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

A mature dialogue

By Dina Ezzat

Nabil Fahmi

How do you assess the current state of Egyptian-US relations?
In answering this question, it is important to go back a little in time, to the October War, and the subsequent resumption of relations at the ambassadorial level.
We are looking at a period of about 25 years, over which relations were built up again. First came a confidence-building phase, immediately after the War, which lasted about five years. Things moved very quickly, as each side recognised the importance of the other, on both the regional and the global level.
The next phase sought to move expand from confidence-building between governments to including relations between peoples -- between business communities, educators, students. This work took up the whole of the 1980s.
The third phase was about working together in a more tangible sense on a series of regional and global issues. The range of issues discussed expanded from those that have a direct affect on bilateral relations, together with more immediate regional issues such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, to also embrace the global level.
During the last two or three years, we have started to look more and more to the future. That is why there is now a strategic dialogue.
So it has been quite an interesting 25 years. Actually, there have been differences, and occasionally disagreements. But that is natural, given that we are talking about relations spanning a quarter of a century.
It is also important, however, to underscore that our collective success stories duringthe 25 years overwheighed any disagreements we have had.

How would you characterise the recent evolution of Egyptian-US relations?
Our relations are more mature now than they were in the past. They stand on their own merits. But they are still affected by things which happen because of, or despite, either side.
The more mature these relations become, the less people talk about them, but the more useful they are, as they are woven into our day-to-day lives.

There sometimes seem to be a confusion between the state of Egypt's relations with the US administration and Egypt's relations with the Congress. Why is this line not more clearly drawn?
It is a function of how the US system works. There is a clear separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. Nevertheless, there is a persistent misunderstanding in many foreign countries about howthe US system works, as you point out.
The Administration has to deal with foreign countries on a regular government-to-government basis. The Congressmen's job, on the other hand, is to represent the interests of their constituents in Congress, so they deal with foreign policy issues in as far as they affect their constituencies.
Your question implies that there is a negative feeling towards Egypt in Congress, but I don't think that is the case. We have many friends and supporters in Congress. There are many Congressmen who are eager and ready to support our case, whether in our dealings with Congress or with the administration. So, we are working well together. We are also learning how to better deal with different Congressmen.

But are you not ignoring the fact that the US Congress, at least in its current form, is generally pro-Israel -- which may often make it, as a consequence, a little anti-Egyptian?
There are two questions there. First, is the Congress pro-Israeli or not? One cannot deny that there is a lot of support for Israel in the Congress, and we have to deal with that.
The second part of your question is whether this makes the Congress, by definition, anti-Egyptian. The answer there is no. I don't think that being pro-Israeli necessarily means being anti-Egyptian, in as much as I don't think that by supporting Egypt you are being anti-Israeli.

Do you not think that over the next decade or so US-Egyptian relations may well have to be revised, in light of probable developments at both the regional and the global level, especially if peace prevails in the Middle East?
I expect that there will be many issues that will affect US-Egtotuab relations, not only the Arab-Israeli peace process. There may bedifferences on some occasions, but generally spkeaking, I remain very optimstic becasue I believe in the maturity of relations. I also believe that the ever-increasing status of Egypt in the Middle East and the increasing robustness of Egyptian economy will be positive factors towards development of these relations.

Can you explain exactly what impact the 'success' of the peace process might then have on Egyptian-US relations?
Cooperation between Egypt and the US in that particular area has increased, rather than decreased, as the peace process has progressed. I also expect this cooperation to increase even further [if lasting peace is established]. The long term aim of the US and Egypt in pursuing peace in our region is to ensure a stable Middle East.
Egypt is the core of the Middle East. By having a strong and stable Egypt, by ensuring that Egypt is able to deal with any rifts that may arise in the years to come, you are ensuring the security and stability of the region. Therefore, I see our relations increasing even furhter after peace.

What would happen to Egyptian-US relations if the peace process were to stall once more for a considerable period of time, particularly if the US then decided to blame Egypt for this, as it often has in the past?
I don't believe that the US has ever laid the blame for failure in the peace process at Egypt's door.
The process very nearly ground to a complete halt under Netanyahu's premiership, only to pick up again rapidly following the election of Ehud Barak. At that point, everybody came to Egypt to conclude a new agreement. So, you see, we were not the ones responsible for stalling the peace process. It was obvious to everybody that it was the Netanyahu government that was to blame.
It is true, though, that there were on occasion differences in position, in approach [between Egypt and the US], when it came to determining the best ways to deal with the [Netanyahu] government.
Our position has always been to call a spade a spade, and to be fair, and straightforward. We had reached a stage in the peace process where it was no longer appropriate to drag your feet or beat around the bush -- where you had to deal with the issues in a straightforward manner.
Sometimes, that may have raised some eyebrows. There may have been some concern in certain circles in the US. But I do not believe that this was ever per se a fundamental matter over which Egypt and the US administration differed regarding peace making. And, where differences existed they were more on tactics than on cardinal issues.

In the context of plans for a "comprehensive settlement", how much do the views of Egypt and the US diverge over the future set-up of the region?
First of all, I would love to see these master plans that everybody is talking about. But I believe you will not find many people who could show you such plans!
Secondly, it is quite normal for countries to have different visions, particularly if they are viewing a certain area of the world from very different perspectives. We are looking at the Middle East from the perspective of a country that is a part -- a strong part -- of this region. For us, it is a main priority and concern. The US, on the other hand, is looking at the Middle East from a global perspective. For the US, the Middle East is just one part of a world in which it is the global power.
As a result, for the US the Middle East may or may not be the priority at any given point in time. But for us, the Middle East, which is our immediate geographic context, is always our priority. That by itself creates a substantial difference in perspective.
Given this situation, it is important therefore for us to be engaged in dialogue. But you should always bear in mind that difference does not necessarily mean contradiction.
The more our relations mature, the easier it will be for both parties to engage in real dialogue about the Middle East and on how the region should evolve.

It is common knowledge that the US is hoping for a Middle East which will have Israel as its core. For Egypt, isn't this a situation where "difference" does mean "contradiction"?
If you want to understand precisely how the US wants the Middle East to evolve, you would need to speak with my colleague and friend Daniel Kurtzer [the US ambassador to Egypt]. He is better qualified to give you an overall perspective.
Regarding the point you are making, that the US wants Israel to be the core of the Middle East, comes from a perspective in your mind which focuses everything around the Arab-Israeli conflict. In the future, that conflict will not be the main focus. There will be different interests and different issues involved.
What the US believes there should or should not be in the Middle East will be a function of the issues, problems and potentials which exist in the Middle East at that time. America's interests in the Middle East will define for the US how they think about the "core" of the region.
I think that after the Arab-Israeli settlement is successfully concluded, there will be a state of flux for a while. The new situation will have to be allowed to settle, before parties both within and without the region can start to define their real concerns and interests for the future. I also strongly believe that how countries such as the US, the UK, the EU, China and Japan act, will mostly be a function of what the people of the Middle East themselves decide to do.
The world ahead of us is not a Cold-War world, dominated by bi-polarity and the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is a new world. So let us not jump the gun.

What about the differences between Egypt and the US on issues such as Iraq, security arrangements in the Gulf, or the unity of Sudan? How do you see these tensions playing out over the coming decade?
These are all volatile areas, so there is great potential both for agreement and for disagreement. Nevertheless, I think the cardinal issue here is what will happen in these regions themselves, not what position the US will take with respect to them.

But surely it is US policy that decides, to a great extent, what is allowed to happen in these areas? When the US financially and militarily supports the Iraqi or Sudanese opposition in their attempts to overthrow the ruling regimes, we cannot talk about these events as if they unfolded independently of American desires.
Egypt has siad clearly it does not get ierthrowing governemnts. What I am emphasising is that these may be issues today, but they will not necessarily be issues in the next decade.

So how would you, as Egypt's ambassador to the US, deal with these issues today?
I would deal with them through a straightforward, candid and honest dialogue. This should be the case whenever there is a potential for difference of opinion between Egypt and the US.
There should be no inhibition in explaining to the US where we disagree with them, because on most issues we can find a great deal of agreement.
On some issues, we cannot find such agreement. But that is the nature of things. On the issue of Iraq, for example, we have said that the Security Council resolutions should be respected, nevertheless the humanitarian situation in Iraq cannot be ignored and that therefore the issue of sanctions should be reviewed. This is not the US position. There is clearly a different of emphasis here.

Is this where the newly launched Egyptian-US strategic dialogue comes in -- in managing such differences? What do you make of that dialogue so far, especially given the general scepticism with which it has been met?
I understand completely and even accept the opinion that this dialogue has not yet worked as it should.
It needs to be energised. It needs to build up much more momentum. But we have to remember that this dialogue is a new process for both sides, and that its general focus is on issues that concern the medium and the long term.

On another front, what are your priorities in terms of Egyptian-US economic relations?
On the government level, economic relations are excellent. So my priority will be more and more to encourage relations between the private sectors of both countries.
This does not mean that there is no more to do on the government level. But the fact of the matter is that the Egyptian private sector is now mature enough to be a persuasive partner -- though not necessarily an equal one.
This was not obviously the case ten years ago. Now, however, the Egyptian private sector has much more confidence, and understands that it will have to work in accordance with global norms and rules. So now, we have all the ingredients necessary for success.

	weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg