaluating and analysing the global economic crisis. At Davos in January, Mubarak called for the imposition of regulatory mechanisms on financial markets, and suggested that the role of international economic institutions in formulating a new world order be subjected to revision. He emphasised the need for a genuine dialogue, in which the developing economies can play an effective part in determining the nature of the international financial structure in the new millennium.
