Popular Uprising: Eve of the End of Era of Domination and Transition to New World Order (P.VI)

On Mar 1, 2011

During the leadership of Gamal Abdel Nasir, Egypt managed to meet 85% of its food needs thanks to the agricultural and industrial revolution. Besides, it succeeded in setting up over 1,200 various industrial plants, in addition to establishing big military industries in a bid to strengthen its defense capacity. The capital of the production enterprises amounted to USD 1,400 billion during that period, according to the World Bank. Egypt’s GDP also exceeded that of the G-7 countries of today by 4 to 5%.

Part VI

Now, 40 years after, Egypt is a country that cannot meet 10% of its food needs, and that it ranks first in the world as regards import of wheat. Also at present, the country is recipient of 3 billion dollar subsidy from the US annually. Despite this, it is astonishing to note that it has become a country with massive unemployment where its citizens lead a life of dire poverty. The so-called open door policy it pursued over the past 40 years following the death of Gamal Abdel Nasir did not help it either. Before pondering on the question of why so, it is worthwhile to analyze the political and military developments which unfolded after the death of Gamal that led the country to such a trap.

Anwar Sadat who was Vice President subsequently assumed the Presidency following Gamal’s death. The fact that the seemingly obscure Sadat fired a number of trusted Army officers of the Gamal leadership who used to hold key posts in 1971 came as a surprise to many observers. When Sadat assumed office, the people who were enraged with Israeli occupation of sovereign Egyptian territory during the 1967 war were not only ready to wage war against Israel but also exerting strong pressure on their government to take the necessary steps against the aggressor party.

However, Anwar Sadat, contrary to popular pressure, did not want to unleash war then. Moreover, he officially announced that Egypt has no war intension and called for Israeli withdrawal from occupied Egyptian territory. But, Israeli gave deaf ear to such a call.

Israel at that time was armed to the teeth with huge US military supply that did not compare at all with the Soviet military assistance to Egypt. Besides, Israeli leaders used to entertain the chauvinistic idea that Egypt does not have the capacity to unleash new round of war in the wake of its defeat in the 1967 war. In the meantime, Anwar Sadat conducted secrete consultations with Syria whose territory was also occupied during the 1967 war to attack Israel.

In September 1973, Egypt and Syria launched surprise attack against Israel. The Egyptian Army swiftly dismantled Israeli trenches and deeply penetrated into the Sinai Peninsula, thus putting it under control. In the same manner, the Syrian Army managed to control some parts of the Golan Heights. However, neither Egypt nor Syria were able to preserve the major military gains. Soon, Israel reorganized its forces with urgent US support and unleashed counter offensive. In the fierce war that continued non-stop for 18 days, Israel pushed back the Egyptian forces from the area they took hold, and eventually succeeded in crossing the Suez Canal and controlled the western bank of the Canal. This state of affairs led to confrontation in the UN Security Council on the part of the two superpowers, i.e. the Soviet Union and the United States. The Security Council subsequently adopted resolution calling on the three countries to immediately cease fire and engage in dialogue.

In the wake of the ceasefire, the then US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger conducted months-long shuttle diplomacy to persuade both Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat reach agreement. Ultimately, agreement was reached in January 1974 under which Isreal would withdraw from the eastern and western section of the Suez Canal and a demilitarized zone set up in the Sinai Peninsula separating the armies of the two countries, as well as allowing Israeli ships to pass through the Suez Canal on the part of Egypt.

Although the victory scored by the Egyptian Army in dismantling Israeli trenches during the 1973 war enabled the Egyptian people to relatively restore their self-confidence and dignity, the failure to keep intact the victory in the wars that follows had negative impact on the political developments that unfolded thereafter.

Prior to the 1973 war, Anwar Sadat was not happy with the military assistance he used to receive from the Soviet Union that did not at all match with the huge US military supply to Israel. And after the signing of the agreement between Egypt and Israel under Kissinger’s mediation, Sadat opted to side with Washington. He also officially announced that his country would henceforth never engage in war with Israel and is keen to foster good-neighborly relations–and all these in a bid to strengthen relations with Washington. In doing so, Sadat fell under the yoke of US domination. Thereafter, the former archenemies became puppets of the US hegemony.

In a speech he delivered on 6 November 1970 in connection with the 40th day of Gamal’s death, Anwar Sadat made misleading pledges to keep intact the great legacy of Gamal Abdel Nasir. On the contrary, however, Sadat paid a visit to Israel on 20 November 1977. In the course of the visit, he delivered a speech to the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) declaring that “his setting foot on the beloved Israeli soil is to beg for peace and ceasefire.” Following Sadat’s surrender to Israel and becoming a stooge of the US, the then US President Jimmy Carter invited both Anwar Sadat and Israeli Premier Begin to visit the US, during which the two sides signed final agreement in Camp David in September 1978. The agreement provides that Israel would totally withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula in stages and the strengthening of diplomatic relations between Egypt and Israel. The fact that Egypt, a nation that was believed to “spearhead the Arab struggle against Zionism”, became a stooge of the US and Israel gave rise to acute feelings of agony and shame on the part of the entire Arab population in general and the Egyptian people in particular. On the other hand, such a scenario was a major political and diplomatic victory for the US and Israel.

After Washington brought Egypt under its domination, the strategy it applied did not at all seek to compensate it. The US did its level best to render Egypt not pose any threat to Israel. In the subsequent period too, Washington saw to it that Egypt become a country incapable of standing on its own both in the military and economic domains.

The first demand put forth for Sadat after falling under the yoke of US hegemony was change of previous policies. And as such, he was compelled to change his economic and political policies. The so-called “open economy policy” that Sadat pursued in order to reconcile with the western countries was in gross disregard to the country’s 20-year old policy. The “open economy” in essence amounted to limiting government’s role in directing development programs and totally placing the national economy under the private sector through refraining the government from getting involved in the work of all economic institutions. This policy was fully in accord with the program embarked upon by international financial institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to introduce in all developing countries over the past tens of years. A policy of this type gives ample room for opening market opportunities for the products of the western nations, and thereby paves the way for gross external interference, exploitation, corruption and other acts of conspiracy.
Sadat’s “open economy” policy grossly undermined the principles embodied in the July Revolution aimed at transforming socio-economic status of the people and the nation. Some parties in particular characterize the move as a big betrayal to the People’s Revolution. The policy of “open economy” was fully translated into practice during the years of Housni Mubarak rule.

The next article will mainly deal with the economic, political, military and psychological aftermath of the so-called policy of “openness” that led to total subservience and related predicaments.