The development of prosperity, peace, and, most importantly, the security of the Middle East have been the focal points of Egypt's and the United States' relations over the past few decades. Following Egypt's declaration of independence from the United Kingdom's protectorates, diplomatic ties were established. For a very long time, the two nations have had a strategic, economic, and security alliance. However, both have simultaneously implemented various strategies in terms of joint initiatives to expand the business market and improve the security of cargo transit through the Suez Canal. The relation also focuses on increasing foreign direct investments, uniting together in the fight against terrorism, and modernizing the Egyptian military. Modern relations between Egypt and United States are extremely important, as the countries are striving for mutual cooperation in the spheres of achieving stability in North Africa and Middle East and finding ways to combat the world threat, posed by extremism and terrorism (“Egypt-U.S. Relations” para 3). The first attempts to set productive US- Egypt relations were seen in 2015, when the strategic dialogue was open. Later, President El Sisi’s introductory visit Washington, DC in 2017 was the beginning of new era in partnership between two countries and, significantly, made the ties between nations broader (“Egypt-U.S. Relations” para 3). Finding a common ground and understanding the causes of conflicts and challenges in the Middle East are the basic questions to be answered in the course of relations between the two nations. For many years, Egypt has been a reliable and influential ally of the USA and, nowadays, it still remains a valuable partner in helping the USA to solve a wide range of international issues, such as the spread of regional leadership and helping the US to find ways out from international problems, in which it has been involved. The relationship is well established and with its help each country is able to solve its own problems as well as issues, related to both of them, such as education, student and workers exchange and others (Tamkin para 2). This paper provides the detailed examination of the relations between USA and Egypt in the period from 1950 to 1958. In addition, the research demonstrates the relations between two nations in different spheres.
The Basic U.S. Strategy
The United State established the economic relationships with Egypt in the 1950. The main target of the ties and economic and political relations for the United State was achievement of a foreign policy, forwarded to ensure protection of American interests in the West and East (Hanna para 2). In addition, USA wanted to facilitate access to the oil in the region of the Middle East, bring an end to the British rule in the region. Another aim of the relations between the United State and Egypt was to restrict the spread of communism ideas and, specifically, the authority and spread of power of the Soviet Union in the whole region as well as to provide the required support for the attainment of independence of the state of Israel without the annexation of the Arab states. The United States realized that Egypt was a reliable partner compared to other countries in Middle East and sought to establish coalition to be able to spread the western influence in the Middle East region. One of the main challenges was different targets of the United States toward Egypt. Egypt was eager to obtain freedom from the British colonial rule and called for the support of the United States to implement its desire (Hanna para 2). That period was marked by the development of friendly relations between the United States and the British government. Most of the goods such as oil passed through the Suez Canal to European nations. Egypt on the other side left the Suez Canal without any defense as Britain was divesting itself from the region. The presence of British army in the region of the Middle East was important for the protection of shipping lanes, oil fields, and canal from the danger brought about by the Soviet red army. The main aim of Egypt was to have the British out of their lands, but the United States did not take the side of Egypt. One more demonstration of the United States conflicting goals was giving people the American support in the attempt (Benaim, Awad, and Katulis, para 1). The reason why the United States opposed the policy of communism was the thread to personal liberties, by which totalitarian regime was characterized. The United States intended to set self-governance over Egypt after the colonial power had left. The United States used the Marshall plan to solve the dilemma with introduction of massive aids channel to the countries in Middle East, Africa, and Asia. The United States Department had a belief that the nations such as Egypt would pass through a two-step process in the future. The first step was to corrupt the old regime so that the state could be controlled by authoritarian people that would bring together and arrange their order in the new territory (Benaim, Awad, and Katulis para 2). The second step was the establishment of channels, thorough which they could receive different types of help and development of the commercial activities with the outside world. On the side of the United States, the Dulles objective of opposing put the totalitarianism of China and the Soviet Union under control. The so-called power vacuum is created in most cases, when a nation gains independence from its colonial masters. During this period, the United States found itself giving assistance even to the authoritarian and dictatorial regimes to some extent. The United States participated in different activities on the territories of the Middle East that the State Department called this process a nation-building, marking the climax of development of the United States relations with Egypt in 1950 (Benaim, Awad, and Katulis para 3). This policy in 1950 did not yield the results as Egypt at that time was congruent with its own perceived matter of interests. To be specific, the Egyptian leaders did not accept the policy of communism. Egypt for a long time had been known for having the power to resist other powerful countries. For example, when the United States stalled in advancing Egypt opposition against the British, Egypt decided to seek the help of the Soviet Union, partly so that it could be able to attain the economic and military support to decrease the pressure on the side of the United States (Buescher para 7).
Initial Problems, Faced by the U.S. and Egypt after the World War II
In 1950, the President of the United States along with other top diplomats assured the leaders of Egypt that the United States fully supported the countries in their struggle for independence. The Egyptian leaders construed this information as a confirmation that the US leaders would help them to eliminate of the British control. Later, the United States changed the statement to imply that the United States would offer protection to Egypt with the help of all types of aggression, including communist subversion, external or internal, which might lead to confusion among the Egyptian leaders (Buescher para 7). The Egyptian king Farouk demanded the abolishment of the early agreements that had been signed with Britain, permitting it to control the Suez Canal and the immediate retreat of the British army from the region. The United States found it to be unreasonable to support the demands of the king for Britain to abandon Egypt and the Suez Canal at the same time. The United States observed the delay of the implementation of the political reforms in the country and decided to find another favorable ruler. The US Department arranged the meeting with the military wing of the country and promised their total support in case of any attempts to organize coup (Buescher para 8). The assurance lead to the 1952 overthrow, in which two military officers Colonel Gamel Abdel Nasser and General Mohammed Naguid were established as the new leaders of the Egyptian nation (“Gamal Abdel Nasser” para 3). When the power was taken, the military government of Egypt asked the USA for economic and military assistance. The internal political problem with the Egyptian ruler existed. The secretary of state accepted his proposal but the President of the United States did not give his approval for rendering the financial aid.
U.S. Efforts Intensification of Power after Truman and Acheson for Giving More Power to Eisenhower and Dulles
In 1953, President Eisenhower and Secretary of State Dulles came into office (Buescher para 8). Dulles' brother Allen was appointed for the position of the Director of the CIA. The Egyptian military received the equipment and the military advisors from the Dulles brothers. Through the CIA and the State Department, the Egyptian government, headed by Nasser, received the most important training and intelligence in the moderating of potential internal political propaganda campaigns. In 1954, Nasser ceased his partnership with Naguid and gained power alone with the military government. He was able to withstand the turmoil and disband the key components of his opposition in the Moslem brotherhood after the attempt of his assassination during the delivery of his speech, in which a hired assassin tried to kill the leader and failed (Buescher para 9). Nasser had the public sympathy allowing him to silence the opposition owing to the the attempted assassination.
The Egyptian government took the advantage to benefit from the United States, especially in terms of military and equipment aid. The CIA and State Department willingly gave the support to the Egyptian military government, demonstrating their expectation to form an alliance with Egypt, while the Egyptian government was in the process of the amendment of its relationships with Israel. The Egyptian military government utilized this opportunity to gain as much economic and military assistance as possible, but excluded the option of forming an alliance with the West. The real aim of Nasser was the adoption of the policy of neutralism between the East and the West for Egypt to be able to maintain its own independence, and reduce the competition existing between the two region to be able to receive financial and military support from both (Tamkin para 6).
Hopes of the USA for the Mideast Pro-Western Alliance
In the mid-1950s, the United States recognized the plan of the Soviet Union aimed at providing the material and financial investments to counties in Africa, Asia, and in the Middle East that were under the colonial rule of the Western countries. With their goals in mind, the Soviets wished to counter the influence posed by the Western countries through the promotion of the anti-colonial and succeed in the socialist reforms in these communities. To some extent, the method was quite fruitful for some time. The Soviet Union received a welcoming hand from the most of the third world countries as it was viewed as the friendliest nation, compared to the United States. The United States together with the British government attempted to establish another coalition around the world to be able to stop the spread of the Soviet expansion. The coalition included SEATO in the southwest Asia and NATO in European region. The plan also presupposed to create Middle East alliance with Egypt, which could have fill in the gap between two nations. Britain and the United States started working on the plan, making agreements with Iraq and Turkey, which were the key opponents of the Egypt nation. Nasser, the leader of the Egypt, felt that the two powers had discarded Egypt (“Gamal Abdel Nasser” para 8). Nasser’s plan was the formation of a military coalition with the Arab league with him as the ruling leader. In 1955, it was the turning point between the Nasser and the western powers because of the souring relationship, as Nasser was given a larger scale military materials sale from the Soviet Union, making the Egyptian government distance itself from the United States. This period showed the fast adoption of the pan-Arab nationalism together with the rise of the non-cooperation and neutralism with the Western powers. Despite the hostility between the United States and Egypt, it continued to support Nasser by providing economic assistance. The United States came to a conclusion that a neutralist position of Egypt was better than a communist partner. They were aware that the aim of the Soviet Union from this time included interfering with the Western efforts to cordon them encouraging more active trade of military materials and equipment across the large area of Middle East, also putting in mind support the Arab nationalism in their opposition to Israel. The USA tried to influence Egypt and Israel to make a concession towards an agreement with the aim of reducing the Soviet influence in the region and avoiding war (Buescher para 11).
The U.S. Finishes Its Balancing Act
With time the United States realized that the prime minister of Israel Ben Gurion and Nasser were ultimately unable and not willing to sign any peace agreement, Secretary of State Dulles and President Eisenhower resorted to calling Egyptian President Nasser bluff by countering him in different ways in the promotion of relationship with his regional Arab rivals in the territories of Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Iraq (Buescher para 11). The United States concluded that Nasser, compared to other Arab states, was on the side of the Western countries, which could leave the Egyptian leader in a situation where he could not accept as he will have only one friend the Soviet Union. The United States hoped that Nasser could come to his sense to avoid such an outcome and sign the peace agreement with Israel so that not to remain behind compared to the other Arab states (“Gamal Abdel Nasser” para 11). Nasser in his response to the United States refuted the American leadership in the region and went back to the Soviet Union, trying to acquire assistance in building up a covert intelligence operation in the vast region with the aim of undermining the Arab monarchies of Jordan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Nasser signed the Soviet military help (Buescher para 12). The climax of the issue happened when it came to the construction of the Aswan High Dam, in which both the United States and the Soviet Union were willing to participate. President of the United States Eisenhower and the Secretary of State came to a conclusion to eliminate the USA from the situation in the countries of the Third World, in which these nations were openly resisting the Soviet Union. Dulles informed Nasser in 1956 that the United States could not finance the construction of the dam leaving Nasser with the option that the only way to build it was for Nasser to accept the offer given by the Soviet Union. According to Dulles, the secretary of state knew that Nasser could be highly reluctant to do so. In response to the United States, Nasser started new diplomatic relation with China (Buescher para 12).
The Suez Crisis
After the withdrawal of the United States from the construction of the dam, the Egyptian nation opted for another way out by taking an enormously dangerous risk of nationalization of the Suez Canal which was not anticipated by the United States. Egypt wanted to use this revenue generated from the Suez Canal for financing the building of the Aswan High Dam without receiving any funds from the Soviet Union or the United States. Other western powers, such as France, Britain, and Israel alongside other shareholders in the canal responded to Egypt announcement in three months by making attacks on Egypt, which have led to a quick decisive defeat to Egypt. The Anglo-French forces took responsibility for the Port side found at the side of the Mediterranean Suez Canal terminus, while Israel took charge of a large area of the Sinai Peninsula. The division of the Suez Canal was done without any consultation from the United States. Secretary of State Dulles and President of the United States were disappointed by the attack on Egypt as they believed that this could call for a response from the Soviet Union that could result in big war (Buescher para 13). The United States acted strongly and went public to oppose another western invasion demanded during the United Nations meeting Canada to pass cease-fire resolution and withdrawal of military forces operating in the Suez Canal. In addition, the United States put pressure on Britain with several threats of selling the British bond. It could have resulted in the devaluation of the British currency as well as hindering the import of food and oil. Following the event, the British called for the cease of fire and the evacuation of the forces from the Suez Canal. The Third World countries saw the United States as it had acted in a friendly manner in the resolution of the Suez Canal crisis. Despite the fact that Egypt experienced a military loss, Nasser remained the leader, the Suez Canal came under the control of Egypt, while Israel, France, and Britain have left the regions they had invaded (Benaim, Awad, and Katulis para 9).
The Eisenhower Doctrine
The policy of United States towards Egypt in the 1950s was guided by the so-called Eisenhower doctrine. It was declaration that the United States made to give assistance to any country in the Middle East in case they require any help in order to control any military advancement or threat by any country under the watch of the international communism. Despite the offering of the doctrine, it was, to some extent, not practical because of some shortcomings. The policy welcomed the pro-western countries in the region in order to exclude any possibility of penetration of external or internal communist threats as the easy way to obtain the financial support from the United States without having any negotiations. In addition, the strategy was targeted at obstruct Nasser’s desire to weaken his rivals in the Middle East region, many of whom had the pro-western orientation. The real outcome was the complication of the internal politics of the area due to the political circumstances that shifted situation in each country. The policy caused the unwanted and unintended trouble to the United States as the CIA framed the word blowback. Many of the operations comprised of the counter-coups, which were influenced, inspired or orchestrated by the CIA. The CIA operation in Egypt established an exceedingly intimate and complicated relationship with Nasser’s regime. The adoption of the Eisenhower doctrine to the nation in the Middle East resulted in the widespread of hostility between the countries. As time passed, the relationship between the United States and that of Egypt considerably worsened. Despite the efforts of the United States to assist in regulation of Suez Canal crisis, it did not improve the relationship of two countries. Within the period, there have been little attempts of the Egyptian government to amend its ties with the United States (Benaim, Awad, and Katulis para 10).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the primary US desire for the good affairs with Egypt was to capitalize on Egypt skilful leadership in the Arab world. Most of the states in the Middle East depended on Egypt to set examples or initiate action on regional problems. In addition, US good accord with Egypt was to sustain Egypt moderate voice in the Arab league as well as to count on Egypt influence on various world matters of political and economic nature. Nasser as the leader of the Egyptian politics antagonized the United States with his anti-Israeli rhetoric and the pro-Soviet policies but still had full support from the United States. The relationship between Egypt and the United States today is a mere vestige of the era that has already passed. The United States did not manage to find effective means to sustain close ties with Egypt. The coalition that used to be strong symbolic union with obvious benefits for both sides, has turned to the openly transactional relationships that have more benefits on the side of Egypt at the expense of the U.S. Time has come for the two sides to acknowledge that reality, and for the side of the United States to fundamentally change its approach to Egypt. After the hostile relationship in the 1950, the contemporary United States, Egypt ties resumed in the aftermath of 1973 of the Arab –Israel war which was put in place by the logic of the cold war, through which Egypt switched its focus from the Soviet to the American camp in the aim of various economic and military support. Other distinct factors in the Middle East such as the Middle East peace and fight against the rise of the jihadist, terrorism have given a new chance to the rationales for the continuing partnership. The United States and Egypt relation has become of an anachronism that interferes with the American policy. The two nations should be able to rethink on different aspect so as to strengthen the relationship that was once enjoyed between the two countries. The meeting of the U.S President Donald Trump with the President of Egypt Al Sis provides a good chance for the beginning of the contacts but to some extent; it may risk the interest and values of one country. The Egyptian ties have seen historic sterna in the past years when the vast region of Middle East slipped into a state of full violence that pose a great danger to the global order and interest. The region today is a hub for different activities which ranges from terrorism networks rooted within its boundaries, state collapse, civil wars, mass migration, and the violation of human rights as well as the intense battles between the global powers and the regional powers, and the never-ending tension that exists between the authoritarian state and the youthful population with high rate of unemployment. Today, Egypt is well placed to avoid the worst outcome for their neighbours. The new political and the economic way remains brittle and inchoate, with no straightforward plan for the defences from the uprising terror networks, increased job creation, or representative governance. The Egyptian economic power has been moving for worse. The way forward for the United States and Egypt association depends on the collective efforts of the two countries for the improvement of the relations, but the United States should request for better returns from Egypt. The Egypt state should continue to address the issues that surround governance practices toward citizen, the preservation of open civic space. In addition, the Egypt nation should channel their focus on the security cooperation on the four pillars in to add the training. Today, the Egyptian rule has turned to the democratic political take over spearheaded by the people for a better future. The Egyptian regime is driven by the desire of the citizens for both political stability and economic progress. In the few past years, there has been an improvement in the relationship between Egypt and United States of America. The Egyptian bureaucracy has concentrated on the various aspects such as study programs, military training among other offbeat projects. The truth is that the stability of the Middle East depends on the wellbeing of Egypt viewed as the pillar of the countries in the Middle East. The deterioration of relations between Egypt and the United States could result in disturbance of the entire Middle East region. The military cooperation and the attempts to organize military partnership between the USA and Egypt is the strongest aspect and the most reliable part of their strategic partnership. According to the words of General Anthony Zinni, the former Commander of the American Central Command (CENTCOM): "Egypt is the most important country in my area of responsibility because of the access it gives to the region." (Benaim, Awad, and Katulis para 18). America has always considered Egypt as a major partner in the Middle East and the Clinton administration described it as the largest player in the Arab world as well as the most important American partner in the Middle East.
Works Cited
Buescher, John. “The U.S. and Egypt in the 1950s.” Teaching History. http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/23930. Accessed 22 Nov. 2017
“Egypt-U.S. Relations”. Embassy of Egypt. http://www.egyptembassy.net/egypt-us-relations/. Accessed 22 Nov. 2017
“Gamal Abdel Nasser.” International Relations. http://internationalrelations.org/gamal-abdel-nasser/. Accessed 22 Nov. 2017
Hanna, Michael Wahid. “Getting Over Egypt.” Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/egypt/getting-over-egypt
Benaim, Daniel, Awad, Mokhtar, and Katulis, Brian. “Setting the Terms for us Egypt Relations.” Center for American Progress, 2017. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/reports/2017/02/21/426654/setting-the-terms-for-u-s-egypt-relations/. Accessed 22 Nov. 2017
Tamkin, Emily. “Time to Rethink the U.S.-Egypt Relationship, Experts Tell Senate.” Foreign Policy, 2017. http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/04/25/time-to-rethink-the-u-s-egypt-relationship-experts-tell-senate/. Accessed 22 Nov. 2017
