This website is no longer actively maintained
Some material and features may be unavailable

April 14, 2009
U.S. and Egypt must mend ailing relationship

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

U.S. special envoy George Mitchell has begun a two-week trip to a number of Middle East and north African countries, including Egypt.

Jon Alterman is director and senior fellow of the Middle East Program at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. He writes at “World Politics Review” about the changing relationship between the United States and Egypt, arguing that relations have been damaged over the past several years and need rebuilding.

U.S.-Egypt: The Magic is Gone

It’s no secret that the U.S.-Egyptian relationship is ailing. As his term went on, President George W. Bush seemed to go to Egypt principally to deliver stern lectures. After years of visiting Washington every spring, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak stopped coming to Washington at all. Despite — or perhaps because of — $2 billion per year changing hands, the mutual resentment has become palpable.

The hostility among the two leaders reflects a deeper divide between their governments and even among peoples. More than three decades after U.S. and Egyptian presidents together changed the landscape of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the U.S.-Egyptian relationship has grown stale. Egyptians feel unappreciated, and they complain that they have sold off their foreign policy for meager reward. Americans feel that their aid has been taken for granted, and they are embarrassed that so close an ally has such a checkered record in treating its own people. Although the two sides continue to cooperate on a wide array of shared interests, the amount that is done out of goodwill continues to dwindle.

The relationship has been drifting downward for years, and it can drift downward still. Yet the way in which the relationship continues to disappoint expectations is corrosive. It makes even things that Americans and Egyptians agree upon harder to accomplish, and that exacerbates differences. Both countries have an interest in redefining the relationship, in one of two ways.

One option is to reinvigorate the relationship by giving it a renewed sense of purpose. The modern Egyptian-American relationship was forged in the depths of the Cold War when Egypt pivoted out of the Soviet embrace, aligned itself with the United States, and defied the Arab consensus by making peace with Israel. The consequences of Egyptian policy were truly strategic not only for Egypt, but also for the United States. Egypt was a clear regional leader, and its actions helped reshape the Middle East.

Now, there is no grand project that the two countries share. With no Cold War, a much less defiant Arab consensus, and Arab governments’ grudging acceptance of Israel in the Middle East, Egypt is harder pressed to play the role of a vanguard, while the United States is less in need of one. Today’s geopolitics lend themselves to small and incremental moves rather than bold strokes. Egypt’s help fighting the “small wars” of the twenty-first century, for example, is important but probably insufficient to be truly strategic. In other areas where the United States has an interest, Egypt is not the most likely agent of change. It is hard to imagine Egypt leading an economic transition in the Middle East, and its political culture does not lend itself toward dramatic shifts in politics and governance.

None of this is to suggest that a grand project cannot be found, only that one is not evident. But what is clear is that the current relationship is predicated on having a grand project, and the absence of such a project makes the relationship hollow.

The other option is for both Egypt and the United States to agree that the current relationship has outlived its usefulness, and the time has come for both countries to invest in diversifying their relationships in the Middle East and around the world.

To read more, see the original post.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user World Economic Forum under a Creative Commons license.

bookmark    print




After Jimmy Carter twisted Menachem Begin’s arms to return the Sinai, with 50% of Israel’s oil supplies, to Egypt in exchange for a piece of paper called a “peace treaty,” it not only agreed to compenstate Israel with nearly $3 billion in military and economic aid, but oddly enough, also decided to give Egypt nearly as much every year! I can’t undestand why, but that’s the way it as been for 30 years. Today the Egyptian army, with US aid and tutelage, is the strongest army since the days of the Pharaohs, with an army twice the size of Israel’s fully mobilized reserves. So Egypt has something to complain about? Of course it is going to remain a dictatorship. What else could it be?


Can we?
Can we not?
The boundaries that separate…
Where are they when all land
is without true natural boundaries
before artificial boundaries were
by humans made
and are by all creatures
potentially and eventually ignored?

There are political boundaries
only insofar as there are covers to books.


Thusly and undivided. Shadows and fog.


I am not librarian and I never lived in the White House, but I do remember that it was a Christian mob that burned the library at Alexanderia and set back knowledge in the West and it was Washington politics that keeps a blind eye on what is right and wrong with the Palestine occupation. I do not want to preach here, but how nuts are we to think Egypt and the US can solve diplomatic problems without healing the great wound in the Middle East, which is the source of septicemia in the whole region.


If Egypt’s “political culture does not lend itself toward dramatic shifts in politics and govenance” perhaps it could lend its frustrations with the Modern World into rebuilding and remodelling itself as a place for the Renewal Of Ancient Learning…accepting Volumes for Placement into a New Library of Alexandria…in Alexandria.
If a once great Library was built and burned there why could not another greater library be rebuilt there…not in the architecture of the 21st Century but in the architecture of the Ancient World where millions from all over the World could come and re-learn what has long been spiritually forgotten? If this cannot be done then it may be true that the 21st Century is not progressing but regressing into the dust and ashes of burned libraries where Ideas are consigned to the flames of Futility as well as Thoughts long ago written into the many volumes now being rendered into the ruins of indifference which are the very rubbled equivalent of unlearning many of the lessons of past and ancient mistakes.

Facebook Twitter YouTube

Produced by Creative News Group LLC     ©2018 WNET.ORG     All rights reserved

Distributed by American Public Television