 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 10 - 16 February 2000 Issue No. 468 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 10 - 16 February 2000 Issue No. 468
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Features Focus Profile Travel Books Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters From Seattle to Davos .. via Moscow!
By Mohamed Sid-Ahmed
In an article published in The New York Times and reproduced in the January 22-23 issue of The International Herald Tribune under the title, "Egypt ponders its role in a reshaped Middle East", the prominent American journalist Thomas L. Friedman, who was in Cairo recently to deliver a number of lectures on the issue of globalisation, referred to a talk he had with me over the future of the peace process in the Middle East. He wrote that I see a natural rivalry emerging between Egypt and Israel, and quoted me as saying that 'Egypt-Israel relations have gone through three phases: first was hostility and war. Second was partnership, when Egypt and Israel worked together to persuade the other Arabs that their reconciliation was the right way to go. Third, the phase we are now in, is moving beyond partnership into rivalry over who will set the guidelines for this region".
In the light of what seemed to me to be Friedman's approval of my thesis, I was surprised that he concluded his article with the proposition that there is "only one role Egypt can play, if it is to thrive as a country and remain relevant as the Arab leader, and that is for Egypt to be the model for how the Arab world adjusts to globalisation". No one, including Mr Friedman, can deny that Israel is better qualified than any other regional power to undertake the globalisation process. How can globalisation fit Egypt just as well if both nations will be competing for setting the guidelines for the Middle East in future?
Of course, we must first define what we mean by globalisation. Two meanings should not be confused here. One is that globalisation is an outcome of the Information Revolution, of a feeling that has developed with the wiring of the globe, namely, that distances have vanished, both in space and in time; that we all live in an interactive global village. The other is that globalisation has increased the polarisation of the global economy, the restructuring of society under the hegemony of the multilateral corporations; that it has made neo-liberal capitalism the unchallenged ideology dominating humankind; that no safety net, social or otherwise, can offset these developments.
Actually, these divergent views of Egypt's role in a globalised Middle East assumed a more concrete character in the debates that unfolded in Davos last week, and, more specifically, in the decision to resume the Middle East multilateral talks in Moscow on the day following the inauguration of the Davos gathering.
As usual, Shimon Peres took part in the Davos meetings -- this time not only in his capacity as the well-known champion of the idea of developing a market that would stand as a symbol of the globalisation process applied to the conditions of the Middle East, but also as minister of regional cooperation charged with the mission of promoting a Middle East market. In his address to the forum, Peres described Israel as a focal point of progress and cleanliness in a backward and dirty Arab environment! Quite apart from the unacceptable racial slur his words carry, his description implies that Israel is the only Middle East nation qualified to lead the fortunes of the Middle East in the era of globalisation.
Arab participants in the forum noticed that the US administration supported the Israeli viewpoint wholeheartedly. The Americans continued to press for the promotion of region-wide economic cooperation on the grounds that Israel was entitled to receive a "tangible counterpart" for the territory it restores to each of the Arab countries that enter into peaceful negotiations with it. The clear message that came across in Davos is that the fundamental issue in the eyes of the Israelis and the US is the multilateral track aiming at establishing Israel's supremacy in a 'globalised' Middle East, and not the bilateral track whose task is to pave the way for the multilateral. What this means in practical terms is that the extent of Israel's withdrawal from Arab territory will be determined by the extent to which it obtains recognition of this status in counterpart, a deal neither the Arab parties nor Egypt can accept on these terms and which makes Egypt's future rivalry with Israel unavoidable.
As matters now stand, there is a clear divergence of priorities, not to say conflict of interest, between the position of Washington and Israel on one side and that of Egypt on the other towards the peace process. The Americans and Israelis insist on pushing ahead with economic cooperation regardless of progress in the bilateral talks; Cairo insists on making progress in economic relations conditional on progress in the political talks. With negotiations stalled on both the Palestinian and Syrian fronts, it came as no surprise to see Egypt's foreign minister reject a recent proposal put forward by Peres that Arab-Israeli relations should be normalised in the field of education. By the same token, it was not surprising that at a meeting with US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in Davos, Moussa should have opposed her proposal to advance the date of the next Middle East economic forum, which is scheduled to be held in Cairo next autumn.
While it is true that the Americans and Israelis can advance strong arguments in support of their respective positions at a time the American economy is booming and the process of globalisation is gaining ground everywhere, it is also true that Davos witnessed protest demonstrations that were no less hostile than those which broke out in Seattle a month earlier against the World Trade Organisation meeting.
It is also curious to note that, despite the economic boom now underway and the growing momentum of the drive towards globalisation, the mood was not particularly upbeat at the recent meetings of either the Davos Forum or the World Trade Organisation, two of the main symbols of globalisation. To use Marxist terminology to diagnose the situation, the present leap in the forces of production, thanks mainly to the achievements of the Information Revolution (the internet, computers, electronics, spacecraft, etc..), has not been accompanied by a corresponding leap in relations of production. The contrary would be closer to the truth. As production flourishes, distribution witnesses ever greater bottlenecks. Discrepancies deepen between rich and poor and have reached unprecedented proportions, threatening humankind with all sorts of upheavals. The hostile demonstrations in both Davos and Seattle are clear manifestations that the whole economic architecture of the globalisation process is built on shaky foundations, and if this is true for the world at large, it is all the more true for the Middle East in particular.
Israeli newspapers reported that members of the Israeli delegation to the multilateral talks in Moscow last week were jubilating over the results of the talks. On the one hand, they had succeeded in getting precise dates set for the meetings of the various working groups. The water issue will be addressed on 11 April; the economic committee will meet in Jordan on 8 May; the panel on refugees will convene in Ottawa on 6 May; and the environmental quality committee will meet on 13 May in Tunisia. On the other, they had succeeded in blocking Egypt's attempts to schedule a meeting of the arms control committee, the working group that will be discussing the issue of weapons of mass destruction in the region.
But Israel is mistaken to rejoice too soon on these achievements. It should not forget that if the negotiations with Syria are once again stalled, it is because Israel insisted on holding talks on the different prerequisites for peace and normalisation of relations between the two countries before coming forward with a clear statement on withdrawal from the Golan up to the borders of 4 June 1967.
