This image will be automatically disabled when it gets reported by several people.
Obama: Between Mubarak's and Morsi's Cairo The US has not appeared to welcome a visit by Egypt's President Morsi to Washington. A trip to the US capital, however, hardly lends any additional legitimacy to a freely-elected head of state
Four years ago, Barack Obama fulfilled his campaign promise during the first presidential race that if he won he would send a message to Muslims from a Muslim capital. President Obama chose to give his address in Egypt at Cairo University on 4 June 2009. Reuters stated that the object of the speech, entitled 'A New Beginning,' was to foster good relations with the Muslim world, which had been deformed during George W Bush's tenure. But Obama was not only looking for a new beginning for relations between Washington and the Muslim world, but also a new beginning for ties with Cairo. What Obama mentioned in his speech regarding democracy both pleased and annoyed the Egyptian regime. On the one hand, he emphasised that it was unacceptable to interfere in the affairs of another country by saying, “No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by another.” Then he said: “America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.” Obama's decision to choose Cairo as his first platform from which to address the Muslim world was a serious blow for those who tried to convince him to use other venues. Several experts advised the US president to go to Istanbul or Jakarta instead of Cairo, arguing that his trip should be to a majority-Muslim country ruled by a democratic regime. Both these conditions applied to Indonesia and Turkey, but not Egypt. But to the disappointment of protestors, Obama chose Cairo and ignored all these considerations. He chose Cairo for several reasons. Most importantly, because Cairo is the heart of the Muslim world and its official language is Arabic, which is the language of the Quran. Therefore, it is a magic location in the region that would surely make his mission easier and increase his popularity among Muslim countries. Second, he took the decision owing to Egypt's political weight, which was clearly on display during the crisis of Israeli aggression against the Gaza Strip during Obama's first days in the White House. Egypt exerted great effort to defuse the crisis – although, more recently, its role has diminished on the regional stage. Third, he took the decision because of Egypt's strategic importance for the US as the main mediator in the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is the most serious threat to Israel's national security – something consecutive US administrations have prioritised on their foreign policy agendas. Although I was very pleased that my city, Cairo, had been chosen – allowing Obama to revive US-Egyptian relations after Bush embarrassed Mubarak to the point that the latter stopped going to Washington for five years – something about it disturbed me. Obama's visit was followed by two final trips by Mubarak to Washington in August 2009 and September 2010. During these visits, Mubarak met with Obama in the White House and ties between the two sides returned to the normalcy of earlier days, amid contradictions between declared principles and higher interests. Meanwhile, the US president has not yet met his new Egyptian counterpart until today. Obama did not travel to Cairo to congratulate Mohamed Morsi for becoming the first freely elected president in Egyptian and Arab history. He merely sent his secretary of state on 14 July 2012. Obama also skipped Egypt in March, although his tour of the region took him to Israel, the West Bank and Jordan. It is no secret that Washington knows Egypt's president wants to visit for many reasons. The presidency announced in August 2012 that Morsi would visit the US capital after his trip to New York to attend UN General Assembly meetings in September – but that never happened. Then the Egyptian presidency issued a statement that Morsi's visit would be in December 2012 – but this didn't happen either. Then Morsi himself told CNN that he would be visiting Washington before the end of March 2013 – but this, too, failed to materialise. So far, the US administration has merely sent indirect messages, not welcoming Egypt's president to Washington, merely stating that such trips are “not scheduled” on Obama's agenda – despite several public announcements by the Egyptian presidency that Morsi would soon be visiting the White House. Mubarak's Cairo – which Obama visited, while also receiving Mubarak twice in the White House – was no doubt more stable, under the firm control of a police dictatorship. Morsi's Cairo is, unfortunately, less stable and more chaotic. Nonetheless, it is undoubtedly more dynamic and free despite the existence of many deviations and violations of democratic rules. Today's Cairo is witnessing the birth of a nascent democracy out of the womb of a despotic regime that controlled the lives of millions for many long decades. I repeat again: the desire of the Egyptian presidency for Morsi to visit Washington must be reined in, and should be done with Egypt and the US standing on equal footing and based on calculations of losses and gains for both sides. A visit by Egypt's president should not be a favour by the US side in return for something; Washington knows it cannot risk its relations with those in power in Egypt, even as economic and political conditions in Egypt deteriorate. Obama and Washington are mistaken in thinking that Morsi's Cairo seeks the same approval that Mubarak's Cairo had sought; they must remember that Cairo does not lose anything by not being visited, and that a trip to Washington does not give any additional legitimacy to a freely-elected president. The writer can be reached via email [email protected] via Twitter at@ElmenshawyM http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/72774.aspx
