31 Jan. - 6 Feb. 2002
Issue No.571
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 31 Jan. - 6 Feb. 2002 Issue No.571 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Facing the music
Frustrated, cynical and unsympathetic are the words summing up the attitude of American University in Cairo (AUC) students towards US foreign policy
"My timing is not perfect for a speech on this topic," US Ambassador to Cairo David Welch acknowledged before starting his speech at the American University in Cairo (AUC) on Monday evening, reports Soha Abdelaty. "[During] my first visit to AUC people said to me that I have come here at a difficult time. Well, I am sorry to say that things haven't gotten much better." There could not have been a closer depiction of the truth. A deteriorating situation in the occupied territories, characterised by escalating violence, and a prolonged "war against terror," that may well be expanded to include Arab countries, are two good reasons why a closer scrutiny of US policy may be overdue. Questioning the validity of American foreign policy is why students, professors, ambassadors and journalists came to AUC that evening.
Ambassador Welch discusses with the AUC community the tenets of US foreign policy
AUC invited the American Ambassador to give a speech on the tenets of American foreign policy. The speech was part of the English Public Lecture Series. It is the third lecture in this academic year's series, which began with a lecture by Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher.
The speech covered a range of issues, beginning with justifying and explaining the principles behind the US-led campaign against terrorism, then moving on to confirm how strong US-Egyptian relations are, whether in the economic or the political sphere, and, finally, leading on to the Middle East peace process.
AUC Public Relations Director Nagwa Shoeb introduced the Ambassador. Then AUC President John Gerhart read out to Welch the questions posed by the audience. The ambassador replied to the questions collectively.
The audience's primary concern was the US role in the Middle East peace process. More than seeking answers to their questions on this issue, the audience wanted to air their dissatisfaction and frustration at US policy in the Middle East; one that they saw as lacking in fairness and even-handedness.
"My understanding is that the US opposes terrorism, including state terrorism, so please tell me how on earth it can support Sharon's terrorism while keeping a straight face?" was the opening salvo, signalling that the ambassador's attempt to explain the basic principles of American foreign policy to the audience had been fruitless.
"I reviewed the history and recalled for you the basic principles of our policy because the United States has taken more than its fair share of criticism on the subject of the Middle East peace process -- as if we have not offered a clear path to negotiations," Welch said at the end of his speech. "You may ask for more, indeed I would be surprised if you did not. But I will ask you to take a careful look at our record of engagement, its history over a lengthy period of time, not just in the past few months," he continued. The problem, he explained, is that, despite serious US efforts, the country cannot help parties that do not want to help themselves. "We can show the leadership, we can show our support, and we are committed. But the reality is that only the Palestinians and Israelis can make peace. Only they can decide the answers to some very hard questions for each side," he said. "Americans and Egyptians can't make the Israelis and Palestinians trust one another. That trust needs to be reciprocated through action," he added.
Other questions on the topic were more concerned with what the audience perceived to be a biased US foreign policy in the Middle East. "Is there an American policy in the Middle East? Isn't what we are seeing an Israeli policy expounded in the absence of a US policy?" questioned one student even though the American ambassador had made a point of criticising certain Israeli practices during his speech and noted that the US feels that such actions cannot lead to peace. "The Israelis must take steps of their own to put an end to violence and fear. Building a peace that will last does not begin with the destruction of Palestinian homes and villages. Military incursions into towns under the Palestinian Authority are not going to help, either. We also oppose targeted killings by the Israelis, and we have said so repeatedly, just as we have called for a halt to settlement activity," he explained. Nevertheless, these words fell on deaf ears and the audience's questions took the ambassador by surprise. "I just spent 20 minutes of my time trying to explain what our policy is. We think that American policy can stand up on its merits. From time to time, and it may surprise you to hear this, the Israeli government disagrees with what we say and do," was his response to the question.
Despite the criticism, the record of US involvement in the region, according to Welch, can only point towards US willingness to introduce peace to the Middle East. "In the past 30 years, all the major milestones made in peace would not have been achieved without the help, and indeed the encouragement, of the United States. We have been there each and every step of the way and we have done it for our own reasons," Welch said.
But other areas of American engagement also received their share of criticism and cynicism. Questions revolved around Egyptian detainees in the United States, as well as the possibility of expanding the war against terror. On the issue of detainees, Welch explained to the audience that while US authorities were working hard on attaining exact information on this issue, it was often difficult. However, he added, "what is true with respect to these people is the following: each and every one of them gets the same treatment I would if I were in detention."
As regards the US campaign against terror possibly being expanded to include strikes on Arab countries, Welch explained that "the United States government is not crazy, it is not looking for an enemy to attack. There are lots of other things to do [other than military action]. I personally believe that some of the steps that can be taken are the least exciting and least glamorous... stuff like cutting off their money." Nevertheless, he added, "if it comes to our attention that some country is supporting global terrorism and that that is threatening the United States, we shall defend ourselves. No president will take any other decision, whether American or otherwise."
Ewart Hall at AUC was packed -- evidence that many people had wanted to come and listen to the American ambassador speak. But their questions only proved that they remained unconvinced of what he had to say. "I am sure that many of you have listened to what I just said and can only disagree with some of it. When you are the American ambassador, you come here to this audience, and speaking on an issue of this sort, you don't expect to win any popularity contest," he concluded.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page