Hottest Topic in Egypt is “The Clash of Civilizations”

by James J. Napoli

About the hottest topic among the Egyptian intelligentsia these days is "the clash of civilizations." Seminar speakers, op-ed page pundits and cocktail party chatterers seem much taken with Samuel P. Huntington's article of the same name in the summer 1993 issue of the prestigious American journal Foreign Affairs.

That may be because it tends to confirm Egyptians' worst—but most dearly held—suspicion that the West is out to get them. The fact that the article is being taken so seriously may also be a portent that things are getting worse in Egypt.

The Huntington thesis is that the old international system, based primarily on the struggle among the American, Soviet and Third World power blocs, is evolving toward something much more complex. The West, imbued with its own notions of democracy and individualism, will be pitted against evolving civilizations with notions of their own: Japanese, Confucian, Hindu, Islamic, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and possibly African. In this new world scenario, says the theorist, the West can only maintain its hegemony by keeping its newfound competitors off balance militarily and diplomatically.

"The West Against the Rest" proposition fits in nicely with a generally held belief here that the United States in particular now views Islam as the ideology most likely to succeed Communism as the West's bête noir. For about the last three years, both the semi-official and the opposition Egyptian press have been hammering away at the United States for its alleged efforts to undermine Egypt's role in the region. And, of course, Egypt has a long history of mistrust—sometimes well founded—of Western intentions in the Middle East.

Despite mutual public vows of indissoluble bonds by American and Egyptian officials, particularly in the months preceding President Hosni Mubarak's planned April trip to Washington, evidence of strain between the two countries has become apparent.

Late last fall, Egyptian officials smarted from a number of articles in the American press, particularly in The Washington Post, suggesting that Egypt had been violating U.N. Security Council economic sanctions against Libya. Libya has refused to hand over for trial in the U.S. or Britain two suspects in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, that killed 270 people. The charge that Egypt was flouting U.N. sanctions was denied by the Egyptian ambassador to the United States, Ahmed Maher El-Sayed, in a letter to the Post.

The simultaneous appearance of articles in several major U.S. newspapers prompted political analyst Ossama El-Ghazali Harb to respond in Egypt's leading newspaper, Al-Ahram, that there was an evident "campaign against Egypt's political system and president." He added that the articles also betray a "subtle influence of U.S. government policy makers or of some of the powerful lobbies." You can read "lobbies" as Israel.

Harb's analysis was followed by a chorus of criticism of the U.S., including a comment in the national weekly Rose El-Youssef that concludes that the resurgence of the Lockerbie issue "is a result of America's rejection of any solution for the crisis, and its insistence on imposing a feeling of unrest in the region despite the fact that several reasonable solutions have been placed on the table."

The United States has been pressuring Egypt to sign up for extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher was in Cairo in March trying to reconcile differences between Egypt and Israel over the NPT before the April 17 U.N. conference on the subject begins in New York. The topic was expected to come up again during Vice President Al Gore's scheduled visit to Cairo later in March.

Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and his Egyptian counterpart, Amr Moussa, have clashed over the NPT issue, since Egypt so far has refused to commit itself to signing an extension of the treaty until Israel, which possesses the only nuclear arsenal in the Middle East, becomes a signatory. Egypt argues that, especially in a period of intense negotiation to keep the peace process moving, Israel should take the positive step of signing the NPT.

Higher Strategic Interests

"Egypt's position has caused some consternation in American circles," wrote Harb. "Unfortunately, it is a position called for by Egypt's higher strategic interests. How can any patriotic Egyptian accept the logic that Israel's monopoly on the possession of nuclear arms is 'a guarantee of security and stability' in the region?"

In February, the Department of State released its 1994 human rights report on Egypt—and it was devastating. The report harshly criticized security forces for human rights violations against suspected terrorists and innocent civilians alike. It said the government had refused to punish "those responsible for torture, arbitrary arrest, and detention without trial." Although it acknowledged that terrorists were responsible for most civilian deaths during the year, the government "continued to arrest and harass journalists and lawyers who defended accused Islamists."

The report also charged that the ruling National Democratic Party—Mubarak's party—"dominates the political scene to such an extent that, as a practical matter, the citizens do not have a meaningful ability to change their government."

Interior Minister Hasan Al Alfi retorted that the findings were fabrications based on information from politically motivated sources within Egypt, and that they would not deter the government's effort to crack down on terrorism. Speculation abounded that the report was yet another effort by the United States—where the new Republican-dominated Congress already seems tepid about foreign aid to everybody but Israel—to pressure Egypt to sign the NPT extension. Egypt is the second biggest recipient—after Israel—of U.S. foreign aid.

The State Department report came amid a spate of doomsday articles in major American and British media that again had Egypt on the defensive and seemed to bolster the prevailing view that the Western media were conspiring to damage Egypt by projecting an image of the country as violent, backward and corrupt.

One article in The New Yorker—"The Novelist and The Sheikh" by Mary Anne Weaver—was so bleak about conditions in Egypt that one Egyptian diplomat tried to round up Americans on an AID-funded project to provide positive testimonials about the country before Mubarak's Washington trip. The idea eventually was dropped, to the relief of the Americans, several of whom said they dreaded being drawn into an Egyptian propaganda campaign.

"All Egyptian writers and intellectuals seem to have picked up the idea that the United States is seeking the destruction of Islam," and Egypt in particular, one Egyptian scholar told the Washington Report. The theme is not confined to the predictable groups, such as the Islamists and Nasserists, but extends to intellectuals in general.

The problem is not just an honest difference of opinion on particular issues, such as the NPT or Libya, the Egyptian scholar said. Even moderate writers are publishing articles with a strong anti-Western orientation, often couched in religious rhetoric. This, in his view, signifies that the writers are taking out insurance against Egypt's increasingly uncertain future.

"If there is a revolution," he said, "they can hold up this article and say, 'Look, see what I've done. I'm with you.'"

Other Middle East hands argue that the anti-Western rhetoric is an effective way for Egypt's increasingly wealthy elite to distract attention from their responsibility for the chronic poverty, squalor and other symptoms of Egypt's declining condition.

Huntington and his "clash of civilizations" give the elite a good way out, said the Egyptian scholar: "They can always point to America and say, 'It's not our fault. It's the West's.'"

James J. Napoli chairs the department of journalism and mass communication at the American University in Cairo.