By Adam Morrow
CAIRO, Jan 31 2007 (IPS)

During her visit to the region earlier this month, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice secured the support of Cairo and other “moderate” Arab capitals for Washington’s new strategy in Iraq announced by U.S. President George Bush in mid-January.

But despite official backing by Cairo, the plan – which calls for the deployment of some 21,000 fresh U.S. combat troops in Iraq and a hard line against Iran and Syria – has come under heavy criticism by local political observers.

At a Jan. 15 joint press conference with his U.S. counterpart, Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul-Gheit said that Egypt “understands…the need for the orientation of the strategic outlook of the United States.” He added, “We are supportive of the plan because we are hopeful that it will lead to the stability, unity and cohesion of the Iraqi government.”

Aboul-Gheit went on to state that Cairo was “hopeful that the plan would lead to the dismantlement of whatever terror organisations and militias are tormenting the Iraq scene,” and that “the plan would lead to everything that we have stated as objectives.”

For her part, Washington’s chief diplomat – whose four-day tour of the region also included stops in Amman, Riyadh and Kuwait City – thanked the Egyptian leadership for its readiness to act as “a positive force concerning (President Bush’s) plan.” Rice went on to refer to the emerging axis of moderate Arab countries as the United States’ “natural allies in stabilising Iraq…, in having an Iraq that can defend itself against foreign influences, including influences there may be from Iran.”

Despite official optimism, however, the U.S. plan to bolster troop levels in the war-torn and ethnically fractious country came under heavy criticism by local political commentators.

“Bush is obviously under enormous pressure, especially now that he realises he’s on the way to losing the war in Iraq,” Hasan Nafaa, professor of political science at Cairo University told IPS. “Such a plan could only come from a man who has turned from adventurer to gambler, ready to wager everything to make his money back.”

As for the U.S. secretary of state’s warning that foreign – namely, Iranian – influence in Iraq posed a threat to Sunni Arab governments such as Egypt, one writer in the local opposition press asked, “Doesn’t Rice consider the American occupation of Iraq to be foreign intervention?”

According to Gamal Salaama, professor of political science at Suez Canal University, U.S. insistence on the military option has resulted in polarisation of the entire region. “The U.S. supports Sunnis against Shias in Lebanon, and vice-versa in Iraq, while backing dictatorial regimes against democratically elected ones,” Salaama told IPS. “All of this is due to American confusion in the wake of the Iraq quagmire.”

Meanwhile, Cairo’s readiness to sign off on Washington’s strategy – despite popular disapproval of U.S. policy in the region – met with little surprise from opposition figures.

“The Egyptian regime doesn’t have any autonomy in the matter,” said Magdi Hussein, secretary-general of the temporarily suspended Labour Party. “It has followed America’s lead for more than a quarter of a century, so it’s hardly surprising that Cairo should support the Bush strategy.”

In hopes of bolstering Arab support for the U.S. plan in Iraq, Rice also offered promises to “deepen American involvement” in efforts towards settling the longstanding Israel-Palestine dispute.

“We’re really going to try to help the two parties come together to look at how they can move through the roadmap (peace initiative),” Rice stated in Cairo. “There are a number of issues – some old, some new – that will ultimately have to be resolved if there is to be a Palestinian state.”

For his part, Aboul-Gheit called for a “stabilisation phase” between Israel and the Palestinian factions in advance of open-ended negotiations. He went on to say that both parties to the conflict were “always welcome” to hold talks in Cairo, as has frequently been done in the past.

Official discussions regarding U.S. and Egyptian support for the Israel-Palestine peace process, however, were also received with considerable cynicism by local commentators.

“All the talk about reactivating the peace process is a lie, meant only to pacify the Arab street,” Hussein told IPS. “The U.S. always makes a show of giving something when it wants to commit bigger crimes elsewhere in the region.”

Government spokesmen, however, defended Cairo’s stated intention to reactivate long-stalled peace talks.

“Egypt is working seriously to re-start the peace process in Palestine and engaging all sides in order to realise this,” former Egyptian ambassador to Israel Mohamed Basyouni told IPS. He added that a high-level Egyptian delegation was scheduled to visit Washington in early February “with the aim of pushing the process forward on the Palestinian track.”

U.S. grand strategy aside, Rice’s stopover was also criticised by political activists, many of whom expressed disappointment over her avoidance of issues related to democratic reform and human rights.

“Rice’s visit further confirms that the U.S. has given up on bringing democracy to the Middle East,” Cairo-based political observer Hossam el-Hamalawy told IPS. “She was only interested in obtaining Arab backing for U.S. strategy in Iraq and in forging Arab support against Iran.”

According to Basyouni, however, the absence of discussion on democratic reform was simply a casualty of Rice’s whirlwind schedule. “The visit revolved around the subjects of Palestine and Iraq,” he said. “It would have been impossible for discussions to cover all relevant issues at one time.”

Excerpt: