Al-Ahram Weekly 7 - 13 October 1999 Issue No. 450
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875

---

	Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Interview Features Profile Travel Living Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters

Friends, not allies

By Dina Ezzat

Ahmed Maher

Egyptian-US relations have been described by some as "a cold friendship". Would you agree?
Many people start from the assumption that good relations are relations where the two parties agree on everything. They then look at any disagreement or difference of opinion as a reflection of the state of the relationship.
In assessing Egyptian-US relations, one has to start by looking at the history of these relations. There were bad moments and there were good moments. But since the Camp David Accords, the curve has been constantly ascending -- even if there have been bumps along the road.
Historically we are different. Geographically we are different. In size we are very different. We have different obligations. So we are bound to have different perspectives on many questions.
But what is important is that both countries have decided that by working together they can do a lot for stability, peace and prosperity in the region, while still maintaining an independent view of things.

Is Egypt a friend of the US, or their ally?
I don't like to use the word 'ally'. I don't know what it means exactly. Some people believe that allies have always to work in tandem and to agree on everything. I think our relations represent a very deep and profound friendship.

But it is the Americans who often use the word "ally"...
Yes. They use it, and then when we don't agree 100 per cent, they say that they are astonished that allies disagree. I think that there is a semantic mistake being made here.
What really counts is that this is a very strong, deep and important relationship. And we share the same values. We [both] believe in democracy, freedom, prosperity and stability.
Sometimes our perspectives differ, and we don't look at the same things in the same way. For instance, we believe in human rights in its very widest sense [which includes] both the traditional [concept of] human rights, but also economic and social rights, along with the right to self-determination.
In the US, however, there are some people who would like [other societies] to shape [themselves] after the American model, to adopt the American way of life. I don't think this is a good idea. We are two different countries, with different societies, that have evolved differently. There are many things in the American way of life that we would not necessarily want to adopt.
Having said which, I think that the relationship between Egypt and the United States is a very good and sound relationship that has been beneficial to both sides.

How do you see these relations developing in the next decade or so?
As the world changes, the present unipolar situation cannot last for ever. Unipolar situations are very tricky, by definition. It is always [easier] to have balances, in which different powers do not allow one [particular] power to have sole hegemony.
As the world changes, we will also see Egypt achieve its goals of prosperity and full democratisation. We will see a region at peace. All these factors will be important in reshaping the Egyptian-US relationship.

Can the future of Egypt's relations with the US be viewed independently of relations with other major countries?
We never think of our relationship with the US as an exclusive friendship. We know that they have other friends and they know that we have other friends. We think that it is important for both sides to nurture their 'other' relationships, provided that this is not done at the expense of our common relationship.
We can, we should, and in fact we do have good relations with other countries. What is important is that no friend of Egypt should try to use this friendship against the US. Nor would we allow anyone to do this.
This is not the pattern we see, however, when it comes to the impact of US-Israeli relations on US-Egyptian relations. We have seen attempts by Israel to use its relations with the US as a tool to project a negative image of Egypt. However, they have not been successful.
This is a kind of game that we have never played and we will never play. And I think the US understands this, as does Europe and everybody else.

But given that the US has accomplished its Middle Eastern objectives of securing Israel's absolute military supremacy and the non-stop flow of Gulf oil to the US reserves, where does that leave Egypt in America's future plans, now that we are no longer needed to act as a salesman for Arab-Israeli peace?
No, no! We have not been the salesman for US policies. We have been promoting peace, security, cooperation and prosperity. In doing so, we helped create situations that the US happened to find compatible with its interests...
The bone of contention, of course, has always been the US bias towards Israel. Egypt's policy has been to try to reduce this bias as much as possible, and encourage the US to keep an equal distance both from Israel and the Arabs. I think we have achieved a lot in this respect.
What is important now is to liberate the relationship between the US and Egypt from this triangle. In other words, Egyptian-US relations should not be directly affected by every change in Egyptian-Israeli relations.
In the past, when our relations with Israel were, for good reasons, tense, this was reflected in our relations with the US. Now, however, this is changing. It is thus becoming clear that Egypt has a role to play, independently of Israel, as for example in the liberation of Kuwait.

So is it safe to say that when all the concerned Arab parties have signed deals with Israel, the US will not consider replacing its 'strong ties' with Egypt by other 'strong ties', with Jordan, for example?
No. Without naming names, let me just say that there have indeed been attempts by some quarters in the US [though this is not official US policy] to find an alternative to Egypt and to bypass us. These proved to be nonsensical dreams which quickly faded away.
It is not chauvinistic to say that there is no replacement for Egypt, because of our weight, history and policy. For many years -- since the times of Napoleon -- Egypt has been easily the most important country in the region.
So, even when the Arab-Israeli conflict is solved, Egypt will remain as a guarantor of regional stability and the core of regional economic cooperation in times of peace.

What kind of Egyptian-Israeli relations are currently being 'prescribed' by the US?
I don't think that the US has anything to say on the future of these relations. However, they are affected by Israel's attitudes towards other Arab countries.
The US would sometimes like to see warmer Egyptian-Israeli relations. But we don't need to justify the [degree of warmth of our relations with Israel] to the US.
I don't like the expression, 'cold peace', that is used to describe relations between Egypt and Israel. The two countries have peace. Warmth cannot come from governments. It can only come from peoples. You cannot force the people to deal in a certain way with a country that still occupies Arab territories, despite the steps that this country has taken towards the recognition of the Palestinian people, because there is still a lot to do.
I always tell American friends who bring up this matter that it is not right to keep following someone with a thermometer and try to take their temperature every hour.

But is it not true that, for over a year now, the US has been persistently asking Egypt to encourage Israel's economic integration of Israel into the region, and even to be party to the same military exercises?
We have not been asked to be party to any military alliance and I don't think we will be asked, because everybody knows that we are against military pacts.
But the US has been asking all the [concerned] parties to resume multilateral negotiations. At the same time, the US recognises the fact that when bilateral negotiations are stalled, it is very difficult to think realistically about resuming multilateral talks.
At the moment, there is progress on the Palestinian track. There is also a possibility that talks on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks may resume. The US, meanwhile, is again raising the issue of multilateral talks.
In principle, we have no problem with them. But as we have said, the atmosphere should be conducive to the success of those talks. Many of the concerned parties would not at present agree to participate in multilateral talks, until they see further real progress on all tracks.

Is there not the potential for a major clash in the future between Egypt and the US over Israel's deliberately enigmatic nuclear status? After all, this has already been a bone of contention, particularly in 1995, at the time of the indefinite extension of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)?
I think the maintenance of a nuclear arsenal in the region means that there will, inevitably, be an arms race. You cannot tell countries in the region not to seek to acquire nuclear arms, when Israel alone is not subjected to any such control, and is allowed to maintain an unfettered arsenal.
But again, this is not a US-Egyptian problem [as such]. It is rather a problem between those who want regional stability and those who are not prepared to eliminate this cause of instability.
The US supports denuclearisation, but it argues that Israel is in the middle of negotiations where it is going to be asked to give concessions and [therefore it is better to avoid antagonising Israel's] security-mania at this point.
We don't buy this argument. So, we have to continue to try and convince the US that this is not a good argument, and that Israel's nuclear [capabilities] do not provide it with greater security, but rather endanger the entire region.

Have we made any progress on this?
No. There has been no progress there. But we maintain our position and we are promoting President Mubarak's initiative to free the Middle East of all mass destruction weapons.

How should Egypt deal with the persistent US attempts to dissuade us from working on the Arab summit -- a project that has been criticised by certain US officials?
We should not pay attention to everything that is said. What is important is that we make our own choices.
It is our choice to work on having the best possible relations with our Arab brethren and to try and create the conditions necessary for an Arab summit.
It is our choice to continue helping the Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese to reach a just agreement with Israel.
The US may express a certain opinion of our policies. But we also express opinions about certain policies of the US. That does not mean that either of us is subjecting the other to any form of 'repression'.

But sometimes it might seem to be in Egypt's interest to accommodate certain US views?
Of course. We try to accommodate everybody. But there are 'red lines' beyond which we do not accept any advice, even friendly advice. We may still listen. But we will not listen when someone tells us not to have good relations with other Arab countries.

How would this apply to the case of Iraq, where Egypt's hands have been tied to a great extent by American decisions?
I think our attitude with regard to Iraq has been very clear. We think that Iraq made more than one mistake [when it invaded Kuwait], and as a result it has been subjected to the resolutions of the UN Security Council. Iraq has accepted these resolutions. The Security Council resolutions should therefore be [implemented].
But we also see that sanctions are harming the Iraqi people to an intolerable extent. There has to be a way to implement these resolutions without subjecting the Iraqi people to so much hardship. We also believe that the sovereignty of Iraq has to be respected within the boundaries of international demarcation. We believe that Iraq should not be divided.
These are clear-cut positions that show that our hands have not been tied.

And how would you apply this in the case of the Sudan, where the US is giving Egypt the cold shoulder?
Sudan is our closest neighbour and we have a long-standing relationship. The Sudanese government is considering reconciliation with Egypt, and we would of course welcome that.
[As for the national reconciliation within Sudan], the Americans, as is very well-known, are not happy to see the Libyans involved in this effort, but that does not make us change our position. Our efforts will continue.

How far has the strategic dialogue been successful in addressing such matters as part of its larger task of matching Egyptian-US views on strategic issues?
Some people do not grasp the meaning of the strategic dialogue. It is not about the day-to-day aspects of our relationship. The aim is to take a long-range view of what our relations may be like in a decade's time, post the peace process, and how we can avoid clashes or surprises until we get there. It is about putting the relationship in a context of clarity, which should include everything -- both those things we agree on, and those on which we disagree.

	weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg