The African Dimension of Egyptian Foreign Policy

In the era since the removal of the monarchy in Egypt, a distance seems to have developed between the Egyptian people and the African aspect of their identity. This kind of sentiment has also been corroborated by Egypt’s elite such as Isma’il Pasha or Taha Hussien, both of whom view Egypt’s European heritage to be more important than its African, Islamic and Arab heritage. In more contemporary history, Egypt is associated with being the champion of Arab nationalism. The fact that it has engaged in several conflicts in the name of the Arab cause serves only to further this association.

This process of separation from Africa that has taken place within Egyptian culture is the result of a gradual culmination of cultural and political events. More tangible evidence of this can be seen in the fact that only 8.1% of Egyptians identify with being African as their first identity1. However, this ideological and cultural separation is not reflected within the reality of Egyptian foreign policy towards the continent of Africa. The historical and geographic realities of Egypt’s position within Africa have not only been acknowledged by the modern regimes that have ruled Egypt but have been made into cornerstones of foreign policy formulation. This is even reflected during the high period of Arab nationalism in the fifties and sixties. Egypt’s role in Africa is in fact quite proactive, a quick dissection of its involvement in the era of decolonization, the process that created the African Union and its current role in stabilizing efforts across the continent clearly demonstrate this. These actions, along with others also make it evident that the African dimension of Egypt’s foreign policy is an integral aspect to its totality and is in no way placed in a secondary level by any Egyptian regime.

Before isolating the different periods of rule in Egyptian history it is best to discuss the geopolitics of Egypt’s circumstances that are related to not only its African foreign policy but to its foreign policy as a whole. The first point and perhaps most prominent point in Egyptian foreign policy and essentially Egypt’s survival is the Nile. The Nile river basin runs through Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Burundi, Rwanda, Eritrea, Tanzania and the Democratic Republic of the Congo making it the longest river on Earth as well as being an extremely complicated foreign policy issue for Egypt. In addition, Egypt is extremely dependent on the water of the Nile with it being the source of over 94% of its fresh water, this circumstance is also further exacerbated by the fact that 85% of Egypt’s population lives within the Nile basin2. It is this reality that has caused the management issue of the Nile water to remain a top priority for Egypt throughout its modern history.

The first official agreement made with regard to Nile water was in 1929 when Egypt assured itself the power position in the realm of Nile politics by signing the “Egyptian-Sudanese Nile Water Agreement” that assured Egypt not only it’s share of the Nile but also a period of time (January 20^th to July 15^th) where no other country but Egypt could use the Nile3. As regimes changed in Egypt, the concern regarding the Nile did not change but continued to evolve as each of the Nile basin states gained independence one after the other. The agreement signed in 1959 is a manifestation of this ever present concern that Egypt has with the Nile, the agreement established that Sudan and Egypt would act as a united front when negotiating with the other counties of the Nile basin and essentially created a new era in Nile politics4. The states in the south of the Nile basin however continued to grow in strength and increased pressure on the water resources of the Nile. The creation of the Nile Basin Initiative in 1999 created a multinational body to enhance cooperation with regards to the resources of the Nile and increase the security of all the Nile basin countries5.

Another such aspect of Egypt’s foreign policy that is shaped by its geopolitics is its position as the land bridge between continents. This position caused Egypt to come under attack on numerous occasions throughout history6. This constant security dilemma, caused both by the insecurity of the water resources as well as its geographic position combined to cause all Egyptian regimes to possess the desire to project their power beyond their borders7. However, these issues can’t specifically be classified as an issue of Egypt’s African foreign policy as it would be a gross over simplification of the magnitude of Nile politics and Egypt’s geographic position have had on shaping Egyptian foreign policy as a whole. This by no means discounts either factor from being capable of affecting Egypt’s perception of itself within both the region and Africa.

Egypt’s position as a crossroad between both Asia and Africa has caused a great deal of confusion within its society with regard to which group individuals affiliated themselves with. Nonetheless, Egypt’s perception of itself and its position within Africa has remained a constant presence in its foreign policy towards the continent. This presence in Africa is also not merely a consequence of larger foreign policy conceptions such as the security dilemma or the middle state theory. Egypt’s history as a modern state begins with an era of African foreign policy that is perhaps best exemplified by a statement made by Isma’il Pasha in 1879 when he stated, “My country is no longer in Africa; we are now part of Europe.”8. The period of rule under the khedives saw Egypt make massive amounts of territorial gain in the African continent as it expanded its direct and indirect control as far south as modern day Congo and Uganda, as far east as modern day Eritrea and as far west as modern day Chad.

However, the zeitgeist of this time period was firmly centered on Europe and modernization, Egypt not only lost interest in its African relations but to all non-European cultures. This rejection of almost all things African continued as Egypt reformed its internal government with particular focus on its Egyptian and Syrian holdings leaving anything south of Khartoum unchanged9. Obsession with European culture and reform however were not the only reasons why Egypt did not pursue an active role in its African foreign policy during the early modern period. Moreover, with European colonization on the rise Egypt could not pursue an active foreign policy in Africa without coming in direct conflict with European powers that were superior both militarily and economically. This period of unnatural disconnection from Africa due to subordination to European powers finally came to an end thanks to the Free Officer coup of 1952. As Nasser stated in The Philosophy of the Revolution, Egypt belongs to three circles the first of which is the Arab circle followed by the African circle and finally the Muslim circle. On the surface this statement made by Nasser seems to place Africa in a secondary role, the reality of the matter is quite different. The African circle overlaps the other two circles due to the fact that over seventy percent of Arab land and the Arab population are both located in Africa while at the same time there is a substantial Muslim population living throughout Africa with particular concentration in Eastern Africa and the Sudanic belt, thus, it is clear that Egypt was from this point on going to be inherently involved in African affairs10. These circumstances clearly demonstrate a change in Egypt’s perception of itself from the pre-coup to the post-coup periods of its history proving that Egypt has clear political interests and ideological ties with Africa.

This new paradigm of Egypt foreign policy that was drawn up by Nasser was not left to stand alone as Egypt began to build a cultural bond between itself and Africa. As was stated earlier Egypt’s geopolitics play a substantial role in shaping its foreign policy and it is quite obvious that they would have an effect on its African foreign policy. Egypt’s geographic position on the only land bridge into Africa was used to claim that it was the defender of Africa from foreign invaders, furthermore, the physical separation of the Sahara was minimized as to draw a closer connection between north and sub-Saharan Africa11.

Egypt also attempted to create new cultural trends within its own society in order to generate local loyalty and interest towards Africa. Educational curriculums were changed, additional courses added in universities and textbooks were rewritten all to create a sentiment within Egypt of unity with Africa12. The more popular political wave of Pan-Arabism was also manipulated in order to generate excitement for Pan-Africanism. An excerpt from a speech made by Dr.Murad Ghaleb as an undersecretary of foreign affairs and member of the national committee of education clearly demonstrates this when he said, “Arab nationalism is one aspect of African nationalism…Imperialism attempted to separate or distinguish between Arab nationalism and African nationalism.”13.

All of these efforts that were undertaken by Egypt clearly demonstrate that it is committed to creating a bond between itself and Africa. While the success of these programs is somewhat questionable today in terms of the creation of popular affiliation with Africa, these domestic educational changes, along with Dr. Ghaleb’s speech demonstrate that within the hierarchy of Egypt’s government there is a healthy affiliation with Africa and Pan-Africanism. All of these changes in the end are merely a means to an end. It all falls in line with a report published by the countries Information Department that derived that Egypt has a responsibility towards Africa from Nasser’s book, The Philosophy of the Revolution14. What this responsibility entails however, is a very complex and diverse issue that manifested itself in the creation and consolidation of a multinational African organization, the decolonization of Africa and the establishment of Africa as a conflict free area.