The 25 January uprising called for the fall of the regime while rejecting its dire legacy. For some, rejecting that legacy meant demanding a shift in Egypt’s regional role, in particular Egypt’s unwavering alliance with the United States and the way Egypt has handled the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Analysts agree that Egypt’s current priorities revolve around re-establishing a sense of economic and social stability. Currently, Egypt is still committed to all of its international agreements, according to Egypt’s Supreme Council for the Armed Forces, which has ruled Egypt since former President Hosni Mubarak’s ouster on 11 February.
However, many believe that once the country regains a stable footing, a general shift in Egypt’s political posturing will ensue. “If the democratic changes happen as we hope, Egyptian foreign policy will act with more autonomy, and reflect [the will of the people] more thoroughly,” said Emad Gad, a political analyst with Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies.
Over the past 20 years, Egypt’s engagement with international politics has gradually diminished, leaving the military and Egypt's future government with the question of how to steer Egypt’s foreign policy in the future.
“Egypt had an understanding with the Americans before. It entailed leaving internal matters up to the Egyptian government, in exchange for Egypt’s support of American policy domestically and internationally,” Gad said.
The passage of Iranian warships through the Suez Canal two weeks ago raised questions regarding Egypt’s emerging role in the region.
Egypt and Iran had a strained relationship, which Israel viewed as a source of relief because it tended to view a nuclearized Iran as one of its greatest security threats. The relationship with Iran is one where Ahram Center Analyst Amr Elshobaky sees potential for change. “There’s no reason why we shouldn’t reinstate some relations with Iran. The only three countries in the world that currently don't deal with Iran are the US, Israel, and Egypt,” he said.
Mubarak received substantial aid packages from the US, which at their peak, amounted to more than US$2 billion annually, mostly in the form of military support. Since the Camp David Accords, Egypt has safeguarded its border with Israel, frequently closing the border to prevent an inflow of Palestinian refugees to Egypt and the outflow of aid to the Hamas-controlled Gaza strip. Throughout his 29-year rule, Mubarak was seen as an important US ally because he helped promote Israeli security interests.
Mubarak’s close relationship with Israel drew scorn from Tahrir protesters. Chants encouraging Mubarak to resign in Tahrir Square were frequently tailed with, “Tell him in Hebrew, maybe he doesn’t speak Arabic.”
In the days leading up to Mubarak’s resignation, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed the importance of Mubarak’s regime to Israel. He expressed a great deal of concern that if Mubarak were to go, he would lose an important ally.
The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces has indicated that they are committed to the peace agreement with Israel as well as all other international agreements. However, Egypt plans to hold elections in six months. Any new leadership that takes over the country may alter the course of Egypt’s foreign policy.
“I don’t think any regime will risk the peace agreement,” said Iman Hamdy, an AUC professor who specializes in the Arab-Israeli conflict. “We can’t afford it politically or militarily.”
Hamdy stresses that until a new government under a permanent constitution is formed, “every assumption we make is purely speculative.”
Optimists such as Gad and Hamdy believe that there is nothing odd about the Supreme Council’s commitment to international agreements. Any change that amounts to a departure from the status-quo would entail profound political shifts.
World leaders have not wasted time pledging support and assistance to Egypt through this period of transition. Field Marshal Tantawi, head of Egypt’s armed forces, has already met with the foreign ministers of Spain, France, as well as the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Saudi Arabia has pledged that, despite the potential for the assistance to enhance Egypt’s economic position, what Egypt chose to do internal to the country would have more of an effect on its economy than any external considerations.
“If corruption is curbed, and Egypt operated more efficiently, the economic situation should improve quickly. That improvement, coupled with democratic stability, would have the biggest effect on Egyptian foreign policy,” said Gad.
Gad and many others argue that, as in most democratic societies, governments that have democracy and economic stability can afford to act with more independence from a foreign policy perspective. "In that case, Egypt wouldn’t need to please America or Israel,” he said.
US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William J Burns told al-Masry al-Youm that he is confident the Supreme Council will uphold the peace agreement. He said that the US is confident that Egypt’s position towards Arab-Israeli peace “will be based on its own self-interest." However, he reassured that "Egypt's self-interest, and certainly its leadership, will continue to play a leading role in any hopes for reviving the Arab-Israeli peace process.”
According to Hamdy, Egypt’s regional outlook is likely to change in favor of alterating some fringe agreements.
“The stringent support to Israel may no longer be there. Before, Egypt was always able to diffuse Arab anger towards Israel, like during the war with Lebanon and the bombing of Gaza. This may change,” she said.
Egypt’s help in building the underground wall to keep smugglers from building tunnels in Gaza could decrease as well. Moreeover, its relationship with the Palestinian leadership may radically change. “It felt at some point like there was a personal vendetta between the Egyptian government and Hamas, and that the hostility was between individuals,” Hamdy said.
Egypt has tended to deal with the Palestinian Authority headed by Mahmoud Abbas, popularly known as Abu Mazen. “Abu Mazen did more harm to the Palestinians than anyone. New Egyptian governments might deal with the Palestinians more cleverly,” said Hamdy.
The Iranian warships that passed through the Suez on Monday are perhaps a sign that the relationship with Israel may not be as clearly defined as before. This is the first time an Iranian warship has passed through the canal since 1979. “The fact that Iran even requested permission for its ships to pass through there was astonishing,” Hamdy said.
Although initially alarmed, Israel's reaction to the event has cooled. Israeli Daily Haaretz quoted a senior IDF officer who said that he sees no real threat to the passage of the Iranian ships, while Israel’s far-right Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman called it a provocation by Iran.
The US is not too worried about shifts in the Egypt's attitude towards Iran. Burns said that on his visit, “Egyptians have not been shy about being concerned about Iranian behavior in the region, whether it’s their nuclear aspirations or support for extremist groups, and those are concerns that others in the region share.”
In general, not much is expected to change within the next six months with regards to Egypt foreign policy in the region. Many analysts say that during Mubarak’s regime, Egypt’s stature in the region decreased due to its hands-off approach to the peace process and its inability to halt changes to the Nile Basin agreement, which may have grave consequences on Egypt's water supply.
“First of all, the new regime needs to push for regaining its stature in the region before it thinks of a change in any stance towards anything going on,” Hamdy said.
