 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 30 March - 5 April 2000 Issue No. 475 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 30 March - 5 April 2000 Issue No. 475
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Special Focus Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Defensive collaborations
By Ibrahim Nafie
I have discussed the political, economic and cultural aspects of Egyptian-US relations in previous articles. Now I would like to turn to the military, security and strategic dimensions of relations.
The relationship between the US and Egypt is no ordinary bilateral relationship. Rather, it is a partnership between two major powers, one whose influence extends across the globe and the other a pivotal regional power. This partnership, moreover, is bolstered by institutionalised frameworks, practical considerations and future promise.
That this relationship has come to function on diverse levels, and has branched out to encompass a broad range of interests and concerns, reflects the mutually held desire to generate closer and deeper bonds of friendship. Foreign Minister Amr Mousa could not have expressed the point more clearly than when, at the inaugural ceremony for the Council for US-Egyptian Relations, he said that a poor appreciation of the comprehensiveness of US-Egyptian relations may lead some to misconstrue issues on which Cairo and Washington are not in full accord.
Security issues are a major and indispensable facet of Egyptian-US relations. The importance both sides attach to this dimension is illustrated by Egypt's participation in peace-keeping operations in many parts of the world, the ongoing consultations between the two countries over crucial regional issues, their joint efforts in fighting terrorism, their commitment in principle to the realisation of a lasting peace in the region and their shared desire to spur the negotiating process over various pitfalls and setbacks.
It is no exaggeration to say military relations between Egypt and the US are strong. Military cooperation between the two countries covers a number of strategic areas, including cooperation in the ongoing process of modernising Egyptian armaments and training the Egyptian armed forces. In addition to the $1.3 billion military assistance the US supplies to Egypt annually, the US Congress approved an additional one-time allocation of $25 million for 1999 towards military training.
Other important areas of military cooperation include the Bright Star manoeuvres that take place in Egypt every two years. One of the largest joint military training programmes in which the US armed forces take part, last year's Bright Star military games brought together the armed forces of 12 nations and observers from several more. According to US sources, US officials believe that these manoeuvres not only serve to help train Egypt's armed forces, but also offer US forces the opportunity to receive practical experience on terrain in which the Egyptian forces have a high degree of combat expertise. The last manoeuvres, which took place in the Eastern Desert last October, illustrate the great value the US accords to these joint training exercises. Not only was the US joint command centre for these manoeuvres relocated to Egypt, but Egypt's Lieutenant General Anthony Zeini was placed in charge of command centre. These decisions reflect the great esteem in which the US holds the high levels of professionalism and commitment and the growing excellence of the fighting men and women in the various branches of the Egyptian armed forces.
The importance attached to US-Egyptian military cooperation is also reflected in many other regularly scheduled military training programmes that take place in both countries. Of particular benefit for the Egyptian armed forces has been the opportunity these programmes have given to thousands of our officers and soldiers to study and train in the major US military academies and specialised training centres, exposing them to the latest advances in tactical warfare and modern weaponry. Additional testimony to the value the US accords to military cooperation with Egypt is the fact that Egypt is one of the few nations that has received the license to manufacture the M1/A1 tank, one of the US's most advanced tanks and an important component of the US heavy armaments manufacturing industry.
Egyptian and US forces have also worked side by side beneath the UN peace-keeping banner. Their peace-keeping efforts in such areas as Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo and East Timor exemplify the degree of concord between the two countries in their commitment to the preservation of international peace and security.
Given the many levels on which Egyptian-US bilateral military cooperation operates it is not surprising to see numerous exchanges between senior military officials of both sides. Egypt receives the US secretary of defence at least twice a year, along with senior-ranking officers from the various branches of the US armed forces, and their Egyptian counterparts undertake similar visits to the US. Nevertheless, although military officials on both sides have frequently expressed their firm belief in collaborative efforts, it is important here to stress two points.
Firstly, while military cooperation between the US and Egypt is close and diversified this does not constitute a form of military alliance. A military alliance is generally conceived as a formal framework for military collaboration targeting a third party for defensive or offensive purposes. This is by no means the case with US-Egyptian military cooperation, the purpose of which is to advance the interests of both parties and the mutually held goal of regional peace and stability. Nothing could furnish clearer proof of this than the high degree of transparency surrounding all aspects of Egyptian-US military cooperation.
Secondly, while Egyptian-US military cooperation involves the fruitful exchange of ideas on various strategic and security concerns, by no means does it seek to generate full concordance over those issues. Cooperation between partners inherently entails an understanding and a respect for the priorities and fundamental interests of the other side and a commitment to working together as much as possible within this framework. Once again, it is useful to reiterate Amr Moussa's observation that divergence in the opinions of two countries over some issues does not detract from strong and healthy relations. Indeed, imposed conformity and healthy cooperative relations are contradictions in terms, for the former implies a relationship of dependency, which is not at all the nature of Egyptian-US relations, whose institutionalised frameworks promote mutual understanding and the exploration of formulas for safeguarding the fundamental interests of both parties, though with ample room for differing opinions.
Over the past two decades the two countries have not seen eye to eye on many security and strategic issues. In the last decade alone, Egypt has differed with the US over the infinite extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 1995, over Israel's nuclear arsenal and its persistent refusal to subject it to international inspection, over the perpetuation of sanctions against Libya and, more recently, over the question of Sudan. Yet, in spite of these there is no "crisis" in US-Egyptian relations, nor does Egypt wish for such a crisis.
There is much talk at present about the post-peace settlement phase and ways to ensure lasting stability, to further prospects of regional development, to build trust between the peoples of the region and to eliminate war as a means of solving conflicts. In this regard, Egypt remains committed to a number of positions, among which is its unswerving belief in the need to eliminate all weapons of mass destruction from the Middle East as a primary condition for building a permanent foundation for lasting regional stability. In other words, a lasting peace will not stand a chance of achieving a solid footing as long as Israel, alone out of all the nations in the region, continues to maintain a nuclear arsenal closed to international inspection and persists in amassing every conceivable type of weaponry in order to secure for itself absolute military superiority.
Egypt will not cease attempts to end a strategic disparity that flouts every concept of peace and stability and works against all the efforts being dedicated to reaching a comprehensive settlement, leaving the door open to Israeli military adventurism in the future. At the same time, Egypt, as an active participant in the peace process, will continue to work ceaselessly towards furthering this process. If President Mubarak expressed his disappointment that the meeting between Presidents Clinton and Assad at the beginning of this week failed to set a date for the resumption of Israeli-Syrian negotiations, he nevertheless urged optimism and persistence in exploring every avenue possible to move the peace process forward. This stance, reflecting Egypt's desire to overcome all obstacles to the peace process, a desire shared by the US, underscores the importance of Egyptian-US relations.
Similar considerations apply in the case of Sudan. Egypt remains committed to the joint Egyptian-Libyan initiative aimed at reaching a comprehensive reconciliation between all Sudanese parties on the basis of the preservation of the territorial integrity of Sudan. In the US, however, there is a body of opinion favouring the partition of Sudan. In addition, objections have been raised against the Egyptian-Libyan initiative on the grounds that it represents an Arab standpoint, and it has been said that, simply because Libya is one of its sponsors it will inevitably result in the favouring of a particular faction. In spite of these criticisms, Egypt will continue its campaign to persuade the US administration and those in a position to influence US policy making with regard to Sudan that the partition of Sudan will serve no one's interests, least of all those of the US. Egypt is convinced that the partition of Sudan will rebound dangerously on all Sudan's neighbours, not least by heightening the possibility of renewed civil warfare among the southern Sudanese themselves.
Egypt's dedication to regional stability is what fires our continued insistence upon peaceful diplomacy and negotiation as the only viable conflict solving mechanism, sustaining our commitment to a productive, forward-moving peace process. In this regard there is considerable convergence between Egyptian and US strategies, and whatever differences might exist between the two countries over subsidiary issues do not detract from our common purpose, nor do they pose an insurmountable difficulty in our relationship. The powerful impetus of our bilateral relations allows us to deal with the problems that crop up from time to time with the patience and understanding they merit. And in doing so we add yet more stones to the edifice that is Egyptian-US cooperation.
