Nations, like houses, cannot be built on sand, writes Amin Howeidi* To build is a difficult activity. It requires sound planning and an ability to overcome obstacles. The whole process must be carefully timetabled, and attention focussed from the moment the foundations are laid until the roof is finished. To pull down, on the other hand, is simple. To establish a successful factory is hard. As well as the construction and equipping of the plant workers must be trained and markets for the final product explored and accessed. Compared to which selling a factory, even finding a single strategic purchaser, is a relatively simple procedure. However difficult it is to erect a single building it is harder by far to build a nation. While nation building can never outstrip the developing country's capacity, the sum of its strength in various fields, it can all too easily fall behind these capacities. The mere existence of ability is no guarantee of success for that ability must be capitalised, and that requires a degree of creative flexibility. But why speak of nation building now? No issue could be more significant at a time when the Egyptian regime is creeping towards modernisation. Few would deny the seriousness of the difficulties in which we find ourselves. But to move beyond the problems requires that we take a long, hard look at the realities we face. As other nations advance they inspire our envy, forcing us to question why we are being left behind. Sadly, the political illiteracy displayed in the platforms of the majority of candidates in the recent presidential elections suggests that we have a vast amount of space to cover if we are to catch up. In the context of nation building it might be useful to examine the experience of the United States. How did it manage, in just two centuries, to climb to the apex of the global system? There are certainly enough states that seek to emulate American success, coveting American democracy, the open American market and even American traditions and customs. We cannot object to their ambitions, as long as they don't set about achieving their goals by simplistic imitation. Restricting the role of the state, unleashing market forces and allowing an unregulated private sector to dominate and drive the economy will not see developing nations advance far along the US path to success. To do so simply apes what America does now, without considering how it reached the point at which it can do the things it does. What stages did the US pass through to reach its present position? It did not simply jump to the top of the heap using economic liberalism as its springboard. We must examine closely the ascent of America, the course it navigated through the shadows of 19th and early 20th century European dominance as it slowly climbed the ladder, exploiting both circumstance and its abilities to its own advantage. Wise leaders are those who bring out the strengths of their peoples. Wise leaders build nations and they do so by learning from the experience of others and benefiting from their stumbles and falls. After the war of independence the leaders of the nascent United States of America realised that the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans furnished the country its greatest security, which lay in its distance from the only potential threat, Europe. It exploited this geo- strategic advantage, pursuing a policy of isolationism as far as Europe and its wars were concerned. And wars there were aplenty as Europe engaged in endless attempts to maintain a balance between its component states. Alliances, like that between Russia, Austria and Prussia, came and went, and the continent was torn apart by regular conflict, most notably during the Napoleonic wars. America chose to distance itself from this policy of alliances and remained neutral towards Britain and France. France was lord of the land, due to the superiority of its army, while Britain ruled the sea thanks to the strength of its navy. America left the two to fight it out like roosters without allying itself to either. The strategy was successful, and America exploited its distance from the European threat to expand. America annexed Florida, Texas, Mexico, Alaska and Louisiana, then all the land west of the Mississippi. It gained power without expending any -- which was convenient since it had little to begin with. What is surprising is that it expanded its area without enlarging its army which, initially at least, was limited by Congress to 25,000 men and a small naval fleet. As late as 1890, America was in the 14th place in international league tables in terms of the size of its armed forces, and its navy was weaker than that of Italy. Yet its industrial production was 13 times that of Italy. A policy of isolationism and limited expenditure on arms allowed America to focus on developing its productive base. By 1885 its industrial production had outstripped that of Britain, and by the end of the 19th century its consumption of oil had surpassed that of Germany, France, Austria, Russia, Japan, and Italy. Its population doubled thanks to immigration. The newly born republic could not remain isolated forever and was soon ready to take on an international role. President Theodore Roosevelt declared that America had a voice in global politics. The time had come, he declared, to "view our national security from a global perspective". "The breadth of the two oceans is not enough to hold back the reach of America. Life is a struggle for survival and the strongest and fittest win, as Darwin said. What a nation cannot protect through its own ability international forces cannot protect. It is better for our policy to be like that of Frederick the Great and Bismarck rather than that of Wilson. If I had to choose between a policy of milk and water and of steel and blood I would choose the latter." America, then, came to believe in flexing its muscles only after it had developed them. Before that it had used isolationism to protect its domestic base so that it could strengthen it into a stable launching pad for its international ambitions. Not that I am suggesting that in building our nation we opt for either isolation or the arrogance of force. Such a policy is no longer tenable in the face of globalisation. I am simply saying that as it faces the future Egypt must decide in what direction it wants to head and then formulate the strategies that will enable it to pursue that journey. Where does Egypt want to be? How does it intend to get there? Once the goal has been identified it will be possible to build the kind of state institutions that allow that goal to be reached. We need to develop a realistic strategy and timetable to get us to where we want to be. Without identifying the destination, let alone the means that will allow us to reach it, we will expend all our energies reacting to developments on a daily basis. What is our strategy up to 2010 or 2020? If there is one it should be made public. If there is not then one must be devised, and today rather than tomorrow. The world is moving fast, while we continue to crawl like a tortoise. * The writer is former minister of defence and chief of general intelligence.
