Satisfied for now
Egypt is caught up in a long-standing US foreign
policy debate between coalition builders and
unilateralists. by Tarek Atia
(cairolive.com, October 30, 2001)
Recent comments made by US senators Jim McCain and
others questioning the extent of Egypt's cooperation
with Washington on the fight against terrorism have
introduced an element of tension to the US-Egyptian
relationship -- at least in the media -- at a time
when the public is being conditioned to think of the
world as having a choice between either being with the
US or against it.
How has this impression arisen, and what are the
elements that helped formulate it?
According to Edward Walker, president of the prominent
Middle East Institute, a Washington think tank, who
was in Cairo this week conducting a series of meetings
with various associations and groups in an attempt to
increase understanding of both the Egyptian and the US
point of view in the aftermath of the September 11
attacks on the United States, the criticism of Egypt
actually has its roots in a debate that was raging in
US foreign policy circles even before the September 11
attacks
The debate was between coalition builders and
unilateralists, Walker explained to a small gathering
of members of Egypt's Economic Forum and the press.
The coalition building camp is led by US Secretary of
State Colin Powell, who seeks to increase the strong
relations between the US and Muslim and Arab countries
such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, by keeping their
concerns in mind while developing US strategy to fight
terrorism.
The unilateral crowd urges the US not to take any
other countries into account, and act like a
superpower with complete disregard for the
reservations posited by any of its allies. This camp
urges immediate bombings of targets other than
Afghanistan. First on their list is Iraq.
But after 10 years of US bombings there, and Saddam
Hussein's regime barely dented, not many people in the
US believe bombing works, or would support a ground
war against Iraq.
With that in mind, the unilateralists decided to wage
a personal battle against Powell instead, suggesting
that he was not patriotic enough. But, because Powell
is much too popular a political figure, Walker said,
the tactic didn't work.
The unilateralists' subsequent search for another plan
led them to attempt to prove that coalition building
doesn't work. "That's why," said Walker, "you began to
see the attacks on Saudi Arabia and Egypt," which
attempted to show that the US's main friends in the
region weren't even fully cooperating with the US.
Those attacks, said the former ambassador, persisted
despite conversations he's had with people at the
State Department, the NSC and other concerned
government agencies like the Treasury Department, all
of which are quite satisfied with Egyptian and Saudi
cooperation for now.
According to Edward Walker, president of the prominent
Middle East Institute, a Washington think tank, who
was in Cairo this week conducting a series of meetings
with various associations and groups in an attempt to
increase understanding of both the Egyptian and the US
point of view in the aftermath of the September 11
attacks on the United States, the criticism of Egypt
actually has its roots in a debate that was raging in
US foreign policy circles even before the September 11
attacks
