Ever since the popular revolution of early 2011 with the aspirations of millions of Egyptians to put Egypt on a new path, questions have been raised concerning what impact would that have on the foreign policy of the country, particularly towards both the United States and Russia, two superpowers with whom Egypt has forged alliances and severed relations, on and off, during the last half century. The world of today is completely different from the Cold War years. Those years had seen the ebb and flow of relations of Egypt with Moscow and Washington. Lately, and in the context of a widely shared belief, Egyptians keep debating the future of their country's relations with both the Americans and Russians. The debate always approaches the issue in terms of a triangle: namely, Cairo, Washington and Moscow; a reminder of bygone days in the 1950s and 60s. The background and the mindset dates back to the Cold War years. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) developed in response to the deep polarisation between East and West that characterised the Cold War. Third World countries had wanted to steer away from this kind of dangerous polarisation in order to protect their newly acquired independence and sovereignty. Egypt, India and the former Yugoslavia founded NAM in Bandung in April 1955. Egyptian foreign policy from that date until the October War of 1973 was guided by the principles upon which NAM had been founded. Gamal Abdel-Nasser's Egypt had done its best to develop a balanced relationship, more or less, with the two superpowers of the day. But the containment theory that had guided American foreign policy in the 1950s and 60s and the Israeli connection put severe strains on Egyptian-American relations at the time. The Kennedy years had seen attempts on the part of presidents Nasser and John F Kennedy to normalise relations, but the assassination of Kennedy put an end to such rapprochement. The administration of president Lyndon Johnson sealed the fate of any attempts to engage the two countries in a serious dialogue that would have aimed at overcoming fears, frustrations or misunderstandings between the two countries. The will was not there on the part of Washington and this led, ultimately, to the Six-Day War of June 1967. This year was a turning point, not only for Egypt, but for Egypt and the former Soviet Union. The two entered into a semi-alliance. From an American perspective, the objective had become how to use the occupation of Sinai by the Israelis as a negotiating tactic to break that alliance as a first step, and at a later stage, drive the Soviet Union not only out of Egypt, but from the Middle East and the Arab world altogether. The October War of 1973 provided the Americans with such an opportunity and the shuttle diplomacy of then-US secretary of state Henry Kissinger did the rest. He had found in president Anwar Al-Sadat a willing partner in this respect. The signing of the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty in Washington on 26 September 1979 was a watershed in the history of the Middle East. The United States replaced the Soviet Union as the sole superpower in the region, thus ushering in the age of American hegemony in the Middle East to the detriment of Egypt and the Arab countries. The emergence of a strong and assertive Russia on the world scene could change this strategic imbalance in the Middle East. We should welcome the comeback of Moscow to the Arab world, not because we want to fight American interests, but because we aspire to protect our own national interests and solicit the support of Russia and China in questions that we deem crucial to our independence, territorial integrity and prosperity. Our alignment with Moscow in the past was a decision of necessity, but today, and in anticipation of a visit by President Vladimir Putin to Cairo, maybe before the end of the year, it should herald a new relationship with Moscow based on a decision of choice. Such a bold decision should not be seen nor interpreted as a reaction to certain American attitudes or decisions in the wake of the June Revolution in Egypt, but rather, as a response to the transformation that the international system has been undergoing for the last 10 years. And also, and which is more important, as a response to the will of the people. A foreign policy that rests on solid popular support is more enduring and more effective in the long term. The international system has been steering away from the New World Order that president George Bush Sr talked about after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the liberation of Kuwait in January 1991. In fact, the New World Order was a uni-polar world where the United States became the sole superpower, unrivalled militarily and economically. Today, the relative strengths of the richest and most powerful nations on Earth are constantly changing. The same phenomenon is occurring in the Middle East. It is only normal that these changes will have an impact on the direction of Egyptian foreign policy in the years to come. The choices should not be made with a Cold War mindset, but in the context of how best to serve and protect our national interests and enable us to deal effectively with the myriad of domestic and regional challenges facing us. We should be guided in this respect by the Indian model. India has successfully maintained its strategic relations with Russia and, in the meantime, signed an agreement on strategic partnership with the United States in 2005. This model has its roots in the heritage and the philosophy of the Non-Aligned Movement. I believe that Egypt, in charting new paths in its foreign relations with the super and major powers of today's world should be inspired by the principles of the Non-Aligned Movement. This would be befitting a country that was a founding member of NAM and one of its leading advocates for many years in the past. This role had earned us a position and stature on the world scene that we regrettably lost in the last four decades. The time has come to reoccupy this position once again. The Egyptian people will not settle for less.
The writer is former assistant to the foreign minister.
