By Dina Ezzat Egypt and Sudan managed to contain what could have been a major crisis that almost erupted when Sudanese President Omar Bashir hinted at Egyptian involvement in the US strike against a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum. "The planes that struck the factory came from the north," Bashir said on Saturday. On Sunday, while Sudanese demonstrators were attacking the Egyptian Embassy in Khartoum, Foreign Minister Amr Moussa denied Sudanese allegations. "This is not true at all," he said. "Any such allegations are false, root and branch. These are baseless allegations." On Monday morning Moussa spoke by telephone with his Sudanese counterpart Mustafa Osman Ismail. A few hours later, Bashir said that he had never intended to single out a specific country for blame. Egyptian officials say that Cairo was not consulted or notified in advance by the Americans. Some even say that the strike against Khartoum had not been anticipated. "We expected that Afghanistan was going to face some sort of action by the US. We expected that US commandos might attempt to kidnap Osama Bin Laden, but it was a complete surprise for us to see Khartoum being hit," said one source. And the surprise was far from pleasant. "First of all, Khartoum is an Arab capital and Egypt would never want to see an Arab capital being hit, particularly with no backing whatsoever from the UN Security Council," said one source. "Sudan is our immediate southern neighbour," the source continued. "For obvious reasons, for concerns over water resources and security, Egypt is not prepared to see Khartoum subjected to further strikes that could bring about instability." For Cairo, any additional strikes against Sudan would further shake an already volatile situation. A statement issued shortly after the strikes did not refer to them explicitly, but Foreign Minister Moussa later publicised Egypt's concern. While stressing the importance of combating terrorism to which Egypt was often a victim, Moussa explicitly stated that "no one country should be seen as a substitute to the UN Security Council. It is within the framework of international legality that the issue of terrorism should be dealt." Egypt made this point clear to the US as Cairo acknowledged the problem of terrorism but expressed concern that "in the case of Sudan" the strike was not the best approach to the problem. The Americans responded that what they did against Sudan, as well as Afghanistan, was a legal act of self-defence that "was carried out within the framework of international legality". The Americans cited the UN charter which sanctions the right of states to defend themselves and their interests. Speaking to reporters after a lengthy meeting with Moussa, Sudan's ambassador to Cairo, Ahmed Abdel-Halim, said that he did not feel that Egypt was taking a biased stand against Sudan. "I found that Minister Moussa was very keen on hearing Sudan's point of view," the ambassador said. The crisis that threatened Egyptian-Sudanese relations followed hot on the heels of the Cairo conference for leaders of Sudan's political opposition. Sudanese newspapers close to the Islamic Salvation Front criticised Egypt for hosting the summit and suggested that Egyptian overtures to improve relations with Khartoum were a ploy. Egypt says that it was not taking sides. "When it comes to Sudan, we are very careful to avoid anything that could stir any problems or unrest. We hosted that conference to assert the importance of maintaining Sudan's unity," said a diplomatic source. "The conference came at a time when differences between the various Sudanese factions were increasing in a way that threatened a wider civil war. Therefore, Egypt had to do something. This is our obligation." To assert good faith, Egyptian officials say, Cairo is not making a big fuss now about the issue of Egyptian properties in Sudan that were supposed to be returned by Khartoum. According to one diplomat, "for Egypt, the priority now is to spare Sudan anything that may threaten its integrity or stability".
