 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 11 - 17 May 2000 Issue No. 481 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 11 - 17 May 2000 Issue No. 481
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Books Features Interview Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Both sides of the tightrope
By Ahmed Maher *Any attempt to foretell the results of the US presidential elections over six months ahead of time is hazardous at best. Many variables are bound to change, first and foremost in the economic field. In 1992, Clinton fought and won the election by emphasising the importance of the economy, and his performance since his victory has led to years of sustained growth. Lately, however, signs of inflation and trouble on the stock market seem to be signalling the end of the economic honeymoon, which could undermine Al Gore's performance. This would be most unfortunate, since the economy is the most positive part of Clinton's legacy. If things sour, the voters, disappointed and feeling the pinch, will pay more attention to the negative episodes in the president's personal behaviour -- the sex scandals and accusations concerning campaign financing. Gore would have to deal with these sticking points, some of which affect him personally; furthermore, he does not have the advantages of Clinton's appeal, his rapport with the voters, and his ability to show feelings without appearing fake.
George W Bush, on the other hand, is sorely lacking in charisma despite the aura of a name that links him to a president who was successful in many fields -- notably foreign affairs -- but who had the misfortune to miss the upturn in the economy. His supporters ascribe that boom to policies that had not yet ripened before November 1992. Bush Jr is also plagued by divisions in the Republican Party, between moderate conservatives with a human face, and extreme right-wing members whose fervent support for the agenda of the religious right frightens ordinary Americans -- who are more liberal than they would admit, if only because historically the term liberal has been equated with the taboo "leftist" label. At the same time, Bush has also been accused of personal misbehaviour, a lack of clear convictions and limited knowledge in many fields -- not only foreign affairs. Lately, even his performance as governor of Texas -- his source of pride -- has come under negative scrutiny.
In these briefly outlined circumstances, it is certainly presumptuous to try to answer the question: Gore or Bush? But we should try to assess the impact of either of them winning the election, particularly with regard to relations with Egypt and the Middle East.
Over the years, Egypt has been able to establish excellent relations with both Democratic and Republican presidents and party leaders. These, in turn, have come to appreciate Egypt's importance and its impact both regionally and internationally. As ambassador to Washington, I have had the opportunity to note that, beyond the objective considerations that lead the US to value good relations with Egypt, President Mubarak's personality plays a pivotal role in ensuring that our policies garner support on both sides of the aisle, and eliciting true comprehension of the principles that guide Egypt, even when our position differs from the US's. I have seen members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, eager to hear President Mubarak's views and advice, or expressing appreciation for his candor and depth of analysis. We may therefore rest assured that whoever lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will maintain strong political, economic and military ties with Egypt.
Other important factors reinforce this persuasion. Egypt has always been an indispensable force for stability, peace and moderation in the region. The success of its political and economic reforms, carried out in very difficult circumstances while maintaining social peace, defeating terrorism and working for peace in the Middle East, makes these reforms a model for other countries to follow.
As for the ways in which next November's US presidential election will affect American attitudes to the Middle East problem, we must take the following factors into consideration.
During the election campaign, pro-Israeli lobbies, which are usually very active, become even more so, and their impact is greatest because their members are well organised and can deliver votes. Thus candidates tend to cater to this constituency, particularly since the Arab vote is still badly organised and far less effective.
While more Jewish and pro-Israeli voters traditionally choose democratic candidates, the number of those who vote Republican can still be great enough to sway an election. On the other hand, the peace process, which has divided Israeli public opinion, has also divided the Jewish lobbies and voters into hawkish, less hawkish, and relatively moderate groups. Although they all rally around Israel in times of need, they no longer adhere to the notion that they must support all Israel's government policies. The margin of dissent, which may not be visible during an election campaign, becomes apparent when the dust has settled.
Consequently, once elected, a candidate who has adhered unconditionally to pro-Israeli positions finds a wider margin of manoeuvre in dealing with the Middle East. His previous connections and personal opinions become more important in defining his policies. It is therefore important not to label a candidate according to the positions he takes between now and November, or to take it for granted that President X will abide by Candidate X's promises. Examples in this regard abound, and the difference should be even more marked this time in view of some of the considerations discussed above.
The status of the peace process on the eve of the election will also be decisive. If enough progress has been achieved without antagonising a majority of pro-Israeli voters, the representative of the incumbent administration should have an edge and be more able to adopt even-handed positions. If, on the contrary, the process is stalled and the situation is tense, this may encourage the challenger to exploit the concerns of pro-Israeli voters.
In any case, after the elections, we will have to use our political capital in Washington, which as I said is considerable, in order to help the new administration in a favourable direction.
This article has simply tried to shed light on the question "What if?", while providing no definitive answer. As November approaches, we may be able to be more specific and perhaps make predictions. For now, it is better to maintain good contacts with both sides, strengthening bonds that transcend party divisions.
*The writer is a senior Egyptian diplomat and Egypt's former ambassador to Washington.
