Egypt

I’ve got an article  in The National on the implications of the fighting in Gaza, especially on Egypt:

The bloody carnage from Israel’s bombardment of the Gaza Strip has dominated the Arab media since the bombs began to drop on Saturday, and the rising death toll has filled Arab streets with rage – especially in countries aligned with the United States. In Egypt, huge protests have erupted with an intensity not seen in recent years.

But Israel’s air strikes, taking Hamas as their putative target, have highlighted a rift in the Arab world that has been evident since Hamas defeated Fatah in the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections. It is, at its root, a battle of approaches – a conflict between the negotiators and the rejectionists, between those Fatah supporters who blame Hamas for initiating conflict with Israel, and those Hamas backers who paint Fatah and its Arab allies as complicit in Israeli atrocities.

The “negotiation” front, led by Egypt – the first Arab state to make peace with Israel – advocates peaceful dialogue with the Jewish state. Since the late 1980s, this has been the path preferred by the Palestinian leadership, which supported the Oslo framework and sought a two-state solution through a peace process sponsored by the United States.

The rejectionists – Hamas and its allies – were sidelined during the false optimism of the Oslo years, but they did not disappear. The advocates of resistance argue that without the threat of continued violence Israel has no incentive to make compromises for peace; as the Oslo process ground to a halt, and collapsed entirely after 2000, support for the resistance camp grew among Palestinians and among the broader Arab public, particularly in Egypt and Jordan. The second Palestinian intifada was slowly but steadily crushed by Israel, but this did not discredit Hamas, which defeated Fatah at the polls and then violently took complete control of the Gaza Strip.

The Israeli attack on Gaza – no matter how it is framed by Israel – seems likely to mark a turning point in the contest between these loose alliances, tipping the scales definitively toward Hamas and company. For the foreseeable future, the Arab debate on Israel is going to be dominated by the self-styled forces of resistance – and if not by Hamas, then by something even more extreme.

For a long time the Egyptian government has been accused by its citizens of being too willing to give into the US and Israel, especially regarding Gaza and Hamas.    These criticisms have become even louder with this recent round of violence.

This week the Egyptian Government selected Bechtel Corporation to advise on the construction of Egypt’s first set of nuclear power plants in a 10-year, $180 million contract. This is good news for Egypt and the United States.

Egypt has a long standing policy that the Middle East should be WMD-free.  In a joint press conference with Secretary Rice in February 2006, Egyptian Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit said, “Egypt’s position is clear and it has been clear. We do not accept any nuclear presence or weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.” This is how Egypt handles the question of Israel’s, Iran’s, and even Syria’s nuclear weapons programs. It’s a smart policy, given that in order for Egypt to acquire nuclear weapons it would either have to work with the US (which would violate US policy maintaing Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge), a European country (not likely), Russia (which may cause the US to drop its $1.3b in annual military assistance), or some other supplier such as North Korea, Iran (which would isolate Egypt politically).

Egypt’s nuclear policy scores points rhetorically and attracts political rewards, like US backing for civilian nuclear power plant. Egypt is a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferaton Treaty of 1981, but refused last year to sign an additional protocol that allows the UN to conduct spot checks of nuclear facilities. Egypt claimed sovereignty issues.

Short of UN spot checks, the US can take heart that an American company will be onsite. Bechtel won out against competitors from Australia, Sweden, Spain, Finland, Argentina, and Belgium. Russia’s Vladimir Putin had discussed the deal with Mubarak, but a Russian team does not seem to have bid on the project.

This new billion dollar project also strengthens ties between the American and Egyptian business communities, which is healthy for the state of the US-Egypt relationship.

An Egyptian telecommunications company has become the first mobile-phone company to invest in North Korea.  The 25-year license agreement includes a $400 million dollar investment and a 75/25 partnership with a state-owned Korean company.  Read about it here and here.  Naguib Sawiris, owner of Orascom Telecom Holding, is in North Korea to ink the deal.  His brother, Samih Sawirs, owner of Orascom Construction Holding, invested $115 million in North Korea last year.

Egypt has enjoyed amicable, thought not close, relations with North Korea, even exchanging missile technology in the 70s and 80s and maybe as recently as the late 90s.  There is no recent evidence of such military cooperation.  Economic cooperation, on the other hand, is a welcome development.  First, new technology, even if only state officials and elites will gain access in the beginning, eventually leads towards greater access to information and greater opportunities for political dialogue (it’s happening in Egypt right now).  Second, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that Egyptian diplomats and businessmen could serve as an avenue of quiet diplomacy between the United States and North Korea, especially if Egypt is seen as disinterested politically, which, for the most part, it is.

Turns out that Bob Dylan dug Oum Kalthoum.  Here’s a paragraph from Al’ America: Travels Through America’s Arab and Islamic Roots by Jonathan Curiel, excerpted here on alternet.org:

Kalsoum, whose last name is often spelled Kalthoum or Khulthum, was Egypt’s greatest singer — the equivalent of Barbra Streisand, Billie Holiday, and Maria Callas rolled into one inimitable voice. The daughter of a Muslim cleric, Kalsoum was taught to recite the Quran before she found fame as a secular singer of love songs — songs that were as musically intense as Quranic recitations but eschewed religious proselytizing for lamentations about heartbreak, longing, and plan- ning for a better day. Dylan found inspiration in Kalsoum’s music, telling Playboy magazine for a 1978 interview that “She does mostly love and prayer-type songs, with violin-and-drum accompaniment. Her father chanted those prayers and I guess she was so good when she tried singing behind his back that he allowed her to sing professionally, and she’s dead now but not forgotten. She’s great. She really is. Really great.”

A recent online poll by Egyptian opposition paper Al-Dustour revealed that 84% of Egyptians polled (3708 respondents) believe that Barack Obama will not change American policy towards Arabs and Muslims. 16% of those polled (706 respondents) believe that he “will work towards changing the American policy which his predecessor has followed.”

The commentary on the polling goes on to say that Egyptians were optimistic about Obama’s election until he started selecting his presidential aides. This is most likely a reference to Obama’s appointment of Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff, who the Arabic media slammed as a Zionist (this article is just one of many, many examples) and accused of being sure to continue Bush administration policies in the Middle East. In May 2007, a Gallup poll revealed that only 13% of Egyptian respondents “approved of the leadership of the United States.”

Furthermore, the author posits that Egyptian optimism about Obama’s election may be due to the anticipation of the end of the “tyrannical Bush administration which has been instrumental in the destruction of the Middle East,” rather than the fact that the elected President of the United States is “black and of African descent.”

In addition to his opposition to the Bush administration, many Egyptians support Obama because he has African roots and his father was a Muslim. However, Emanuel’s appointment has caused optimism here to decline, indicating how important the Israeli-Palestinian issue is to most Egyptians.

Last November the Egyptian Jihadist Sayyid Imam published an attack on Al-Qaeda in Egypt’s  Al-Masri Al-Youm newspaper.  Many people at the time, including myself, thought it might have a signifigant effect on Al-Qaeda.   Imam just published his second book, a response to Ayman’s Al-Zawahiri’s criticism of the Revisions, but now it seems pretty clear that Imam’s influence on Al-Qaeda or Jihadist groups throughout the region will be close to nill.  I have a long  article  in The National on the  topic:

When the former jihadist Sayyid Imam published his attack on al Qa’eda in 2007, many saw it as a pivotal document. But Imam’s sequel, published in Egypt this week, is just sound and fury, writes Nathan Field.

Al Qa’eda doesn’t enjoy the best press in the Arab world, but the savage attack against the organisation that filled an Egyptian newspaper for two weeks in late 2007 was still remarkable. Every aspect of its operations was subjected to withering criticism, and its leaders, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri, were assailed with a barrage of insults.

The critic in question, Sayyid Imam, was no ordinary writer: he was a man with impeccable jihadist credentials, writing from the Egyptian jail where he is serving a life sentence. Active in militant circles since his student days at Cairo University, Imam, also known as Dr Fadl, was a long-time associate of Zawahiri who participated in the Afghan jihad against the Soviets and then served as the Emir of the Egyptian terror group al Jihad from 1987 until 1993, having moved with bin Laden and Zawahiri to Sudan to continue the work of jihad. Most importantly, Imam had written two theoretical books that embraced an ultra-literal interpretation of the Quran, which Jihadists, including bin Laden and Zawahiri had been using to justify their violence.

There may yet be a “revolt from within” against Al-Qaeda.  Its just not going to come from Sayyid Imam.

The Egyptian government has appealed a recent court ruling annulling a 2005 Egyptian-Israeli agreement for the export of natural gas to Israel. The court’s ruling called for the freezing of the shipments on the basis that the deal was never approved by the Egyptian parliament. Furthermore, opposition to the deal objects to Egypt selling gas to Israel in light of the current situation in Gaza, especially at a reportedly below-market price.

Unsurprisingly, the Egyptian government has kept the gas flowing and has commented little on the issue, except to say that it would review the prices at which it sells gas to Israel. In addition, the government has denied responsibility for the deal, filing its appeal on the basis that the agreement is not a contract between the state of Egypt and Israel but rather between the Egyptian General Authority for Petroleum and Eastern Mediterranean Gas (EMG), a private energy consortium co-owned by Egyptian and Israeli interests.

Israel remains optimistic that the gas will continue to flow and that Egypt will honor the contractual agreement.

The Egyptian government will likely continue to ignore this issue until an appeals court hears the case on December 15, at which point if it does not win the appeal it will almost certainly find a way to circumvent the original ruling and continue pumping gas to Israel. The Egyptian government is not known for bowing to either judicial or domestic pressure except in the most extreme cases when the feeding of its citizens is concerned, and parliamentary opposition to the agreement will most likely remain marginalized. In fact, pro-government news sources have largely ignored the issue as they did when the agreement was first signed in 2005.

The Egyptian government continues to search for a way to interact with Israel on a political and economic level which is palatable to the “Egyptian street” as well as to various opposition groups including the Muslim Brotherhood, which holds significant sway over public opinion. Israel’s recent withholding of fuel shipments to Gaza does not make this any easier. In addition to revenue from the gas sales, the Egyptian-Israeli export agreement represents an important step in the structuring of economic incentives for cooperation between the two countries. As Matthew has previously noted, Egypt and Israel share a number of mutual interests including the containment of Gaza and the need to engage with each other to some extent in the context of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. The impact of Egyptian-Israeli economic cooperation remains to be seen.

The panel on U.S.-Egypt relations proved the highlight of the annual Middle East Institute conference in DC this past Friday.  Graeme Bannerman moderated the panel.  He holds a Ph.D. in Middle Eastern studies, taught at AUB, served as a longtime staffer for Sen Dick Lugar, and most relevantly, for the past decade or longer he has advised Egyptian Military officials on how to navigate Washington.  Panelists included new Egyptian Ambassador to the United States Sameh Shoukry, previous U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Frank Ricciardone, and Carnegie Fellow Michelle Dunne (consummate Egypt watcher).  Bannerman stole the show (hopefully a recording will soon be found here)

First Dr. Bannerman invited opening remarks from the panelists:

Amb Shoukry:  Egypt is committed to the bilateral relationship, reform, and continuing its positive role as a regional stabilizer.

Amb Ricciardone:  Egypt still matters, and its rather unfortunate to have to say so.  Change is happening in Egypt, even if at a slower pace than some would like.  External forces can not force change, but they can nature it.

Dr. Dunne:  The bilateral relationship has deteriorated under the Bush Administration and needs repair.  It survived disagreements over regional policy, but disagreements over domestic issues have frayed the friendship.  Both sides, but especially the U.S., needs to develop a new diplomatic tack.

Then he admonished the panelists, and each previous panelist who sat on a previous panel at any previous conference, for ignoring the U.S. side of the U.S.-Egypt question.  We place too much emphasis on what Egypt needs to do, he said, and not enough on what America needs to do.  Quoting Michael Jackson he encouraged American policymakers to look at the Man in the Mirror.  The audience of about 300 erupted in applause.  Dr. Bannerman argued that the two pivotal turning points in Middle Eastern affairs happened when Egypt sided with the Soviets and then switched over to side with the Americans.  He wondered why the United States, which had developed so much good will with Egypt over the past 30 years, would possibly want to regress by treating Egypt as a client, not a partner.  Specifically, he pointed out that when Egypt and the U.S. were both in agreement to reduce Economic Support Funds after Fiscal Year 2008, the U.S. failed to respond to Egypt’s proposal to discuss a gradual reduction and instead cut the aid in half unilaterally.  When prompted Ambassador Ricciardone failed to respond to that point, but one suspects that it was heavy handed “tough love guys” in DC who made that call.

Egyptian Ambassador Shoukry defended Egypt’s commitment to reform and democracy during the question and answer period, noting that Egypt boasts 20 political parties.  Dr. Dunne then asked him to name them.  Ouch.  He got a few, but she reminded him that many didn’t have names, real leadership, or viability.  It was a lively panel.

Sayyid Imam, the former leader of the Islamic Jihad Group and a bitter critic of Al-Qaeda, has a new book which is being published in Egypt’s Al-Masri Al-Youm newspaper:

After a year of silence, Sayed Imam will return to the spotlight with the publication of his new book, “Al-Taareya” (The Exposure), which is expected to reveal new details about Jihad operations in Egypt and abroad.

Considered the founder of the Egyptian Jihad Group, Imam’s writings will be printed in serial form in Al-Masry Al-Youm starting today.

Imam, also known as Dr Fadl, first became active in militant circles as a student at Cairo University in the 1970s.  Following President Anwar Sadat’s assassination in 1981, Imam fled to Afghanistan and participated in the campaign against the Russians, and served as the Emir of Tanzim Al-Jihad from 1987 to 1993.

He was compelled to resign to be replaced by his rival Ayman Al-Zawahiri. After 1993, Imam distanced himself from militant activity to work as a surgeon in Yemen. He was extradited to Egypt in 2002.

His influence, however, persisted through his writings, especially the 1,000-page “Compendium of the Pursuit of Divine Knowledge,” written in the early 1990s, which was used by various militant groups to justify their use of terrorism. 

Following his extradition to Egypt, Imam led a series of jail-house seminars between members of Al-Jihad, which led to the modification of some of their hard-line positions, especially regarding the use of violence.

In November 2007, the new ideas — usually referred to as the Revisions — were published in a book called “Rationalizing Jihad in Egypt and the Arab world.”  

Should be an interesting read……

A major consideration behind Congressional attempts to condition or reduce Egyptian military aid is the concern that Egypt is preparing for aggressive military action towards Israel.  The late Tom Lantos led the initiative in Congress.  He had this to say in June 2004 during a subcommittee meeting of the House Committee on International Relations:

Cairo continues to acquire significant new military capabilities with United States taxpayer money, capabilities for which there is little or no obvious military necessity. For example, the Egyptian Navy created 11 new battle units and ordered advanced Harpoon II missiles and fast-attack vessels from the United States despite no obvious maritime threat. Egyptian military exercises are ominously geared toward an Israeli enemy that does not exist. This buildup is not only puzzling, Mr. Chairman, but in my view, it is a policy choice with seriously damaging implications both for Egyptian society and for regional stability.

The debate has recently surfaced in Israel, as right-wing Knesset member Avigdor Lieberman declared that Egypt’s President Mubarak could “go to hell.”  Mr. Lieberman’s suggestion was largely in response to reports that the Egyptian Navy had recently conducted an exercise that targeted Israel as the enemy.  I have not seen any official confirmation that these exercises took place, or if they did, whether they targeted Israel.  Only fringe news publications have ran the story, which you can find here and here.

The Jerusalem Post has two articles of analysis, though.  One by independent analyst Meir Javedanfar, who posits that domestic politics drove Lieberman’s comments, the other quoting Professor Yiftah Shapir of Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Securities Studies, who argues that a strong Egyptian military is neither a shock nor a concern.  He points out that Egypt has a large coastal border and that all countries, Israel included, prepare themselves for conflict with all but their most trusted neighbors.

In that same June 2004 subcommittee meeting, then principal deputy assistant secretary of state for political military affairs Rose Likins assured the committee that the United States considers military releases to Egypt in light of Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge, which basically insures that Israel maintains its military superiority in the region.  You can find the text of the meeting here.

While I cannot defend Egypt’s exercising against a country with which it maintains a cold peace, I can at least understand it.  Every country has the right to protect itself.  Given the close working relationship between Israeli and Egyptian leadership, the strategic peace between the countries for the past three decades, and the relative military capabilities of each country, I do not foresee a great cause for concern.