Al-Ahram: A Diwan of contemporary life (642) The world outside Egypt's varying degrees of historical independence reflected on its foreign policy, writes Professor Yunan Labib Rizk A great deal of information was put forth in previous issues of the Diwan about the nature of Egyptian foreign relations in the contemporary period. Among this was the fact that after Egypt fell under Ottoman rule in 1517 and lost its independence, it no longer had political representatives in other countries. Moreover, the representatives of states, particularly European, within Egypt were limited to a number of consuls concerned with the affairs of their citizens and economic matters. Their meetings with Egypt's pasha took place in the presence of a high-ranking official called the "pash- turgoman", or chief translator, who was assisted by a number of translators who were proficient in several European languages and who were often Armenian. With the establishment of the modern state at the hands of Egypt's remarkable governor Mohamed Ali Pasha and Egypt's economic and political debut in dealing with Europe, the pash-turgomans and their assistants disappeared, to be replaced by a new administration. This formed one unit among the seven departments Mohamed Ali established and was called the Department of Commerce and Foreign Affairs. Its specialisations varied in keeping with the state's needs. Mohamed Ali continued to depend on Armenians to head this department, the most famous of whom was Bughus Youssefian. Yet because Egypt remained subordinate to the Ottomans, the pasha was not allowed to send political representatives abroad. Thus Mohamed Ali sufficed with sending deputies to states such as Britain, France and Italy that Egyptian interests required representation in. During the era of Ismail (1863-1879), this department's name was changed to the Ministry of Foreign affairs, which soon became a unit within the cabinet that was established one year prior to the famed khedive's ousting. For the first time, Egyptians held the post of foreign minister, and while the Armenian Noubar Pasha held the post during that period (five years), the Egyptian held it for much longer (16 years) during the ensuing period. This ministry continued to form one of the most important institutions in the Egyptian political system until the announcement in 1914 of the British protectorate over Egypt. The two foundations upon which this system was established were that the protecting state would assume responsibility of foreign relations and that it would undertake administration of the military forces. This ministry was dissolved following the declaration of the protectorate and replaced with a department affiliated to the British high commissioner's headquarters, a fact that was a significant source of Egyptian anger. The Foreign Ministry was re-established by the 28 February 1922 declaration that legally granted Egypt independence. Its subordination to Al-Dubara Palace was cut, but instead of transferring actual subordination to the cabinet as should have taken place, it remained more closely affiliated to Abdin Palace, a situation that King Fouad was most keen on maintaining. Although the 1923 constitution deemed that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs be included among the ministries, the opinion of Abdin Palace following the establishment of partisan governments as authorised by the constitution was to distance ministries from government supervision so that they would not suffer from partisan struggles. The palace would thus retain its control of them, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the armed forces, and religious affairs as run by Al-Azhar Mosque and the religious endowments. Concerning the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, most of the royal appointment edicts for the new diplomatic corps were issued during the terms of governments loyal to the king, not during the terms of the Wafdist governments, which refused, whether in the time of Saad Zaghloul or Mustafa El-Nahhas, to concede any of their powers to His Majesty. It can thus be said that the periods of this ministry's animation always took place during the terms of minority or royal governments. The close relationship between the Foreign Ministry and Abdin Palace is indicated by the fact that most of the royal cabinet's cadre came from this ministry. In turn, when political circumstances required the ousting of a palace official, he was often placed in the Foreign Ministry. This occurred with Hassan Nashaat Pasha and Zaki El-Ibrashi Pasha, and it also took place during the reign of King Farouk. The most famed of the palace's men came from this institution -- Ahmed Hassanein Pasha, Hafiz Afifi Pasha, and Hassan Youssef Pasha. And it is a custom followed until this day, for the spokesman of the republic's president is always chosen from among Egypt's diplomatic corps. Moreover, advisors close to the president, the most famous of whom are Osama El-Baz and Mustafa El-Fiqi, who held the post of the president's press secretary for a short period, are also diplomats. This confirms that it is an "old-new" relationship. But let us return to the historical developments of Egypt's foreign relations. The 1936 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty left a deep mark on them, for on the one hand they rejected any British tutelage by raising the level of diplomatic exchange with Egypt to the rank of ambassador despite this move being incomplete as is made clear below. On the other hand, it paved the way for Egypt joining the League of Nations the following year after the capitulations were annulled at the Montreaux Convention. This freed the Wafd government's hand, if to a relative degree, in foreign relations, a fact that was not a source of satisfaction for Abdin Palace, whose lord, Fouad I, had in the meantime passed away. His son succeeded him, and did away with El-Nahhas Pasha a few short months after assuming his constitutional powers. Following the formation of the Mohamed Mahmoud government in early 1938, it seemed as though the issue of foreign relations had become its primary preoccupation, a product of its desire to turn Egyptians' attention abroad, away from domestic tensions. ONLY A FEW SHORT WEEKS had passed following the formation of the government of Mohamed Mahmoud Pasha when foreign relations became its primary preoccupation. Al-Ahram recorded the changes that took place in these relations in its editorial of 12 March 1938 titled "Egypt's position among nations". It stated that following Egypt's alliance with Britain and the cancellation of the capitulations, "it has taken possession of its own affairs as all independent states do. The states with which we are connected via mutually shared interests feel nothing but friendship and goodwill towards us." It offered as evidence the successive visits undertaken by various states' politicians and ministers, including the French minister of education, who inspected the country's scientific institutes and praised them upon his return home, and Monsieur Pietre, the head of the Franco- Egyptian Association, "which works to strengthen the ties of friendship between the two countries." It also noted the friendly reception given to the members of the Egyptian delegation to the medical conference held in Baghdad. Al-Ahram concluded by drawing attention to the connotations of this all, and quoted the prime minister as saying, "Our international position during the current period requires from us the greatest alertness and awareness." A few days later it published an exclusive interview that Mohamed Mahmoud Pasha had given to the British newspaper the Daily Mail. In it, he defined Egypt's foreign policy as defending the sovereignty it had recently won, including the continued flow of water from Lake Tana and the sources of the Nile, and safeguarding the status quo of the Suez Canal. He lauded "Egypt's geographic importance" in that it is "the Western portal leading to the East and the ancient key to Africa. Its land is the most fertile on Earth, and we have attempted to mix the best of culture in the West with the most noble of traditions in the East. This is a mixture that will last and whose ties will hold firm." This lovely remark was put to the test of experience following the clouding atmosphere of international relations that autumn (1938) during the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia. It appears that Egypt's representatives abroad were not up to par with the crisis. Al-Ahram wrote that the reports received by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs were inadequate, lacked a detailed conception of the situation, and some contained information that had already been published by newspapers. Al-Ahram wrote that this experience offered an opportunity for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to learn the weak points of its diplomatic corps, and it stressed Egypt's unique geographical position and the fact that its international future depended on the aptitude of its representatives abroad. "The current political crisis is a good opportunity to meet this goal." On this matter, Al-Ahram learnt from foreign representatives, foremost the British ambassador in the Egyptian capital, of their disregard of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and direct contact with the prime minister. "Some of them meet some of the other ministers and top officials without the mediation of the minister of foreign affairs or seeking his permission as international convention requires in other countries. This fact was recorded by the foreign affairs committee in the senate in its report on the foreign affairs budget: "It is necessary to point out the convention on which our political traditions in Egypt are based. Ministers plenipotentiary in Egypt have grown accustomed to taking recourse to the prime minister regarding most affairs, while their reference should naturally be the minister of foreign affairs." Once again, Al-Ahram stressed the necessity of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs exhibiting its interest and drawing the people into following the developments of the current crisis so that a mature public opinion could be formed that would have specific orientations for foreign policy "just as occurred with domestic policy". The government at that time soon turned this into a fact. It began to hold a series of meetings to study the effect of foreign policy developments on the country. Instructions were issued from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to Egypt's representatives in Europe requesting communication with it on the current crisis. Coded telegrams began to pour into Cairo, bearing the developments and incidents they witnessed. Al-Ahram commented on this interest by saying that the crisis developments warned of British involvement in the war and the possibility of Italy entering into it in addition to Germany. "If this happens, and it is not unlikely, Egypt will have commitments it must uphold with its ally Britain on the one hand, and there will be danger threatening Egypt's Western borders on the other." It seems that the global crisis grew more complicated still with the appearance of Japanese intentions. Japan had previously been keen to stay distanced from European conflicts, but the new Japanese intentions were made clear by Japan's ambassador in Berlin: "Britain's dominion in the Far East has ended forever. The new China will become Manchurian again, for it is establishing several independent governments in the manner of the United States of America and allying with Japan, who administrates its political and military relations." This led Al-Ahram to comment that this meant tightening relations between the Tokyo government and the Rome- Berlin axis, a fact that warned of excessive danger. "It is incumbent upon Egyptian politicians in these circumstances to end partisan animosity and call on all children of the nation to unite so that the country can address its foreign policy position with the wisdom and careful consideration it requires." Yet this call was not answered as wished for by Wafd Party circles. The party's mouthpiece, Al-Wafd Al-Misri, commented that Egypt had grown to follow British policy. "It is being led this time to agreement as it was led previous times to dissension. Our sole role is to follow England in signing onto an international agreement on matters that vitally affect us." There is no doubt that these developments breathed life into the government departments and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which began to leaf through its old papers. Among the news that leaked out on this was the undertaking of a review of the international treaties Egypt had signed that were related to states of war and international conduct during times of war. The most significant of the treaties the Cairo government had signed was the treaty on prisoners of war and one that stipulated that submarines not attack commercial ships, as well as the treaty on improving the status of ill persons and those injured in combat. Yet from another perspective, some newspapers wanted to exit the crisis by drawing a picture of foreign policy that Egypt should follow in all cases, what they described as "positive policy". Unusually, Al-Muqattam, which was known for its loyalty to Britain, call for this in three successive articles. In its first article, Al-Muqattam tried to answer a question it posed -- "What positive policies does Egypt choose?" It responded by saying that Egypt was preparing means of defence to ward off the danger of war and its disastrous consequences. "With this policy, the government has received public support because Egyptians refuse for their country to be a target of this danger when it has barely begun to enjoy the blessing of its independence. If we follow the policy of giving in to reality on the basis of nothing better being possible, then we will be subject to the same consequences of overlooking policy related to national defence." In the second article, Al-Muqattam drew attention to the issue of the Nile sources that Italy had taken control of in Ethiopia and the issue of the Suez Canal, which Italy was also turning to. It held that the government should prove that Egypt was an independent and sovereign state with dominion over its territory. This orientation was supported, according to the paper, by the fact that the countries of the east had their eyes on Egypt and that Arab states considered it their elder. Starting from that early time, Al-Muqattam drew attention to Egypt's possession of factors that allowed it to follow positive foreign policies. This orientation was strengthened following WWII, particularly in the period following the Wafd government (1950-1952). This became a declared policy during the Nasser period, placing this approach in the category of old-new policies. Yet Al-Muqattam did not suffice with proposing this idea, rather clarifying it in its third and final article. It held that pursuing this policy required dependence on a strong economic base, something that could not be actualised without a tight irrigation system and the combating of pests that assailed the cotton crops. This was a toilsome task, "but if we consider that done by others among those we imitate, then it is clear that there is no escape from taking on this serious work, especially as we live in a world that is floating, and what all peoples need the most is the factor of stability." As matters escalated in this direction, it was natural that interest was given to improving Egypt's political representation abroad. The Anglo-Egyptian Treaty's provisions for raising the rank of Egypt's representative in London to that of ambassador was supposed to have been followed by raising all the remaining ministers plenipotentiary to the same rank. The Mohamed Mahmoud government did not do this, however, a fact pointed out by a parliamentary representative who expressed his conviction that establishing an Egyptian embassy in Turkey would not conflict with the treaty's provisions, particularly after Turkey had signed "the two charters of the Balkan alliance and the eastern alliance." This led Abdallah Hussein, a lawyer and writer in Al-Ahram, to stress that the treaty did not bar Egypt from establishing embassies in other countries. "As long as that is the case, it is possible for our government to begin thinking about promoting some of our large legations to embassies so as to close all doors of interpretation on issues that affect our foreign command and attempt to limit it, particularly since we now have a diplomatic corps and men qualified to be ambassadors." IT WAS NATURAL for the Egyptian government to respond to these raising voices within and beyond parliament. This fact is made clear by a collection of various related news items that can be followed in Al-Ahram over a lengthy period. Some of this news was about Egypt joining the eastern alliance through what was known as the Saadabad charter, which was signed between Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, and that Rushdi Aras, the Turkish foreign minister, was on his way to Cairo to negotiate on this matter. The Turkish minister indeed arrived in the Egyptian capital and an Al-Ahram reporter rushed to learn definite news on this issue. He confirmed that the Turkish government had made an offer and that it was being discussed with top officials in the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Abdel-Fattah Yehia Pasha was to present the Turkish minister's opinion to the cabinet. Al-Ahram added that Aras would return within a month to complete the documents related to the treaty of friendship and goodwill the minister plenipotentiary had signed in Ankara. At that time, negotiations would begin on Egypt signing onto the eastern alliance charter. Yet Al-Ahram did not make reference to the issue again from near or afar. Confidential British documents, in contrast, indicate that the British embassy headquarters intervened to prevent the Egyptian government from advancing far in this matter, on the basis that Egypt's obligations through joining the alliance conflicted with the stipulations of the treaty of alliance and friendship with London's government. At this point, Mohamed Mahmoud's government halted its impermissible talk. Following that, Egyptian policy was transformed into a role of leadership in the Islamic world. Information on this can be gleaned from European newspapers including the English Daily Telegraph. The Daily Telegraph presented an entire design of Egyptian officials' thought on this matter, stressing that Egypt's religious standing allowed it to hold a special place in the Islamic world. The design, according to the newspaper's characterisation, had ripened in the minds of experienced and trusted men, and was based on a number of points. The most important of these were that the king would become the head of the caliphate and the acknowledged leader of the Islamic nations whose borders fell on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea and which controlled major sea and air routes between the East and West, and that Egyptian princesses would marry Arab princes and kings. A French newspaper confirmed that there was movement towards Egypt occupying the role of leadership in the Islamic world. Its correspondent in Cairo, Maurice Berneaux, drew attention to the fact that during its term the El-Nahhas government had declined signing onto the eastern charter and had exhibited solidarity with the Arabs of Palestine. "Supporters of Islamic politics view that Egypt, which is today at the forefront of Islamic states, must follow policy in conformity with the public interest of Islam. They even make reference to re- establishing the caliphate and granting its authority to King Farouk." The paper closed by saying, "Egypt must not forget that 17 caliphs succeeded each other in Cairo over two centuries of time, and that the heart of Islam continues to beat in Al-Azhar University. The feelings that will throb in the chest of King Farouk if he assumes the caliphate will be that he is returning to Egypt the distinction it was stripped of with the Turkish conquest. This theory has had a strong effect on the heart of the young king since Egypt has regained its independence and its feelings of the homeland's glory and greatness have increased." A surprising fact of that long-ago era is Egypt's interest in playing a role in the African continent despite most of it being under European colonial control at the time. An Al-Ahram editorial titled "Egypt between Africa and Europe" mentioned in its opening that all of the African nations turned their eyes towards Egypt. It ascertained that Egypt's future depended on that of the Nile Valley, and that "Egypt's success is also based on its success." On this issue, Al-Ahram made a comparison between Africa during WWI and the world war whose threat had begun to appear on the horizon. It noted that the battles of the first had all taken place in Europe, while the imminent war "is expected to be of paramount importance. Italy has occupied Ethiopia despite the resolutions of the League of Nations and the position of Britain, and the nationalist Spaniards are seeking the aid of Moroccans from the countryside in their war against Madrid. Italy has taken care to fortify Libya, and turned it into an arena for military practice and manoeuvres. Recently, Germany has risen up and demanded African colonies. As such, Egypt cannot afford to close its eyes to what is taking place before it with regard to the African continent." Egyptian interest in the African continent was highlighted in the London Sunday Times in an article titled "Shared interests between Egypt and South Africa." It stated that South Africa had undertaken leadership of the countries in central and southern areas of the continent. "Yet the next step, in which our security is concerned, is for measures to be taken to distribute the scope of our influence to the shores of the Mediterranean and the banks of the Suez Canal." As the new system of governance in Egypt was concerned with organising a modern army, and there was no doubt that the Egyptian government and South Africa had some shared interests, particularly in the security of the Suez Canal, it was possible for any discussions between the two parties to have led to far-reaching consequences affecting them both. With this outline of all these policies, it is possible to see that at that early period near the end of the 1930s, Egyptians had already become aware of their position that made them a central link not only in the Arab world but also the eastern and Islamic world and the African continent. They turned to this fact even more following WWII, and it was soon turned into a planned policy during the Nasser era for the areas surrounding Egypt. Yet it seems that the principles of foreign policies discussed by Egyptians at that time have remained constant despite the succession of generations, for the realities of geography have always made them old-new.
