The chronicles of human history are mainly the struggle between despotic, oppressive governments, on the one hand, and freedom from tyranny and the aspiration to achieve civil rights and freedoms, on the other; between totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, and liberal democracy.
In the words of Fukuyama, the twentieth century witnessed the world attacked by convulsions of ideological violence in the struggle of democratic liberalism, first against the remains of absolutism, and afterwards against Bolshevism and fascism. The end of the century witnessed the victory of Western liberal democracy. The world had not only reached “the end of ideology”, but also “the end of history.”
Thus, Marshall McLuhan’s vision, as early as 1964, regarding “the global village”, took on form and content with its outstanding expression being the tremendous spread of the social media and the communications and news networks. Society has reached “the Mac-World” as a cultural phenomenon. Moreover, the gaps between “high politics” – which deals with war and peace – and “low politics” which deals with social-economic issues and human welfare, are being progressively narrowed. This is the basis for the argument that the cultural borders between human societies have been blurred, and local cultures are now subject to the profound influence of the global culture.
However, is this the real situation? If “the end of history” has arrived, and democracy is victorious, why are there still so many wars between states, and so many tyrants threatening to bring about the destruction of humankind? If the cultural borders between human societies have become blurred, why is there an increase in fanatic nationalism? Why have ethnic conflicts and separatist uprisings multiplied?
Why is there still a First, Second, Third and even a Fourth World? Why is the division between the North and the South in effect and even more intense? And above all, why is Huntington so right in his analysis that in every place where Islam and Arabs are found, violence as well as internal and external wars are likewise found?
Indeed, the world reality is far from the optimistic, globalization vision, and it is doubtful whether cultural boundaries have been blurred. Hostility, rancor, violence, and global dangers have not vanished. National and state interests have not only converged but have partly moved further apart. Unfortunately, Islam confronts and viciously fights all other world’s civilizations, and as Huntington refers to Islamic boundaries are borders of blood.
The end-of-history and the globalization approaches are based on two perceptions that are not necessarily accurate: first, has the state really become obsolete as a central focus of reference, and is it losing its power and its sovereign control? Secondly, has the growth in importance of cross-border economic forces and transnational players really diminished the significance of conflicts between states over territory? Has geo-economics replaced geo-politics? It is not only doubtful whether the world at the twenty-first century is more stable and quieter, but it is sure that Islamic religious ideology takes advantage of the power vacuum that has been created to control and to subdue the civilized world, and to bring it to the Islamic 7th century desert.
The data is crystal clear. Over 90 percent of world terrorism and over 70 percent of world violence is purely Islamic, and the countdown continues rising up. This is enough without any doubt to put Islam to where it belongs. In 2015 there were 452 cases of homicide bombings alone. All of them where Muslims. From September 11 to April 2016 there were more than 28,000 terrorist acts alone, in which hundreds of thousands of people victimized.
In the last 70 years 14 million Muslims were massacred by other Muslims. There is not even one state around the world that is not confronted by Islam, by Jihad violence and terrorism, or by Da’wah, the preaching to Islam and the diplomacy of deceiving the infidels, or by Hijrah, massive huge immigration and birth-rate demography. Isn’t it enough to label Islam to where it belongs? Islam has never been all over its 1400 years, even for one day, a religion of peace.
The interesting phenomenon is that there is a broad consensus that there is a distinct Japanese, or Chinese, or Hindu, or African-Tribal cultures, and, a distinct Arab-Islamic culture of great power and influence. We even teach these characteristics as a variegated cultural difference on the anthropological level, however, at one and the same time, we deny the cultural difference on the political level and disavow its importance on the level of behavioral insight.
But in our understanding, the gaps between Western and Arab-Islamic culture are so deep and qualitative that it determines everything. There is ample scientific and empirical clear proofs that without understanding the cultural ideological spectrum there is a huge deficiency in the ability to qualitatively analyze the Middle East and Islamic world. The denial to use culture as a scientific tool on the racial grounds and as a part of politically correct approach is not only stupid but largely contributes to the lack of understanding in fact the large ignorance that determines our behavior.
The world may have turned into a small village in many aspects, but political culture, which is also influenced and shaped by religion, dictates gaps in behavior and attitudes and creates deep political differences, which are difficult to bridge over.
Indeed, the widespread use of modernization and technology does not necessarily blur the behavioral boundaries and certainly not the cultural ones. Such is the case of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. The tremendous petro-dollar riches they have accumulated have not changed the traits of the traditional anarchistic tribal society as a pre-medieval community. The capacity to purchase every technological innovation and the state of the art of Western means has not at all changed their societies’ way of life and tribal-clan structure.
In the West, those who do not understand this cultural phenomenon are astounded and full of wonder at how these states perpetuate their traditional way of life, and at the same time, prevent Westerners from leading their regular way of life and demand from them consideration for their religious and cultural values while staying there.
A no less severe phenomenon is that Saudi Arabia has invested billions of dollars in buying many research institutions throughout the world, and finances universities and researchers in the West, just in order to glorify its own cultural values. It finances, in fact buys communications media outlets, public opinion and lawyers firms throughout the Western world. It spends billions of dollars in maintaining internet sites of high quality in English and Arabic, which are meant to uphold its own anachronistic tribal values and the features of traditional Islam. And it has worked to prevent antagonism against itself, as a society hostile to Western culture.
Above all, Saudi Arabia is Enemy Number One of the modern, democratic international system. It finances, aids, supports, and consolidates most of the fundamentalist Islamic terrorist organizations and groups throughout the world. Ultimately, Saudi Arabia aspires to restore the Islamic past to the future of modern, human society. Modern life and the Western technology that it uses have not changed Saudi society. The cultural structure has remained congealed in tribal anarchy; hence, the Western conception of change and transition to modernity has no chance either of flourishing or of even becoming established in Arab-Islamic political culture.
The central argument which we are expounding, is that there are wide gaps between various cultures, which are expressed in profound differences in ways of life and social structure, chiefly between Western political culture and Arab-Islamic political culture, and this influences patterns of political and behavioral activity. These gaps constitute a basis for flaws of thinking, distorted perceptions, and failures of policy. These factors, which are shaped and fostered in the various cultures, bring about strategic surprises and mental blindness (visual agnosia) and lead to the march of folly and disasters.
We may diagnose the phenomenon with the concept of “mirror image”. This expresses a personality system, which causes one to perceive an adversary’s thinking as matching one’s own. You look at your adversary and see his conceptions and mental images as matching your own set of values and beliefs. But in practice, you see yourself reflected in the mirror, and you attach to your adversary operational evaluations and defining positions that are exactly the same as your own.
Let’s take the issues of war and peace through the lenses of the “mirror image.”
You estimate that your conceptions, strategic definitions, and certainly your operational means, are your adversary’s as well. You and he aspire to peace, and you and he strive in the same direction and in the same trends by means of peace. And you are sure that you and he understand peace in the same parameters, and all that is needed is good will on both sides to end the war and to march into peace.
It is clear to you that your good will expresses the same boundaries as your adversary’s good will. Therefore, matters are absolutely understood by both sides, and the way to ending wars and establishing peace leads down the same path. You estimate that the political circumstances and the historical conclusions lead both you and your adversary to the same operational evaluations.
You and your adversary have arrived at the same situation after having tried everything, hence you both have the firm opinion that the shared aim in sitting down together for talks and discussions is to arrive at successful political arrangements, which you both understand according to the very same parameters.
And why is this absolutely clear and taken for granted? Because you and your adversary both understand that both of you have paid a high human and economic price, that you are both ripe for negotiations and political arrangements that will bring about peace and coexistence.
However, do both sides really aspire to peace in like manner? Do they both define the longed for peace in a symmetrical manner? Are they ready for an arrangement as a consequence of the same operational conclusions? Are they both politically exhausted and socially tired that their only conclusion is ending the war and reaching peace?
Our intention is to stress that “the mirror image” distorts the perception of reality, and muddles positions. From here the way is short to strategic surprises and shameful failures and national disasters, which might bring states to the verge of extinction.
We all know that the outer objective world is not the internal subjective world, still we do not translate it operatively in the political realm and we totally ignore the cultural dimension. We so much want to believe our adversary resembles us in our mutual aspirations and the means to achieve them that we literally erase behavioral boundaries and resist any other information to enter our minds.
But what if your adversary is different from you culturally and his conceptual definitions and political beliefs are different from you? What if what is for you moderate is in Islam the opposite? What if Bin Laden and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi are extremists according to your views, while they are moderate according to Islam? What if those who follow the Islamic commandments are moderate true believers according to Islam while their behavior and acts put them on the extreme line of the spectrum according to Western values and beliefs? What if to kill, to butcher, to slaughter, to decapitate, to terrorize and to hate the infidels and all other inhumane acts are totally unacceptable according to Western moral values, but are in fact part of Islamic commandments to its believers to follow?
Indeed, we do not understand consciously and we do not want to contend conceptually with a problem so deeply unprecedented in history. This is not a nightmare that would fade away, rather this is a horrible plague, a contagious virus that spread all over the world aspiring to critically change it. We all watch and read and listen to the words clearly declared by Muslims: ‘we will win over you, we will subdue you, just because you love life, while we love death,’ and we still continue to ignore.
We all watch and read and listen to the voices clearly say that the is occupying the entire world and bringing it under Islamic rule, because it is the destiny of Islam to solely rule the world, and that the Shari’ah is the only constitution under which humanity must accordingly live and still continue to pretend everything is just find and the Muslims will accommodate and assimilate.
The political cultural approach is a sensitive filter for understanding the deep gaps between the positions and conceptions of the parties. To illuminating the flaws and the lack of cultural insight one may consider the remarks of the Israeli journalist Doron Rosenblum, who related to the throwing of stones from Lebanon from the border toward Israel by Prof. Edward Said, the author of the notorious Orientalism:
Perhaps the most famous intellectual today…to join the latest trend, in which masses from all the Arab states stream to the Lebanon-Israel border in order to spit, to curse, and to throw stones at Israel?… Why do the Arab masses really stream precisely to the place from where we withdrew to the last centimeter; precisely to the point where there is no occupation and no territorial claims; precisely to the place where we raised our hands; precisely there they stream to express their bottomless hatred [which has] no end or purpose; precisely to there of all places?… And in true astonishment one may ask, what are your intentions? Is it because of the past or because of the future? Or is it just because of hatred and inertia?
Doron Rosenblum, ignorant and lacking in insight as to the meanings of the cultural gaps, does not at all understand that precisely in the place where Israel had definitively withdrawn, it was transmitting a message of great weakness, and the reaction was total hostility and lack of inhibition by the Arab masses, intellectuals, and politicians. He does not understand that in Arab-Islamic political culture, weakness is not accepted as magnanimity in victory, but precisely the opposite: the continuation of warfare. He does not understand there is no quit pro quo in Arab-Islamic political culture and if you retreat and give up there is no mutual reaction from Arab-Islamic side. In the Middle East, everything is right and acceptable but weakness and failure. And Rosenblum does not understand that the stone expresses the cultural dimension in its ancient usage, disavowing by stoning to death.
The Free World leaders make their work easy: they fight against the symptom and not against the real issue. They declare fighting terrorism, Jihad, al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, but not the ideological-religious sources that motivate them. That is why they fail time and again and Islam continues in its march of victory. Bernard Lewis has tried to explain this in his research, What Went Wrong.
How is the cultural phenomenon expressed? Why is it so elusive, despite its being known and understood to scientific research? Norman Dixon in his Our Own Worst Enemy examined the psychology of failing leaderships. He directed attention to the phenomenon that the leadership invests its resources in two activities: denying objective reality by a wishful thinking approach, and rationalization of mistaken behavior when reality proves the leaders were wrong and their actions are proven mistaken.
Various scientific disciplines deal with national perceptions and images, how beliefs and values influence activity and leaders’ reactions. The concept of belief systems include terms such as “the image”, “the operational code”, “cognitive map”, that link between the actor’s psychological and operational environments. These are set of lenses through which information is received. Yet, the literature concerning misperception focuses on the psychological accounts of why individuals interpret the world in the way they do, rather the belief systems focuses of how the individuals see the world and act accordingly.
Robert Jarvis explains how misperceptions and misconceptions determine our behavior. People make decisions according to their interpretation of the information they get without studying and analyzing it. People stick to political based conceptions and ignore any contradictory information. Importantly, people with higher education are less open to change their political views, even less readiness to assimilate contradictory information.
Part of the explanation for this phenomenon is the “cognitive dissonance” approach, advanced by Leon Festinger, in his The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. That is, there is unwillingness to accept what may contradict one’s values, conceptions, positions, and beliefs. Instead of checking one’s own values and actions, a person’s mind is closed to any unacceptable development, and he refuses to admit his mistakes or his failed evaluations. From comes conceptual fixation and closed consciousness.
This also leads to visual agnosia, even willful blindness. People observe only what they want to observe. People believe in what suits their views and values and people tend to follow the optimistic side of human behavior. This is likened to a man’s reaction to threatening information that contradicts his conceptions and values, or that fundamentally contradicts his policy. The immediate reaction is refusal by way of disbelief that the threat will be realized, a phenomenon that leads to being unprepared. The problem is if we are all infected with this syndrome. Leaders are supposed to think in terms of the nation as a whole, and their responsibility is higher and more concrete. Leaders with a great deal of self-confidence will display more indifference to risks, and will not deploy to face threats and dangers. This might lead to war.
Those whose self-confidence and experience are low might sharpen crises and again be drawn into war as a result of failure to make proper responses. In any event, inaction on the part of leaders, or superfluous action, is a recipe for national disasters. Barbara Tuchman referred to this, pointing out that throughout history governments have taken positions opposed to the interests of their peoples. A leadership’s capacity to perform is extremely poor, and precisely those leaderships had an existential influence on the fate of peoples and states. Wars break out not necessarily because of failure to perceive a developing reality, but as failures of leadership, and their inability to analyze ongoing phenomena because of their aspiration to force their will on reality.
What characterizes political leadership is folly, closed minds, and stubborn blindness, which are a source of self-deception that does not learn from experience, as they continue to evaluate their own political path as correct, and practice a mistaken policy.20 Moreover, leaders aspire to invent the wheel anew, rather than basing themselves on orderly thinking, systematic policy, and long-range plans, preferring self-deception and conceptions determined in advance. Lastly, they totally disregard contrary signs and signals, and are incapable of pausing to examine the policy in effect in light of developing reality, out of the estimate that there is no alternative to their policy.
When we discuss the issue of culture, the political leadership has decisive influence. The manner of its behavior and conduct is not necessarily understood. Leaders, like society in general, do not act in accord with “logical”, defined parameters. This stands out particularly on the issue of contending with matters that are important to deal with as against urgent matters. Leaders are busy, first of all, with “the politics of oblivion”, which means not dealing with controversial, problematic matters, which resemble booby traps from the standpoint of the potential problems they enfold.
Second, when these problems reach their desks nonetheless, they seek to postpone dealing with them by a “policy of delay”. Third, when the problems pop up again, and dealing with them cannot be put off any longer, leaders adopt a “policy of committees”. They set up an investigating commission to examine the situation in the hope that the situation will change before it has concluded its work.
Fourth, when the investigating commission finishes its work and presents its recommendations, the leaders practice a “policy of file away and do nothing”, or set up a commission to implement the recommendations, which buries the matter. In any event, time is a variable of critical importance, and a major trait of their activity.
Why do we deal with these aspects? Because leaders continue not to learn, and stubbornly persist in not drawing lessons, even when strategic failure cannot be ignored and proves them wrong. This is the politics of permeability and closed minds, hence also, their inability to mold another policy, based on national interests and taking into account their own responsibility. National disasters are the next stop.
Tuchman quotes the historian of Philip II, king of Spain, who was “more closed minded than all the kings”, so that no failure of his policy could challenge his absolute faith that his policy was excellent. Indeed, unlike accidents, it must be understood that national disasters do not develop overnight, but as a consequence of a series of faults and mistakes in political assumptions. This involves events that are cognitively dissonant, that are ignored or the existence of which is denied; flaws of processing information or correctly dealing with it; and incapacity to control events.
The first duty of leaders is to examine whether it is possible to attain goals, and whether they are realistic. The more that they are not realistic the more leaders mislead their own people and present it with “surprises” and failures. What is not realistic will not be realized, no matter how splendid it is, and no matter how much it is defined as a historical breakthrough. What is important is to stay with reality, with the possible, and with what can be achieved, after deeply probing study and research, deliberation, and obtaining reliable intelligence. Anything that is not based on these foundations might end up as a national disaster.
The most responsible attitude for leadership is to know when to stop, to examine issues frankly, and to admit mistakes. Flimsy foundations of a policy will not stand in place, even if they are mended with splendid patches. What cannot be mended will collapse in disaster. On the other hand, leaders very much love to make reforms, and to declare a new national policy, or a revolutionary strategy that they have drawn up. The problem is that it is not enough to show that a certain situation is bad. It is necessary to be sure that the problem has been properly described, and that the solution proposed will lead to improvement of the situation.
For that reason, common sense, judgment, avoidance of comprehensive solutions that have not been properly checked must all be avoided, and always there must be a willingness to stop and examine the situation anew. Successful leaders are those who act responsibly, but who also admit failure. A major reason why leaders become irresponsible is because they become confused between the unreasonable and the impossible to achieve. What they perceive as unreasonable is not taken seriously in shaping policy.
Indeed, the most dangerous mental defects are laziness of thought, which means lack of readiness to contend with complex, unknown reality, and lack of operational patience, which leads to infatuation with theories that apparently explain everything, instead of practicing political judgment and taking national responsibility. The most important expression of this in the words of the ancient sages is, “Think first before you act.” There is nothing more important nor lesson more instructive for political leadership than this maxim. Indeed, intelligent, considered policy is expressed by “Think first before you act.” (Literally: “the end of an act begins with a thought”) Another insight is in the statement “Noah built the ark before the deluge.” Before the deluge, always before the deluge. Disasters have to be dealt with before they occur, not after they have taken place.
All aboard, Iraq plans to steam into a new future
Few countries in the Middle East have suffered more from conflict and worked harder for its end than Iraq.
Ravaged by war with Iran, the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, the US-led invasion of 2003 and then the grim experience of Daesh, the Iraqi nation knows the true meaning of suffering and resilience.
Earlier this year the anniversary of the Iraq war and the toppling of Saddam triggered a spurt of media coverage.
For the most part, the tone was of admiration for the Iraqi people’s capacity for endurance, speckled with pity and regret. That, and continuing concern about Iranian influence in Iraq’s national politics.
Successive governments in Baghdad have resisted pressures to confront their powerful neighbour and former foe and instead have sought to play a role of reconciliation with the Arab world.
This has been Iraq’s policy for years and, while the credit for peace-making is shared with others, the fruits of that policy are now becoming visible.
For its part, Iraq has long planned the renewal of national infrastructure it clearly needs to reinvigorate its economy.
This ambition for Iraq to take its proper place in the economic networks of the region has been given fresh impetus by a new government led by Prime Minister, Mohammed Shia Al Sudani, who took office last autumn.
If it survives legal appeal, the recent judgement on oil exports from the Kurdish Autonomous Region being subject to national control should strengthen Iraq as a unitary state.
But Al Sudani’s most ambitious move is to promote the “Development Road” – a long-planned road and rail artery pumping new life into the economy. It would span the length of the country, from Rabia, on the northern border with Turkey, to the new commercial port of Al-Faw, on the Gulf, in the south.
With transport and logistics increasingly recognised as a key sector in the global economy, al-Sudani wants to make Iraq a transportation hub for goods and people linking the Gulf, Turkey and Europe.
There is an echo here of China’s “Belt and Road” initiative, which aims to see 130 countries across Asia, Europe and Africa connected to China through new land and sea infrastructure.
The 750-mile Development Road also evokes memories of the original Berlin-Baghdad railway, which started construction in 1903 and was only finished in 1940. The basis of that German imperial project was the Kaiser’s desire to connect directly with the Ottoman world, and beyond it Iran, with a line running through Turkey, Syria and Iraq.
At the outbreak of WW1 the railway was still 600 miles short of Baghdad, but had completed the branch running through Damascus to the Hejaz, serving the pilgrimage route to Medina. By then imperial rivalries had embroiled the project, and the last stretch was only completed in the 1930s by an independent Iraq.
An updated concept of the original plan is now being pitched to investors. Attending the recent launch of al-Sudani’s Development Road in Baghdad were the regional states which could most benefit from the new infrastructure – Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran and Turkey.
It is too soon to expect pledges of co-investment in the project, which has a headline cost of $17bn. Though Qatar has indicated its potential support and is already a major investor in infrastructure in Turkey,
Planners and policy-makers will be thinking hard about the proposal. Economists will be examining the commercial case for a land route which seeks to avoid the shipping route through the Suez Canal. For shipments at scale, sea transport to and from the well-established facilities in northern Europe, or on to India and further East, will remain unbeatable on cost.
Some reassurance has come from the World Bank which has spoken in support of the project and World Bank involvement in funding (and thus supervision) will also bring comfort to investors.
While Syria probably offers a less expensive route to a Mediterranean port, Iraq rightly sees Turkey as an important economic partner, with complementary strengths and opportunities for collaboration.
Relations have been bedevilled for years by Turkish encroachment on Iraqi sovereign territory in pursuit of its fight against Kurdish separatists – a problem Baghdad has been working patiently to resolve.
But the creation of economic and communications infrastructure for the benefit of shared prosperity is a courageous and necessary step for both countries to take.
Yes, there will be security concerns. Nothing can be taken for granted. But the long game has to be played, and the prize is immeasurable for a country that has suffered so much.
The role of Egypt in the Xi Jinping initiative of “democratization of international relations”
Egypt and China play an effective role in enhancing cooperation on maintaining international peace and security, especially in the Middle East. Here, the Egyptian side adheres to the one-China policy, firmly supports China’s efforts to maintain its sovereignty, security and stability, and firmly supports China’s work to combat terrorism and religious extremism. The indicators show the growth of mutual international interests and the rise of China’s global role, which consolidates the system of multipolarity globally, with the increase in the extent of Chinese interdependence in international interests. These are developments that push for the strengthening and consolidation of cultural, political and economic ties between the Chinese and Egyptian sides in the medium and long term, especially with China proposed and implemented the “Belt and Road” initiative, and Egypt inaugurated a political system with development orientations internally, and adopted a “Look East” policy at the external level, which contributes to establishing future Egyptian-Chinese relations that go beyond traditional political, economic, and commercial frameworks, and establishes a more comprehensive and expanding partnership.
China encourages the implementation of global development initiatives, global security initiatives, and global civilization initiatives, enhances coordination and positive interaction between major countries, works to develop relations with neighboring countries, develop solidarity and cooperation with developing countries, maintain multilateralism, and participate in reforming and establishing global governance systems. These are the same concepts and foundations on which President “El-Sisi” agrees with his Chinese counterpart “Xi Jinping” in all international forums. President “El-Sisi” launched of the “Decent Life project” to care for the poorest and most needy villages, as well as care for the poor citizen, comes as a launch of Egypt’s efforts to implementing international development initiatives, which comes in the same context as the Global Development Initiative of Chinese President “Xi Jinping”. Therefore, China, as a rising country, is trying to achieve many development goals, by proposing the Belt and Road Initiative and the long-term goals it contains that have repercussions on bringing about a shift in the structure of the international system from a unipolar system to a multipolar system or to reaching a state of non-polarity in the international system by following a number of political, economic, propaganda, and strategic mechanisms to achieve multi-polar competitiveness, which ultimately reaches and serves Chinese President Xi Jinping’s idea of achieving global development.
In this context, Egypt is trying to take advantage of all the opportunities and gains that China can achieve as a rising power in the international arena in the current century, through its introduction of the Belt and Road Initiative, and its many development and service projects in the axis of the Egyptian Suez Canal and the New Administrative Capital. In all his speeches, President “El-Sisi” emphasizes the concept of the new republic in Egypt, which is the same as what China refers to as the “new era”, which mostly refers to the multipolar world in which China, Egypt, and all African and developing countries are working together to establish it, as an alternative to the polar world. the one.
We find joint Chinese-Egyptian support for international efforts made to confront climate change, and support for initiatives aimed at promoting sustainable green development, including the (Egyptian Initiative for a Green Middle East) and China’s initiative on the (Green Silk Road), with their emphasis on the need for the Middle East region to be free of… Weapons of mass destruction, strengthening efforts to combat terrorism, condemning terrorism in its various forms and motives, and drying up its sources. The Chinese side is working with its Egyptian counterpart to adhere to the concept of a (community with a shared future for humanity), strengthen strategic partnership relations, and deepen cooperation in various fields between the two parties.
The two presidents (El-Sisi and Xi Jinping) agree to reform the current world order and push strongly towards providing pluralism in the new world order, based on the mechanism of the United Nations, preserving its periodic system, strengthening the multilateral global trade system and international poles, and pushing developing countries from marginalized regions to central command areas on the global governance stage. For this reason, both China and Egypt are committed to the concept of (global development) that is characterized by justice, inclusiveness and cooperation in an open, fully coordinated and innovative manner, to promote coordinated and sustainable economic, social and environmental development and the comprehensive development of humanity. Therefore, Egypt’s efforts to participate with the Chinese side in the “Third China-Africa Peace and Security Forum”, which was held from August 28 to September 2, 2023, came to enhance communication between the defense ministries in China and Africa, as part of Beijing’s efforts to protect its commercial and investment achievements on the African continent, and Egypt. Of course, first and foremost, given the importance of Chinese projects in Cairo.
Egypt’s official participation also took place in the Chinese capital, Beijing, on Sunday, July 9, 2023, to participate in (the first high-level conference of the International Action Forum for Common Development). It is a conference in which high-level delegations from 27 countries participated, along with more than 20 United Nations agencies and international non-governmental organizations. The International Joint Development Conference in Beijing, with the participation of the Egyptian side, aimed to discuss strengthening joint action to implement the “Global Development Initiative” proposed by Chinese President “Xi Jinping” in 2021, with the aim of redirecting global development towards a new stage of balance and comprehensive coordination to confront global shocks. Promoting more equitable and balanced global development partnerships and achieving more multilateral cooperation to accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda.
Here we find coordination between the Chinese and Egyptian sides, regarding all international and regional issues, especially the Palestinian issue, by supporting international efforts aimed at reaching a permanent and just solution to the issue on the “basis of the two-state solution”, leading to an end to the Israeli occupation and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. On the 1967 borders, its capital is East Jerusalem. Therefore, the Egyptian-Chinese insistence on the need to prevent a return to the Cold War mentality, and the common positions of the two presidents (El-Sisi and Xi Jinping) on the need to abandon confrontation between the camps, that is, whether they are friends or enemies. Instead, China and Egypt agree on the need to advance international solidarity, advocate the concept of common, cooperative, comprehensive and sustainable security, while respecting and addressing the legitimate concerns of all parties, jointly rejecting the revival of the mentality of competing blocs and opposing attempts aimed at a new Cold War, with the aim of maintaining peace and the international stability.
Egyptian President “El-Sisi” also agrees with his Chinese counterpart “Xi Jinping” on the need for international cooperation and collective work to address global challenges, and that the only way to achieve sustainable development is a joint global effort, with access to a new global financial structure that guarantees equal opportunities and fair access to income. Financing for developing countries. This is in light of strengthening efforts to implement the sustainable development goals in response to the (Global Development Initiative) proposed by Chinese President “Xi Jinping” in 2021. Therefore, the joint vision of the leaders of the two countries, President “El-Sisi” and “Xi Jinping”, comes to agree on the importance of aligning global development strategies and development plans with the national priorities and needs of each country. With President “El-Sisi” stressing in his foreign speeches the importance of working with the countries of the South, to emphasize the role of Chinese cooperation with developing and African countries, known as (South-South) cooperation to promote global development goals in parallel with the Chinese Comprehensive Development Initiative, and to promote economic recovery at the global level. And creating development models based on already successful experiences in the countries of the South.
On the other hand, Egypt affirms its permanent commitment to the one-China principle, its support for China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and that Taiwan is an integral part of Chinese territory. In addition to supporting the Chinese position regarding “Hong Kong” within the framework of the “one country, two systems” principle. Taking into account Beijing’s efforts to spread international peace and development, through the two initiatives (Global Security and Global Development), which aim to encourage the international community to pay attention to development issues around the world, respect the rights of peoples to adopt their own approach to promoting democracy in a manner consistent with their national circumstances, and reject interference in the Internal affairs of countries under the slogan of the (preserving democracy).
Hence, we find that the (Global Development Initiative) proposed by China came at the right time, as it is a global development initiative centered around people by joining that initiative, Egypt can benefit from China’s successful experiences in coordinating and planning development, saving energy, reducing emissions, and ensuring Food security, what drives the sustainable development plan in Egypt. The (Global Development Initiative) also aims to establish a new type of international relations based on (the rule of common interest and mutual benefit for countries and peoples), taking into account the objective circumstances of peoples, meeting their national priorities, and respecting their identity and culture, given that this global development initiative was proposed by Chinese President “Xi Jinping” comes and the world is in need more than ever of fruitful collective development and cooperation practices, in which efforts are combined and capabilities are integrated to address the problems facing countries, especially developing ones, which ultimately leads to achieving an advanced and appropriate form of “democratization of international relations”.
Saudi-Israeli deal would be a gamechanger but not for the reasons discussed
A Saudi-Israeli agreement to establish diplomatic relations involving enhanced US commitments to Gulf security could be a game-changer for great power rivalry in the Middle East.
To be sure, US President Joe Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu face formidable obstacles in paying the price tag Saudi Arabia puts on the normalisation of relations with Israel.
In return for relations, Saudi Arabia has demanded legally binding security commitments from the United States, support for its nuclear programme, and unfettered access to sophisticated weaponry – conditions that would be challenged in Congress.
The kingdom has also linked diplomatic relations to ambiguously defined progress in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – a demand Mr. Netanyahu will have difficulty meeting with his current coalition government, the most ultra-nationalist and ultra-conservative in his country’s history.
Speaking to Fox News, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman described the Palestinian issue as “very important” and one that “we need to solve.”
Mr. Bin Salman shied away from spelling out what a solution would entail beyond saying he hoped it “will ease the life of the Palestinians.”
Within days of the interview, Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan told the United Nations General Assembly and a webinar normalising relations with Israel would require a plan to establish an independent Palestinian state.
On the first visit to the West Bank by a senior Saudi official since the creation of the Palestine Authority in 1994, Ambassador Nayef al-Sudairi, the kingdom’s first envoy to the Palestinian entity, said Saudi Arabia was “working towards establishing a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.”
Palestinian officials told their Saudi counterparts that as part of the kingdom’s agreement to recognise the Jewish state, Israel would have to stop building new settlements, expand Palestinian control over security and construction in the West Bank, accept full Palestinian membership of the United Nations, and consent to the opening of a Palestine Liberation Organisation office in Washington and a US consulate in East Jerusalem.
Nevertheless, senior Israeli officials asserted that Saudi Arabia was merely paying lip service to the Palestinian issue in talks about Israel.
A senior Palestinian official conceded “that what is being discussed includes elements that are less than statehood. We’re talking about a pathway to getting there.”
The obstacles haven’t prevented Messrs. Bin Salman and Netanyahu from raising heightened expectations recently by suggesting significant progress in agreeing on the terms of a US-Saudi-Israeli deal.
Largely overlooked in public discussions about a possible Saudi-Israeli normalisation of relations is the fact that the Saudi demands signal that the kingdom, like the United Arab Emirates, which is requesting an “ironclad” security arrangement with the United States, prefers the US rather than China to be its security partner for the foreseeable future.
“Isn’t it interesting? When you look at MbS’ asks from us, they start with he wants a defense treaty with us… What that tells you is that at the end of the day, they don’t think there is anybody else they can rely upon if they really stranded,” said Dennis Ross, a former US Middle East peace negotiator. Mr. Ross was referring to Mr. Bin Salman by his initials.
Former US National Security Council official Kirsten Fontenrose argued that Mr. Bin Salman had created a situation where he could forcefully argue for a binding security arrangement even if efforts to forge a deal with Israel failed.
“MbS looks at this and says, ‘Right now, it looks like the sticking point is Israeli politics. So, even if I don’t get this, I look like the good guy’,” Ms. Fontenrose said.
I expect there will be pressure from the Saudis moving forward, even if we don’t get normalisation, to follow through… (saying), ‘Well, we have arrived so closely on some of these ideas on a US security pact, we’ve done so much work on civilian nuclear cooperation, why don’t we just continue this?” Ms. Fontenrose added.
Even so, it is hard to believe that Saudi Arabia and the UAE think they can retain the freedom to hedge their bets and expand relations with China, as well as Russia, particularly regarding the Ukraine war and Western sanctions, in ways that the United States would see as threatening its national security and undermining its policies.
While the United States would likely not disrupt the Gulf states’ economic and trade ties with China, the Gulf’s largest trading partner, it would limit Saudi and UAE cooperation with China on geopolitical issues, nuclear development, technology collaboration, and arms acquisition.
“The administration is asking for some things from the Saudis. They want them to continue to peg oil to the dollar, there was some talk that they may allow the Chinese to buy oil with the Chinese currency… What is being asked here is not to stop their commercial relationship but to create boundaries in some of the high-tech areas… It’s a two-way street,” Mr. Ross, the former US negotiator, said.
The kingdom “cannot have it both ways. If it wants that kind of commitment from the United States, it has to line up with the United States… If our security relationship with Saudi Arabia is to be deepened because the Saudis want it, then there are certain obligations that come with that,” said former US diplomat and prominent analyst Martin Indyk.
Undoubtedly, Saudi Arabia and the UAE will test how far they can push the envelope if they come to a security understanding with the United States.
Ultimately, however, they are likely also to find that a security arrangement would, at least in the Middle East, shift the geopolitical US-China power balance in the United States’ favour.
Economy4 days ago
Marrakech IMF/World Bank meetings, a barometer of Moroccan development and resilience
Southeast Asia4 days ago
Philippines stands up to Chinese “grey zone” bullying
New Social Compact4 days ago
Human Security Perspectives on Hate Speech
Europe3 days ago
Austerity, corruption, and neglect: How the Greek railway became Europe’s deadliest
Middle East4 days ago
All aboard, Iraq plans to steam into a new future
Finance4 days ago
The Financial Dilemma: All You Need To Know About Credit Checking
World News4 days ago
The 13th IPACC for Indo-Pacific, hosted by India and the U.S.
World News3 days ago
U.S. Army Hospital in Germany Is Treating Americans Hurt Fighting in Ukraine