 |
Egyptian figures call upon Arabs to depend on themselves and not to bet on support, neither from Republicans nor Democrats. (© Rashdan) |
Over the past decades, Egyptians have never expected much from American presidential candidates on grounds that the whole electoral process is, at the end, decisively influenced by the "Zionist Lobby," and that the US will not compromise its absolute support for Israel. Nor is America expected to break its alliance with "dictatorial" Arab leaders, since national interests are known, for Arabs, to take priority over democracy promotion abroad.
One thing makes Egyptian intellectuals and politicians looking forward to the 2008 presidential election: that it will rid the region of the Bush administration's "irrationalism" and "cowboy adventurism" that have led the Middle East to "chaos" and "turmoil".
But neither the Democratic nor the Republican administrations have a history of support to the Arab peoples. So, uncertainty and worries prevail about 2008.
Egyptian figures call upon Arabs to depend on themselves and not to bet on support, neither from Republicans nor Democrats.
IslamOnline.net brings to you the reflections of some key figures in the Egyptian political scene on the US presidential elections 2008.
Mohamed Habib, the Muslim Brotherhood
|
| I don't think that major strategies change with the departure of one president and the arrival of another to the White House. |
I don't see much difference between Democratic candidates when it comes to the Arab world, and I am not optimistic in this regard. I think they can be more violent and aggressive and more biased to the Zionist entity than Republicans themselves.
[Regarding Egypt and democracy promotion] I don't think that major strategies change with the departure of one president and the arrival of another to the White House. Maybe, though, the US role toward Egypt and the US aid goes down a little bit if Democrats come to power in 2008.
Dr. Diaa Rashwan, Senior Scholar with Al-Ahram Center for Strategic Studies
|
| Obama might be the best so far. |
The 2004 and 2008 US elections are the most important presidential elections when it comes to the Middle East in the sense that foreign policy issues play an influential role. The influence of foreign policy has been a trend in recent elections in Spain and Germany — unlike previous elections that depended on domestic criteria.
During the campaigns, the relationship with the Middle East will be most resounding in the Iraq issue rather than the Palestinian issue.
It's difficult to decide which candidate will be more beneficial to the Middle East region. The determinants are a complicated mix of issues: The candidate who has a positive stance on Iraq might not be the best for the Palestine issue.
Obama might be the best so far. Clinton is one of the Democrats that have important views on the Middle East but her problem is with the Palestine issue.
Veteran Journalist Adel El-Qady, Former Managing Editor of Al-Masry Al-Youm — Currently Deputy Editor in Chief of the Arabic Network News "Moheet"
|
| Generally, the difference between the two parties is very minor when it comes to the Muslim World. |
Since Bush, senior, US presidential elections have always had surprises, like the victory of Bill Clinton, then that of George W. Bush. But generally, I think Democrats have better chances to win because they present more popular issues that the American voter is concerned about. Besides, the Bush administration has been like a disaster on America. Its disadvantages have been more than its advantages.
As to the Middle East, we haven't been betting on American elections and their results because the US system is based on institutions and the personality of the president is not necessarily that decisive [in forming policies], except for the case of George W. Bush, who wasn't alone, nonetheless; he was rather surrounded by neocons and the Christian right.
The Middle East region has found the Democrats' way to be less offensive and less provocative to its peoples.
Regarding Egypt, if Clinton comes to power, there will be little intervention and less pressure on Egypt concerning the democracy promotion issue. George W. Bush tried the democracy promotion rhetoric at first then he retrieved when he found that democracy in the Middle East would be against his country's interests as it brings Islamists to power.
On the peace process, there is no difference between different presidents and presidential candidates. But he is now exercising the same pressures that Clinton used in his last days in office; and I doubt he will fulfill his promises by the end of 2008 as he said — he won't be able to pressure Israel. What rules the elections and the president is the Zionist Lobby.
I don't believe one candidate will be more beneficial to our region than the other. Just Democrats might be slightly more diplomatic in their style than Republicans and Bush's cowboy aggressiveness; but generally, the difference between the two parties is very minor when it comes to the Muslim World.
This election can witness the rise of a woman or an African American. Or maybe another result that can lead to some sort of change. It remains to be seen what the magnitude of such change will be.
Dr. Gehad Auda, Member of NDP's Policies Committee and head of Helwan University's Political Science Department
|
| If Democrats came to power, they already will come with a heritage of accusations against Egypt and Saudi Arabia. |
No candidate is necessarily more beneficial to the region. Democrats are difficult and Republicans are even more and more difficult. If Democrats came to power, they already will come with a heritage of accusations against Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The Republicans are even worse. No president can be with us in the way that Carter was, for instance. This is no longer the case.
I hope that we restructure Egyptian and Arab diplomacy in a way that allows for exchanging influence with others. We can have different forms of special foreign relations. We have to start new forms of relations.
Regarding the US "democracy promotion" policy, it's a means of diplomacy. Democrats will be hesitant in this regard if they come to power. They might raise the rhetoric but in general the result won't be in our favor, but rather, in the favor of stability. When we think about Bush's strategy, we have to remember that many of his main concepts came from Bill Clinton — the concepts of preemptive strikes and democracy promotion. US foreign policy is characterized with continuity.
I am not optimistic.
Dr. Essam El-Arian, the Muslim Brotherhood
|
| Normally, reform and democracy in the world don't constitute a priority to US candidates or voters. |
I don't believe that any candidate will solely formulate US foreign policy apart from his/her political party and other American institutions — at least not in an absolute way.
Because of all the troubles and problems that the Bush administration's adventures have caused in the region over the past years, there is no doubt that Democrats will be more capable of getting out of the current American quagmire in Iraq and dealing with the issue of reform and democracy in the world.
It's difficult for foreign policy toward the region to change. There is generally no much difference between Democrats and Republicans. But at this particular point of history, with the unique situation we are witnessing — the turbulence and chaos caused by Bush's policies — Democrats will be better than Republicans.
I don't have high expectations regarding reform and democracy. Normally, reform and democracy in the world don't constitute a priority to US candidates or voters. There is a slim chance that if Democrats exit Iraq in an honorable way, America might reconsider its relationships with dictatorial regimes abroad.
What's most important is that we Arabs and Muslims should depend on ourselves and not to bet on the external support that is turning out to be false.
Dr. Amr El-Shobaky, Senior Scholar with Al-Ahram Center for Strategic Studies
|
| Arabs should depend on themselves to solve their problems and should not depend on external powers, whether Democrats or Republicans. |
I don't see a certain candidate as more beneficial than another when it comes to the Middle East region. Any administration outside the neocons' circle and away from those who are currently in the White House, is relatively better, not only for the Middle East, but for the whole world.
Of course, a Democratic administration will be less ideological and less superficial, and will not oversimplify the Arab world's problems like the current administration does. It also won't have the same dichotomies of good and evil.
However, this doesn't mean that Democrats will support Arab causes. No, this will not be the case. Democrats will [just] be more understanding of the complicated issues of the Middle East.
Thus, Arabs should depend on themselves to solve their problems and should not depend on external powers, whether Democrats or Republicans.
Arabs are able to solve their problems on their own. The international system does allow for any serious and efficient entity to succeed. Look at Iran and Turkey who are doing well despite all the pressures they are subjected to. Iran, for example, now has its international position. It's regional role is more effective than that of any other Arab country. And there won't be a war on Iran in 2008.
|
