Conflict over the Middle East:
Theme of ECFA annual conference in 2009

The Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs held its annual conference on November 18, 2009, under the title "The conflict over the Middle East". The Conference held three sessions, the first of which was devoted to discussing the roles of Iran, Turkey and Israel, as well as the Western powers. The second session discussed the roles and influence of foreign powers, and the third was dedicated to the discussion of where Egypt is standing in this regional conflict over the Middle East and how it is dealing with it.

In his opening speech Ambassador Abdel Raouf El Reedy proceeded from the era of the cold war and international conflict between the two superpowers over control of this important and sensitive spot in the global strategy, which includes more than half of the energy resources in the world. Against this backdrop, Egypt has undertaken to champion the idea of Arab nationalism, which attracted the Arab masses, and which was based on a rejection of foreign influence, military bases and foreign alliances. The past twenty years began with an Arab-Arab war, with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The invasion came to represent the biggest rift in the Arab order. We have not transcended it up till now and are still experiencing its repercussions. Then came the agreement to convene the Madrid Conference in October 1991.

Ambassador El-Reedy warned that the current time is witnessing the emergence of a new player in the game of regional conflict over the Middle East, namely, Turkey. The Middle East region is no longer exclusively occupied by the Arab world as a regional power filling this space. There are three other forces battling to fill this vacuum, or what they perceive as a vacuum. One power is yearning to dominate it believing it has a divine right above the law. It possesses an arsenal of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Of course it is Israel. The second power has an ideological project and nuclear ambitions, namely, Iran. The third emerging force is a unique blend of historic heritage, a new Islamic orientation, and memberships of NATO and the Organization of Islamic Conference. It combines history and modernity and on its own soil meet the East and the West, namely Turkey.

Ambassador El-Reedy concluded that this is the new mosaic which we want to examine at this conference: what it means, and what it means for us as Egyptians and Arabs. Many questions are forcing themselves upon us. We have to unravel them, fathom their depths and perhaps develop ideas and recommendations.

In his speech, the Foreign Minister drew attention to the need for creative interaction with important structural changes that have altered the nature of the international order and its properties. The world is moving to the stage of multi-polarity, after a transitional period of unipolar domination. Our world today is witnessing many phenomena and challenges that have shaken international confidence in the effectiveness of existing rules of international cooperation such as the global financial crisis, wars and international crises in different parts of the world, including Iraq and Afghanistan. All highlighted the increased need for multilateral international partnership and the collaboration of the international community to develop a formula for international cooperation able to cope with problems beyond the capabilities of one country or even of a small group of countries.

The minister stressed in his speech that our success will depend on our ability to generate parallel international pressure to support the Arab vision at various international levels, first and foremost among which is to gain the support of the European Union, as well as to maintain the cohesion and support of traditional friends, including China. Egypt has recently hosted the China –Africa Forum for Cooperation and the Non-Aligned Movement. Egypt seeks through its current presidency of NAM to unify the movement s positions in support of the Arab vision. We are also keen on the intensification of our bilateral and regional efforts with the rest of the African countries to restore the unity of the African position in support of Arabs stances and, of course, our efforts would be futile if they do not rest on a unified Arab base.
The minister said that Egypt is still insisting that capacity building and political and diplomatic channels are the best and most effective means to solve any conflict, without compromising the need to develop its defensive capabilities and its military cooperation with countries in the region to deter any force seeking to attack any of the countries of the region or to dominate the region in a bid to boost its international influence.

Prof. Ali-eldin Hilal started his speech by asking about the choice of the word "conflict" and whether it is the only appropriate word to describe what was happening on this arena or in this region. He stressed the need for understanding conflict in its broad sense, which includes competition and contradiction, but also involves alliance and cooperation. What we are witnessing in the region is not all-out conflict. There are patterns of mixed interactions involving conflict, cooperation, competitiveness and alliance. The second question is who we are talking about. It is clear we are talking about three countries: Turkey, Iran and Israel, with no specific order. There are differences in the legitimacy of the goals and aspirations of all of them. Then there is the group of member states, which is also heterogeneous and in disagreement on everything inconsistent with any order of things. Perhaps the third question or third theme is if we accept there is a conflict in the region, what is it about? Is this conflict over the resources of the region and for controlling them, or is it a conflict for spreading a specific political or technological model? Or is it a conflict indicative of or an extension to international conflicts? This brings me to the fourth and final question which is to what extent can we talk about the regional conflict in the absence of talk about international conflict. My assessment of this conflict hinges round a question whether this conflict is exclusive to this region. The Arab order is now on retreat and in a position of self-defense. The parties which appear to be more power are the parties that seek to change the equation and change the nature of the region.

Dr. Hilal concludes with some questions: Where is the Arab side in this conflict? He answered that, in his assessment, the Arab side is the subject of the conflict rather than a player at this stage. Dr Hilal said he does not believe that most, if not all, of the Arab States have a vision of how to deal with Iran. The second feature is that we are not talking about an Arab party. Resolving this conflict exists in a country called Iraq. The future of Iraq will be an indicator of future developments.
At the first session, Ambassador Ihab Wahba said in his introduction that what we see today is something completely different. International powers today are not France, Britain or even America, which stands helpless and cannot even stop Israel from building settlements. As for Iran, by contrast, it managed to fully benefit from the fall of Saddam s regime and has expanded the scope of its influence in Iraq. Besides, there is the Iranian nuclear file, which emphasizes the ability of Iran to become a nuclear state. Turning to Turkey, we find that they also have a very active role in the region as it has boosted ties with Syria.
In his speech on the Arab axis, Dr. Ahmed Youssef Ahmed noted the current weight of the non-Arab regional powers, especially Israel, Turkey and Iran. At the outset, he expressed reservation on the term "Arab axis" because this expression gives the impression that there is a collective and coordinated movement in the face of this conflict, and this is not true. Now there are basically drives by states, not by a regional order.

In his speech on Turkey, Ambassador Fathi Shazli spoke about the shift of the center stage of international relations from Europe to what is called the Greater Middle East, amid the inability of states in the region to play an active, or even a significant role on that stage.
He also pointed out the need to redefine the vision and the basic premises of the Egyptian foreign policy at the regional level in the light of what is thought to be its confusion, as described earlier.
In her paper on Iran, Dr. Nevin Moss’ad shed light on the characteristics of the Iranian regional project in the Middle East, noting that it is continuously expanding, and that the project of the Islamic Republic of Iran on the regional level is based on developing a network of relationships with actors in the region, to serve as a hedge protecting its interests.
As for Israel, Dr. Emad Gad outlined in his paper an identification of the bases of the Israeli position in the process of political settlement, then proceeded to a review of changes in the Israeli stance which led to the erosion of the foundations of the situation, and concluded with a vision of how to capitalize on this change in order to reach a political settlement to the Palestinian cause.

In Dr Gad s view, there is a change in Washington s relationship with Tel Aviv, and that this change came as a result of regional changes which constituted major crises to the American administration, whether in the "Iraqi quagmire" or the crisis with Iran and Syria, and the Israeli-Palestinian problem. It was apparent from some of American estimates that Israel represented a common element in these crises, and seemed mostly a burden to the American strategy. Part of the crises of the United States in the Middle East and of the hatred of Washington is the result of giving precedence to the Israelis over the Americans in the U.S. policy toward the region. In this context, a review is being made of the U.S. policy toward many files through a new formula to give precedence to the Americans over the Israelis in a new policy toward the region. It includes calls for Israel to play supporting roles to the U.S. in the region through steps it may not want or like, and prevent it from carrying out its preferred policies now.

The second session was chaired by Ambassador Nabil Fahmy. He started by saying that in the previous period, any talk about the conflict in the Middle East meant the peace process and the international powers meant the United States, Russia and their allies. The question now revolves around who are the current international forces, and whether it is only states or other things. If we look to the future, we will find that the issue is more complex. There is a strong regional influence on the regional scene, although it is not states. Terrorism is an international non-governmental and external factor in many parts. The issue of piracy is a case in point.

Ambassador Nabil Fahmy said he has no doubt that China and India will be among the very influential countries in the international arena, and even in the Middle East in the future in view of China s need for energy and interest in Africa. China may not play a direct role in the short term in the peace process, in Iraq or elsewhere but will definitely have a role as long as it has interests in the region. Japan will also play a role because of its economic interests. Hence, we must determine the area we are talking about: is it the Arab states, Israel and Iran, or is Turkey added to them? Or is it the Greater Middle East in accordance with the US concept? Then, we need to look at the world in a futuristic manner and not from the perspective of the past.
Ambassador Shalaby, spoke about Europe as one of the influential external actors in the conflict over the Middle East. He traced this role since, during and after the October 1973 war, which led to the Arab oil boycott. Europe came to realize the interdependence of Middle East security and peace and European security. This recognition was reflected in the Venice document in 1980. In it, the Europe states affirmed this link for the first time and recognized the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. However, in the eighties and nineties the European position on the Arab-Israeli conflict continued to be determined by three factors.

Now the European Union and its role are faced with a new international and regional structure. At the international level, there is a new American administration. Since its early days, it was determined to revive the peace process on the basis of an initial two-state solution and the freezing of Israeli settlement building. At the regional level, there is the advent of a coalition government headed by Netanyahu. The Israeli right is well known for its antagonism to the requirements of real peace. At the Palestinian level, the Palestinian-Palestinian split has developed.
One of the encouraging steps taken by the European Union is its rejection of the Israeli demand for upgrading relations with the EU. . . . The resolutions adopted by the European Council on June 15, 2009 during a meeting in Luxembourg, upheld Obama s principles and welcomed the US commitment to strongly pursue the two-state solution. He concluded that for Europe to be a really effective factor in achieving real peace, it must be prepared to use its diplomatic, economic, commercial and technological influence on Israel.

Dr. Gamal Abdel Gawad explained that as far as the international forces are concerned, we find that there are still states, but there is a kind of challenge to the world structure whose building unit was the state. This emerged with the beginning of globalization. Now new powers are emerging. The most important forces are those that are difficult to hold because they are extremely without structure as a result of the information revolution. In essence they are out to challenge the state and strengthen the weak forces. Dr Abdel-Gawad added that this is the context for seeing international powers and their relationship with the region, with special emphasis on Egypt. We belong to a region that has very close links with the world powers, for good or bad. However, this region has not yet succeeded in creating important spaces that can help it reduce the impact of the international order on them. What is happening in the Middle East between the Arabs is not the result of international conflicts, or else the Arab-Israeli conflict would have ended with the end of the Cold War. Our conflicts have their own reasons and logic.

He pointed out that the modern history of the Middle East after World War II is one of conflict between the forces aspiring to confirm their position as dominant regional powers and between international forces preserving the status quo in the region. Nasserite Egypt s experience is the best case in point. There is a repetition of this attempt at the current stage by Iran.
Dr. Ahmed Abdel-Halim explained that when we look into an evaluation process of the region or the influential forces in it, we need to know that the main change is in the intricacy of the problems and the acting forces in it. When we talk about the forces we are addressing more than one dimension:

The first dimension is that the international and regional powers are interwoven, in the sense that we cannot, for example, separate the drives of the USA, Europe and the remaining international parties from some regional moves related to this matter. He stressed that Egypt is at the center of developments. As for Europe, although it seems to be one, it is not. The third dimension is the discussion of the relationship between the EU and the region. The fourth dimension is related to the division of the Middle East into three groups from the European point of view.

The third session on Egypt and the future of regional conflict was headed by Dr Mustafa El-Feqi. In his introductory remarks, he said that there can be no talk about Egypt and the future of regional conflict without talking about the idea of its role. Many adopt a convulsive, negative unenlightened attitude towards an Egyptian role because their only point of reference is the measurement of some of the excesses of the Nasserite era, so to speak. These are proliferation and opening new fronts at the same time. This is not true at all. The notion of a role is a central idea to any pivotal state anywhere in the world. He sees a large part of Egypt s current problems associated with a decline of its regional role. It is not inconceivable that Egypt as a regional power in the region is politically engaged in a dialogue with Iran. Egypt cannot be a small and isolated country. By nature and history Egypt cannot be isolated. Egypt is a central pivotal state that must stretch its arms out.

The first speaker at this session was Dr. Mustafa Elwi, who said we know that the Middle East is the most intense and severest regional conflict in the world today. It cannot be compared with any region or territory for the time being and will continue to be so in the foreseeable future and in the medium term. The Middle East is the region with the highest density of conflict. The patterns of the Middle East conflict are not only traditional, but it has taken on other types that have added to the complexity of the situation. According to Dr Elwi, these regional conflicts stem from domestic problems and internal crises in certain countries in the Middle East, and they quickly turn into regional conflicts, and perhaps involve international interventions. If we take the example of the longest, deepest and most complex traditional conflict, namely the Arab-Israeli conflict, it will continue for decades and will not end with a comprehensive political settlement.

Dr. Elwi concluded that any regional role in Egypt in the future in dealing with these conflicts should not be based solely on ideas which may look glamorous or wonderful, but must be built on looking at the inside of Egypt from a new perspective.
At the conclusion of this session Dr. Wahid Abdel-Meguid pointed out that a new state of fluidity has emerged in the Arab and the Middle East region. There is a large measure of regional stability and success in maintaining it in the face of multiple and diverse storms that blew across the region. However, the main trend is one of control of reactions within certain frameworks. He said that Egypt s regional policy remained almost the same and has not developed to cope with the big change taking place in the region, although it was and is still able to do so.

He concluded that Egypt is still Egypt and can as a moderate force in the region provide a different model. Unfortunately, this model is now presented by Turkey. It is a country with a reasonable political system, which has reasonable measure of democracy, and a growing economy which will lead to prosperity.

We hope that this presentation - which is not a substitute for a detailed reading of the book - has provided a focused image of the proceedings of the Conference.