The turbulence in Egyptian-US relations is no bad thing, writes Ibrahim Nafie Some political forces in Egypt think that the current climate in Egyptian-US relations offers them an opportunity to make gains or achieve certain objectives. Curiously, while rubbing their hands at what they claim is a crisis in bilateral relations they attack the government for kowtowing to American policies. This obvious contradiction exposes the spurious motives behind their rhetoric. However, they are probably not alone in their inability to understand the true nature of Egyptian-US relations. Egypt and the US are bound by a complex strategic relationship that defies explanation in terms of the norms that govern ordinary bilateral relations. Functioning across several interrelated levels of economic, military and political cooperation, this relationship aims to realise the fundamental interests of both parties in their capacities as a major regional power, on the one hand, and the only superpower, on the other. It is therefore only natural for both sides to share the desire to strengthen and develop that relationship. Indicative of how important this relationship is to Washington is that Egypt is the second largest recipient of US aid after Israel. Moreover, Washington has often responded to Egypt's requests for advanced weaponry, and has defended Egypt against the outcries of Zionist organisations and Israel's supporters in the US. Indeed, so frequent have such instances been that Israeli commentators began to accuse Washington of jeopardising Israeli security by violating its pledge to guarantee Israel's "qualitative military superiority". Despite the considerable realm of convergence between the two sides they simultaneously recognise the need to allow scope for divergence, to accommodate for their differences in national interests and outlook. Thus, when Egypt adopted certain positions or translated these positions into policy, this was never cause for either side to question the fundamental basis of their relationship. Moreover, one of the most salient features of Egyptian-US relations is that disagreements are not, by and large, over issues that are directly related to bilateral relations but have tended to be about Israel. Egypt has always taken exception to Washington's unmitigated bias for Israel to the extent of supporting its refusal to abide by the principles of international law and UN resolutions. A just and comprehensive settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict would eliminate the major obstacle to the development of more robust Egyptian-US relations and Arab-US relations in general. Another not unrelated issue has increasingly edged its way into the spotlight. Since 11 September 2001, Washington has been pushing for "reform" of the Arab and Islamic world. Initially it had a blueprint for this process that it wanted to impose with the help of certain political forces. However, Washington eventually realised that reform cannot be imposed from outside, that it must take into account the specific cultural and social characteristics of this region, and that it must proceed in a balanced way and at a pace appropriate to the needs of the societies concerned. After reaching this realisation, President Bush also recognised the crucial role Egypt had to play in leading the region to democratisation, just as in a previous phase it had spearheaded the drive for peace. Unfortunately, certain statements and opinions issuing from Washington have left a margin of ambiguity that has been seized upon by some, Secretary of State Condaleezza Rice's references to "constructive destabilisation" being foremost among them. Egypt and the US certainly have differences over the question of reform, differences which may have seemed acute at first but which both sides quickly put into a proper perspective. What is important is that Egypt is engaged in a process of comprehensive reform which has been carefully paced so as to buffer society against debilitating shocks and to safeguard the interests of the disadvantaged. After a period of gradual economic reform, the government of Ahmed Nazif stepped up the pace with a series of important measures that yielded positive results, earning the praise of US and other international officials. The same applies to political reform, a process that began under President Sadat and that this year brought President Mubarak's landmark call to amend Article 76 of the Constitution so as to provide for direct multi- candidate presidential elections. Although there have been some mistakes in the process of translating this historic decision into law, we must nevertheless resolve to keep our sights trained on the future and Egypt's higher national interests. The amendment is not the end of the road, but rather the beginning. If we are to build on this experience we must bring to bear a spirit of constructive engagement, for this will ultimately be far more productive than boycotts or other forms of negativism, regardless of the justifications. Regardless of the differences Egypt and the US have had over reform and other issues, it is important to bear in mind that the framework of their relationship is such that it can absorb the occasional flare-up of tempers and restore matters to their customary even keel. This dynamic was palpably evident during Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif's recent visit to the US. The sheer scale of the number of meetings, interviews and media air time accorded to this visit -- the first by an Egyptian prime minister to Washington -- is testimony to the eagerness of the American side to hear the Egyptian point of view. Nazif, for his part, did well. In his many talks with US officials he proved himself a persuasive interlocutor with a thorough appreciation of the dynamics of Egyptian-US relations and the areas of convergence and divergence between them. We could see these qualities in action in his interview with USA Today, appearing in that newspaper's edition of 17 May. When asked about the current tensions in Egyptian-US relations, he described them as "a slight turbulence, which," he said, "in a relationship cannot be anything but good". As to why Egypt would not permit the establishment of religious political parties, he said, "There is no one criterion for democracy and no single standard that suits all. We do not believe that we should have a party from which certain people would be barred from membership." On President George Bush's initiative for spreading democracy in the Middle East, he said, "I believe that no one disputes his call to enhance democracy. It is a noble desire and there is a big need for it. The problem is how and when, or in other words, approach and pace. This is the area in which different countries will have different responses, and the role of the US in this regard should be advisory." Dr Nazif, during his visit to the US, dotted the i's and crossed the t's on many issues. He laid out the Egyptian vision for economic and political reform and development in a manner that his American audiences could grasp, which in turn should advance his appeal to Washington to accept the area of difference it has with Egypt in this regard. After all, it should not be that difficult to concede that in conducting its programme for reform and change Egypt is proceeding from a purely national vision and at a pace intended to maintain balance between moving towards the desired objectives of reform and safeguarding security and social stability.
