Foreign Policy Analysis: Egypt vs. Canada?
...the United States, Canada, and various other countries, Egypt must maintain a certain degree of legitimacy within the United Nations. The fact that Egypt’s economy depends as much on Western democracies as it does on its Middle Eastern partners, may contribute to bringing peace to its area of the world. However, this can undoubtedly have negative consequences in Egypt, as its government struggles to juggle both Western and Eastern influences. How Egypt’s government decides to handle its foreign policy in response to external pressures is of interest to any aspiring political scientist concerned with troubled democracies in dangerous areas of the world. Egyptian Foreign Policy The nature of Egyptian foreign policy is as complex as the country’s position on the international stage. The concept of legitimacy is most important to Egyptian politics, as Egypt possesses a weaker democracy and requires a great deal of foreign aid and intervention. Following a legitimate agenda may be telling of a country’s level of democracy, but many times it is not. Legitimacy is a tricky subject , and the international community often finds it difficult to decide whether or not to grant legitimacy to another country. In weak democracies, governments like that of Egypt frequently attempt to veil their governance in a false mask of authenticity whilst continuing their oppressive behaviour, and succeed in obtaining legitimacy from other countries even though they do not truly deserve it. Recently, Mubarak announced that he will constitutionally allow parties and their leaders to participate in the upcoming 2005 election.# Beforehand, citizens voted indirectly for a leader already chosen by parliament.# Naturally the nominations were rigged, and Mubarak was consistently the only available option on the ballot. While other parties had influence, they had to be approved by Mubarak, and generally their powers were very limited.# This constitutional reform on behalf of Mubarak’s part seems like a step towards a much more legitimate democracy in the eyes of the UN. People are excited about Mubarak’s statement, but his proposition, in reality, is scarcely a step forward. In light of the recent Palestinian and Iraq elections, Egypt has been feeling pressure to follow in their wake to maintain its international legitimacy. This proposition, therefore, could easily be a hoax -- if it does occur, it may be backed by many implications and bureaucratic contradiction. Moreover, citizens have had no experience with other presidents for decades, and, subsequently, whether or not this change will have any impact can only be speculated. Diane Singerman has contended that Egypt, as well as most of the Middle East, has been in so many continuous “states of emergency”, that its people continue to be governed in this nature in spite of international pressures.# Executive authorities, for example, confront national emergencies through the creation of special court systems, and through the military.# This is how Egypt’s tourism regulations have been handled. When terrorists bombed a coach of tourists several years ago, the government responded by implementing mandatory military service at all checkpoints and historic sites.# No danger has resulted since, but this method of protection must be questioned as it could potentially turn coercive. It is evident that, in some respects, international pressure can be a negative force for transitional democracies like Egypt. On the other hand, it is necessary for the international community to have its eye on Egypt in order to assess its quality of democracy, and reveal key problems within Egypt’s government that disallows further consolidation. It is known that Egypt violates human rights, consequently reaching a degree of illegitimacy within the UN. Egypt’s military and authorities are corrupt in dealing with criminals, and the country has always been plagued with a “torture epidemic”.# Indeed, while torture in Egypt had typically been used against political dissidents, it is now affecting large numbers of ordinary citizens who find themselves in police custody as suspects or in connection with criminal investigations.# The UN is aware of such atrocities, but now must find a way to punish the Egyptian government -- especially because Egypt’s increasing rate of torture has been legitimized by the “war on terror”.# Egypt has undergone some reforms due to pressure on behalf of the UN and the World Bank in order to foster democracy. One of these reforms is particularly evident -- although Israelis are not allowed to become citizens in Egypt, they are allowed to visit the Sinai Peninsula.# Also, even though Egypt tends to have a strict refugee and asylum seeker policy, it has been increasingly opening its borders. It is currently aiding countries in Africa to cope with HIV, allowing asylum seekers to move to Egypt temporarily before attempting to go to the United States.# In some ways, Egypt has been progressively conducting its international affairs to coincide with the “democratic norm”, largely due to the positive influences of the global community. At the same time, its government tends to cover its affairs in a false mask of legitimacy in order to continue to obtain favours. However, much of this is due to globalization acting negatively. In light of Mubarak’s recent proposal, however, it is too soon to conclude how democratic Egypt’s government is in accordance with the Democratic Assessment. If elections end up moving toward a freer system successfully, then Egypt must be given a great deal of praise. If they do not, its position on the Assessment will remain in question. The Role of the International Community: Canada If Egypt’s position in international affairs is precarious, the same can certainly be said for Canada’s. Canada’s foreign policy has forever been based on the concept of “friend vs. foe”, in relation to U.S. influence. As a service economy, Canada frequently relies on the United States financially, largely due to its acceptance of NAFTA decades ago. The nation has struggled since its creation to differentiate itself from its neighbour to the south, both culturally and politically, as well as economically. While Canada’s economic battle may be similar to that of Egypt’s, its historical legacy is extremely different. Although Canada was also a colony, it obtained confederation in a far more peaceful manner, and its relatively small number of aboriginal inhabitants did not experience the same degree of oppression that Egypt’s enormous Muslim population did. At the same time, Canada has always had to appeal to a vast variety of cultures at once. Quebec, for example, has played a large role in the formation of Canadian foreign policy -- its French influence has encouraged Canadians to maintain a certain degree of French culture in their country and to protect French interests abroad, primarily through La Francophonie. Due to this blending of cultures, Canada has adopted a lax immigrant policy (highlighted by the fact that 20% of Canadians were not born within the country within the last decade)# -- one that has come under scrutiny after the 9/11 incident. Canada has achieved status as a world peacekeeper, largely due to its active civil society and political culture. This certainly demonstrates Canada’s high level of democratic consolidation within the democratic assessment -- it contributes to enforcing human rights all around the world. Nevertheless, the international community has affected Canadian foreign policy negatively for decades. The concept of peacekeeping, created by Lester B. Pearson, a key contributor to Canada’s position as a Middle Power, is suffering due to a poor UN mandate. Unlike the UN’s main budget, which is refunded annually, its peacekeeping budget is fiscally separate, and its replenishment is not considered mandatory.# If Canada begins to participate less in mediating international conflict, it is not necessarily proof of a weakening democracy -- rather, it is proof of a flawed UN mandate and an unwillingness of richer nations to contribute to world conflict. Canadian Foreign Policy Even though Canada is a consolidated democracy, Canadians view legitimacy in the same manner as Egyptians. As one of the G8 nations, Canada must maintain a positive reputation internationally. Martin’s budget is an indication of this, as it has promoted military spending# -- rightfully so, as military funding should be one of Canada’s top priorities in light of recent international events. Canada’s foreign policy extends far beyond peacekeeping, however. Canada feels immense pressure to join NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations), and has signed on for more peace and environmental agreements than any other country in the world.# But sometimes, the actions of NGOs must be questioned. Do they, for example, reflect only the views of certain politically dominant cultures and societies of universal aspirations#-- like La Francophonie, and the Commonwealth? How democratic are organizations that promote particular cultures? It seems that Canada faces the same type of cultural pressure that Egypt does, and not just from the United States. When he retired as Premier of Saskatchewan in January 2001, Roy Romanow expressed concerns about Canada's future independence, stating that the interests Canadians used to hold universally are now at jeopardy.# Lloyd Axeworthy stated that “[We] don't stand up for Canadian business when there is extra-territorial legislation preventing trade… sponso...