In Focus:

Good on the outside, but...

Egypt's regional and international standing is sound, but not matched by domestic achievements, writes Galal Nassar

---

Egypt's image abroad, we all know, is that of a country with a positive outlook, moderate in its tastes, level-headed in its judgement, pragmatic in its policy, reconciliatory in its tone, calm in its demeanour and generally middle-of-the-road. It is a country that doesn't ask for much, nor is prone to placing hurdles along the way. In a region that has been in turmoil since the creation of Israel in 1948, this is quite an accomplishment.

Egypt has weathered one crisis after another. Half of Palestine was lost in 1948, the other half in 1967. Several generations of settlers came to Palestine, until a Palestine-born generation, or Sabra, came along. Invariably, each gain for the Israelis was a loss for the Arabs and Palestinians.

Already we have christened one Arab generation as that of Nakba (or catastrophe, in 1948), another as that of Naksa (or setback, in 1967), a third as that of Intifada (uprising, in the 1990s), and a new one is yet to be named. Will it be the generation of the Gaza holocaust? As more Palestinians, including children, die for the cause, others are born with no choice but to keep on fighting for their usurped rights.

Meanwhile, Egypt is doing all it can to make Europe, especially France and Italy, grasp the extent of Palestinian suffering. Even the US, which remains biased to Israel, admitted at one point that a two-state solution is preferable to the current situation. And yet the outgoing administration couldn't help to give Israel a little goodbye gift, signing with it a security agreement moments before Bush left the White House.

Egypt has carved out a niche for itself as a peacemaker. Its recently organised conference in the sleepy resort of Sharm El-Sheikh is testament to its desire to keep everybody's hopes up. It has kept the dialogue with Israel going, never rejecting anything out of hand.

Egypt has been mediating between Israel and Hamas for a while, trying to get a truce approved, Gaza's crossing points opened, and the rockets halted. Simultaneously, Egypt arranged a dialogue between Fatah and Hamas for the sake of national unity, if only to refute Israel's contention that the Palestinians lack a valid representative.

But Egypt's prudence is not boundless. It doesn't, for example, extend to Iran, whose occupation of United Arab Emirate islands irks Egyptian officials, and whose interference in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine is a definite cause for alarm. Egypt, to cite another example, is not exactly active in healing the rift between moderates and hardliners in the Arab world.

Egypt is also keeping Turkey at arm's length, even though the latter has been involved in high- level mediation between Israel and Syria. Curiously, Egypt once mediated between Turkey and Syria when the latter was charged of harbouring and abetting members of the secessionist PKK, or the Kurdistan Workers' Party.

For some reason, Egypt doesn't seem to be interested in upgrading its relations with the Chavez government in Venezuela, the Morales government in Bolivia, or even the Cuban regime, though such a move may be of great assistance to the Palestinians.

More to the point, Cairo doesn't seem active enough at the level of inter-Arab talks. In particular, it doesn't seem too eager to hold a dialogue with Syria, its partner in struggle and victory in 1973, its once federal partner in the United Arab Republic (1958-1961). Egypt is talking to the West all the time, but it seems to shun inter-Arab talks. Why?

Contrary to the flexibility and pragmatism Egypt exhibits generally in its foreign policy, its domestic policy seems to be stuck in the past. One doesn't see a national dialogue emerging between the ruling party and the opposition. One doesn't see a public debate coming soon over civic freedoms, civil society, and all the rest of it.

Recently, a court ruled against Egypt supplying Israel with natural gas. What was the government's reaction? It appealed the ruling and had it reversed. Another court ruling concerning the independence of Egyptian universities was also appealed and reversed, for the government wanted to maintain the right to send soldiers onto campuses whenever it sees fit.

This doesn't need to be so. The government could, for example, let syndicates, the lawyers, engineers, doctors and university professors choose their representatives. It could allow parliamentary elections to proceed fairly and freely. It could allow Al-Wasat and Al-Karama parties to operate without hindrance. It could have abrogated martial law, which would have robbed from Washington the chance to call us violators of human rights.

The government could have asked the nation's opinion in economic policies. It could have done something to close the widening gap between rich and poor, instead of sending police to clamp down on demonstrators, as happened in Mahala Al-Kobra on 6 April 2008.

There are many things that the government needs to discuss with the people. Corruption, the sale of the public sector, and the privatisation programme are all good examples. We need to think of how far we can allow the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. We need to think of the consequences of a nation divided between fancy residential communities, as those in Beverley Hills, Al-Rehab, Al-Shorouk and Wadi Al-Nakhil, and slum-like dwellings as those in Duweiqa, Al-Torgoman, Shobra Al-Kheima, Bulaq, etc.

We need to revisit our party politics. We need to know why the Policies Committee seems to be running the whole show, as if by default. We need public debate on education, health, and everything else.

So far, the government has been prudent and flexible in its external outlook. It would be helpful if it could achieve the same in its internal policy. And a bit of democracy at home could help our negotiators abroad too, for they could truly claim to be speaking on behalf of the whole nation.

Actually, domestic dialogue should take precedence over external dialogue. Without the former, any external dialogue would seem like whitewashing, and our spokesmen would sound like spin-doctors.

We can be prudent and flexible at home, that is if we're willing to try.