Who will serve Egypt's interest best, the Republican Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate? This was the topic of a debate that Egypt's most famous anchor, Ibrahim Eissa, invited Emad Gad, vice-director of Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies, and myself to deliberate on. While I was asked to argue in favour of Clinton, I was astounded to see the difference in support by the audience: 83 per cent to 17 per cent favouring Trump over Clinton. In spite of my sincere effort to tilt the balance a little more towards Clinton, the end result was even more disheartening, as those favouring Trump rose to 87 per cent against 13 per cent for Clinton. This prompted me to ponder why Egyptians are so out of touch with reality. We certainly ought to be better equipped for the awaited potential winner, where all signs designate Clinton as the next president. The latest polls brought up by the Trump-supportive Republican channel Fox News indicate without doubt that Clinton has the lead by over eight per cent and has already won 348 out of 538 electors of which the Electoral College is consisted. Needless to say, it is the Electoral College that has the final say in the US presidential election. Venturing to explain the motives behind this overwhelming preference for Trump, one explanation came to mind: Fear. Fear of a continuation of the era of President Barack Obama who by all measures was quite a disappointment to many Egyptians of different classes and backgrounds. A disappointment not only because of his empty promises, but also and more so because of his apathy and reluctance towards fighting against the so-called Islamic State (IS), which is creating mayhem and wretchedness in the region and in the world at large. Trump, by contrast, has promised the uprooting of IS and its total annihilation. Whether he would stick to his promise and how he would do it is seemingly secondary for the majority of Egyptians, who like more the tone of Trump rather than believe in his probable actions. Needless to echo here the vast experience gained by Clinton from over 40 years of political and social work at a time in which Trump was busy raising money and building casinos. I hasten to add that the purpose of this article is not to publicly favour of Clinton, but rather examine what the prospective next US president could offer to Egypt and the region as a whole. This does not mean the exclusion of Trump from our calculations, as things can alter overnight. Here are some facts we should take into account while preparing for Hillary Clinton possibly becoming the next president of the United States. We are aware that the US interest in Egypt as a regional power is due mainly to what Egypt can offer that may serve American and at the same time Egyptian interests in the region in the context of renewed relations between the two countries. Relations between states are a two-way street based on a give and take rapport. There is no state that only takes, just as there is no state that only gives. It is worth recalling at this juncture that Egypt played a key role in two specific situations, where it was comfortably capable of forcing the US to be generous in its giving. The first was surely the Camp David Peace Agreement in 1978, when Egypt in return received substantial financial support to the amount of $3.6 billion. The second time was ahead of the first Gulf War, when the economic situation in Egypt was very critical and Egypt was even lacking the ability to repay its foreign debt. The International Monetary Fund had refused to negotiate with Egypt due to the criticism addressed by then president Mubarak to the then managing director of the fund, describing him as a “village barber”. Egypt provided important facilities for the liberation of Kuwait, thus securing the US's full support for Egypt in its ordeal. The United States abolished military debt of more than $6 billion, stood with Egypt in its negotiations with the IMF, and committed European countries to reschedule Egypt's debt repayments. Egypt even exceeded Turkey in importance for the United States, where at the time the Turkish parliament refused to allow the United States to open a northern front against Iraq. Furthermore, Egypt is capable of competing in its own domain on par with the newly emerging regional powers such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey and can become indispensable to the US as the gateway to stability and peace in the region. The first of these tasks is Egypt's unmatched role in the Palestinian conflict. What prompts me to refer to this is the well-known interest candidate Hillary Clinton has shown in finding a just settlement to the Palestinian issue, particularly as secretary of state in the Obama administration. Hillary Clinton was among the first in the US administration to call in 1998 for the establishment of a Palestinian state as being in the long-term interests of the Middle East. At that time, she was the wife of President Bill Clinton. This proposal, however, was adopted by her husband's administration and fully integrated in the initiative put forward by Bill Clinton, only a few months before the expiration of his second term, to then president Yasser Arafat and prime minister Ehud Barak. It is not unlikely for Hillary Clinton to revive this initiative and push for it, taking advantage of the bonds of friendship connecting her with Netanyahu, Israel's premier. This is in total contrast to President Obama who had no margin of manoeuvre with Netanyahu because of zero chemistry between the two. Hence the poor performance of Obama regarding the Palestinian cause. One of the first steps undertaken by Hillary Clinton during her tenure as secretary of state in January 2009 was the appointment of Senator George Mitchell as special representative for the Middle East. This demonstrates the priority Clinton attributed then to the Palestinian issue in the framework of her foreign policy. In this context, Clinton had a thought for Egypt in her book, emphasising the supportive role Egypt played in the quest for a just and lasting settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis. The attempts, however, failed in the wake of the Arab Spring, the incapacity of President Obama to move the matter forward, and the trend towards neglect of the Palestinian cause altogether. The familiarity of Clinton with the Palestinian conflict and her clear understanding of the mentality prevailing in the region is a key feature enabling her to function from day one; a feature that is non-existent for Trump as a result of his lack of experience in foreign policy, lack of knowledge of the region, and his constantly oscillating positions. Thus, Clinton's possible success is a positive point in restoring Egypt's weight in the region and revamping its relationship with the US. Egypt's role regarding the Palestinian conflict cannot be replaced or emulated by any other country. With regard to Islamic extremism, and contrary to the rumours promulgated by Trump and the Republican Party, Hillary Clinton was not the one in favour of the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Egypt. Together with Vice President Biden and others, she was of the view not to accelerate abandoning Mubarak and to keep him in charge in any transitional period. Her camp stood against President Obama and the White House to avoid the Islamists, who were the most organised forces at that time, taking over. Clinton's camp was harshly criticised as being the old guard versus Obama's younger team, who were closer to the Egyptian youth and understood better their thinking. One can easily claim that Hillary Clinton sees eye to eye with Trump on the danger and brutality of Islamic extremism and the threat it poses at the regional and international levels. What differs is the way they would go about in handling this monster. Unlike Trump, Clinton has a plan to fight the so-called Islamic State. And, contrary to President Obama, Clinton, has also made clear that she does not mind dispatching US ground forces. Clinton knows that fighting the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq has to be supplemented by exterminating growing hotbeds of extremism in Libya and elsewhere. It becomes more clear that Clinton will not walk in the footsteps of Obama. Hillary Clinton has the luxury to choose between two models in contrast to one another, that of Obama and that of her husband. While Obama and his administration have shown passiveness and regression in dealing with Islamic extremism, Bill Clinton, her husband, came to the rescue of Muslims in Kosovo and Bosnia. He did not hesitate to go to war alone in spite of the then Russian veto against launching an attack on Yugoslavia. It is likely that Hillary Clinton will follow the model of her husband in the fight against IS. The most important question remains: How can Egypt exploit the current situation to its advantage, so that the two countries join hands in fighting terrorism and restoring stability to the region? Egypt remains the safety valve and the gateway to stability amidst a sweeping storm across the region. Egypt is the first country to realise the gravity of religious extremism and is fighting forcefully against it. It is soothing to see the United States finally convinced of the rightfulness of Egypt's cause. Egypt is also becoming increasingly important in its role in helping to rebuild the “nation-state”, whether in Syria or Libya. The US is slowly but surely retracting on its intent of reconstructing the region along new demarcation lines. There is no alternative to the nation-state, which has succeeded in maintaining stability and coexistence over the last hundred years. The fragmentation of the nation-state is in the interest of none. In addition, one should not lose sight of the central role of Egypt in the development and reformulation of religious discourse, which no other state is capable of or can afford doing. This has become an unavoidable role for Egypt at the regional level. Egypt should start rearranging its files while observing the expected changes in the new US administration. While Egyptian and American interests are surely not identical, they can meet in some or many circumstances. This will enable the two countries to establish prolific cooperation and partnership based primarily on mutual benefit and respect for one another. The writer is a professor of practice and director of the Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal Centre for American Studies and Research at the School of Global Affairs and Public Policy at the American University in Cairo.
