The Egyptian And Turkish Foreign Policies (1)

Abdelhamied El-Rafie 1

The Egyptian and Turkish Foreign Policies

A Comparative study

Presented by

Abdelhamied Hany El-Rafie

To Professor Dr. Ana Cristina Peterson

For the course of

Comparative Foreign Relations

At the Master Program of International

Relations

At Alliant International University

Mexico city Campus


Introduction:

The foreign policy of any country is a reflection to its internal policy and from my

understanding of the course I found out that the Foreign policy of every country is built

on the country‟s National interest and this element shows the goals of each country and

how every country perceives the outer framework of its network of relations due to its

Internal factors so we can not imagine a country which has a weak economic status to

play a leading role on the International forum or we cant imagine a country which have a

weak army would expand its territory on a militant basis .

Due to what mentioned above I will divide my Paper into the following elements:

1. The Egyptian Foreign Policy :

a. The Internal and Historical background that shaped the Egyptian Foreign policy .

b. The Circles of Current Egyptian foreign policy.

2. The Turkish Foreign policy:

a. Internal and Historical background.

b. Current issues of the Turkish foreign policy.

3. A comparison between both Foreign policies towards the Middle East.

4. Conclusions.

The Egyptian Foreign policy:

The Internal and historical background:

Egypt geographically has what Gamal Hemdan (1) calls the brilliance of place and

time,

it lies in the center of the old World:Africa-Asia- Europe. This led to either the

strength of the country or that the country becomes a target ,and that all the time

depended on the existence of a centralized strong government along the valley of the

Nile.

1. The Mohamed Aly dynasty:

Muhammad Ali is truly considered the founder of Modern Egypt. He encouraged and


sponsored men of learning, scientists and artists. He built a powerful army as well as a

military academy. He specially attended to the administration of government affairs.

During the first half of the 19th Century, a full-scale economic revival was in full swing.

Special attention was given to agriculture and irrigation, where barrages, dams and canals

were built. In industry, Muhammad Ali adopted a policy of dispensing with foreign-made

products, and creating national factories and plants to meet the needs of the army and the

public. In trade, he sought to provide security for internal trade routes and create a

foreign trade fleet. During his reign, trade flourished.

At the same time, Muhammad Ali was enthusiastically interested in spreading education

to cater government manpower needs. Schools of various levels and specialties were built

and educational missions were sent to Europe to transfer modern sciences to Egypt.

After his death, Muhammad Ali's successors tried their best to follow his suit by

attempting to catch up with European civilization. During the reign of Khedive Ismail,

Egypt witnessed an awakening administrative reform, while agriculture, industry,

construction and architecture prospered. Most notable of his achievements was the

establishment of the Opera House, railroads and the Suez Canal which was opened to

international navigation in 1869.

Thus, the 19th Century was one of enlightenment, rediscovery of the Egyptian power

system and development of human wealth. By the end of the century, Egypt witnessed

many revolts against the foreign intervention.

The nationalist movement grew stronger and several popular revolts took place. However,

the Orabi Revolution (1882 AD) ended up with Egypt being occupied and declared a


protectorate by Britain in 1914. Accordingly, Egypt officially broke off from Ottoman

suzerainty.

Thus, Egypt entered the 20th Century, suffering under the yoke of British colonialist rule

that plundered its resources. Popular resistance and national movements soon escalated

under the nationalist leaders: Mostafa Kamel, Muhammad Fareed and Sa'ad Zaghloul,

leading the 1919 Revolution calling for independence. The British occupation of Egypt

came to an end and the country was declared as an independent state in 1922. The first

Egyptian Constitution was issued in 1923.

Later, there ensued a period of economic revival led by the great nationalist economist

Tala'at Harb, leading to the establishment of an industrial, productive and services base in

all sectors of the economy. (2)

2. The Era of revolution :

The national movement for independence was at a very high tone during the 30s 40 of

the late century and it varied from working within the system or against the system to

the extend of political assassinations and confronting the occupier all the indications

specially by the end of Farouk‟s era (the last king of Egypt) the country was on the

burning spot and more specially for the defeat of the army in Palestine in 1948

(Nakba) plus the high rate of corruption even by the king himself ,

Due to this a secret organization in the Army worked until it seized power in 23rd

of

July 1952 it was a coup at the beginning but it was so welcomed by the people and

turned into a revolution in which had its real leader Gamal Abdelnasser who tried to

build the country and in order to this he tried to find a source for electricity so he had

the project of the High dam of Aswan ,at the beginning he had the support of the US


in financing the project but due to his policies of non Alignment and due to a conract

of Soviet weapons done with Czechoslovakia in 1955 the US understood that it‟s a

move towards the USSR so it withdrew its proposal of finance so he decided to build

the Dam from our own resources then He Nationalized the Suez canal .

This lead to the Suez war which changed the map of middle east and made Nasser

the leader not only of the Arab World but his power was international and he raised

the concept of Arab nationalist then came the Unification with Syria in 1958 as an

indication that Nasser has a regional project that extends its borders and leads to

confrontation with the west and against Israel with a fact of having a closer tendency

to have ties with the Eastern Bloc than the west .

The Nationalist movement was very serious issue in the Arab countries and also in

the Northern eastern borders with Egypt this lead to the losing Sinai in 1967 war

(Naksa) this lead Nasser to resign but the people refused and he dedicated himself to

the process of rebuilding the Army then he died in 1970.

3. Anwar ElSadat :

Sadat was one of the officers who lead the revolution and he was a Vice President to

Nasser he found himself facing the situation of an occupied land plus public anger of

this plus the existence of political rivals that lead to what is called sawrat eltasheeh in

which he put all his rivals in jail due to their high interference in his policies and to

prevent them from their trials to overthrow him . He was a Strange figure for the

Americans and he gave a signal to them by expelling the Russian military experts in

1972 Kissinger said that Sadat never asked the price of that decision and that they

were willing to pay


He astonished the World which was not expecting the movement of the Egyptian

Army across the Suez canal but he had a clear decision of moving the political

situation by a military action not a very long one which was 1973 October war .As he

astonished the World by war he did the same with his Peace initiative which lead to

the Peace agreement with Israel in 1979. but this lead to the freezing of relations with

the Arab World anger from some parties inside Egypt and another implications lead

to his assassination in 1981.

4. The Mubarak Era:

President Mubarak reached power after the assassination of President Sadat he faced

a challenges of instability on the internal spectrum and the absence of the relations

with the most important dimension which is the Arab dimension of the Egyptian

foreign policy adding to all this a frustrating economic situation due to the fact that

the country has been involved in 4 wars between the period 1948-1973.

So He was eager on returning back to the Arab World and he convinced a large part

of the Arab countries with the real need for moving through the Peace path in order to

return back the Arab occupied lands

He also started a long process of Economic reform that shifted the economy into

better situation and he spent a lot of resources in rebuilding the infrastructure and due

to these policies he started a new dimension of economic work which is the process

of attracting investments in which Egyapt has become the first country which attracts

investments in Africa and the Second in the Arab World.


Circles of Egyptian Foreign Policy:

1. Arab circle.

2. African circle.

3. Islamic circle.

4. Mediterranean Circle.

5. Developing Nations circle.

6. Middle Eastern Circle.

7. The World.(3)

Goals of the Egyptian Foreign policy :

Stability and peace in the Middle East.

Economic growth.

Searching for new markets .

Expanding the network of International relations.

Attracting Investment.

Enhancing trade .

The basic sectors of movement of the Egyptian diplomacy

bilaterally ,regionally and Internationally :

1-Strenghthning Arab solidarity and supporting the security and stability

in the Middle east :

a. Supporting the building of Palestinian state .

b. Solidarity with Iraq and working on its stability and the unity of its

lands.

c. Support of the Lebanese case.

d. Enhaning the Integration wit Sudan and working on its unity,security

and stability .

2. Support of Egyptian African Relations:

a. support of the Bilateral cooperation and relations and searching for

new areas of cooperation in the fields of agriculture, industry and trade.

b. Working on enhancing the Multilateral cooperation through the

framework of NEPAD ,COMESA and AU

c. Presenting technical support to countries of nile valley.

3. . enhancing and improving the relations with the US.

4..Deepining the cooperation with the EU


5. Strenghthning the Egyptian Russian relations

6. Improving relations with China.

7. Improving Relations with Japan.

8. Support of cooperation relation with rising economic powers and developing

countries in Asia and Latin America.

9. Enlarging the role of Egyptian diplomacy In International Political and Economic

Organizations and forums.(4)

The Turkish Foreign policy :

The Internal and Historical Background:

Mustafa Kemal,:

a Turkish World War I hero later known as "Ataturk" or "father of

theTurks," founded the Republic of Turkey in 1923 after the collapse of the 600-year-old

Ottoman Empire. The empire, which at its peak controlled vast stretches of northern

Africa, southeastern Europe, and western Asia, had failed to keep pace with European

social and technological developments. The rise of nationalism impelled several ethnic

groups to seek independence, leading to the empire's fragmentation. This process

culminated in the disastrous Ottoman participation in World War I as a German ally.

Defeated, shorn of much of its former territory, and partly occupied by forces of the

victorious European states, the Ottoman structure was repudiated by Turkish nationalists

who rallied under Ataturk's leadership. The nationalists expelled invading Greek forces

from Anatolia after a bitter war. The temporal and religious ruling institutions of the old

empire (the sultanate and caliphate) were abolished. The new republic concentrated on

"Westernizing" the empire's Turkish core, Anatolia, and a small part of Thrace. Social,

political, linguistic and economic reforms and attitudes introduced by Ataturk before his

death in 1938 continue to form the ideological base of modern Turkey.


Turkey entered World War II on the Allied side shortly before the war ended and became

a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after World War II

in quelling a communist rebellion and demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in

the Turkish Straits caused the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The

doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece,

and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic aid. After participating with

United Nations forces in the Korean conflict, Turkey joined the North Atlantic Treaty

Organization in 1952.

The 1960s to 1980:

Political agitation surfaced in 1968 and increased as left- and right-wing extremists took

to the streets. In March 1971, senior military leaders grew dissatisfied with the Justice

Party's inability to cope with domestic violence. In a so-called "coup by memorandum,"

they called for the JP's replacement by a more effective government. Demirel's

government resigned and was replaced by a succession of "above party" governments,

which ruled until the October 1973 general elections. Those elections saw the CHP re

-emerge as the largest party and its chairman, Bülent Ecevit, become prime minister of a

coalition government composed of the CHP and the conservative, religiously oriented,

National Salvat on Party. In 1974, the coalition faltered. Ecevit resigned, early elections

were called, and a prolonged government crisis ensued.

From 1975 to 1980, unstable coalition governments ruled, led alternately by Demirel and

Ecevit. By the end of 1979, an accelerating decline in the economy, coupled with

mounting violence from the extreme left and right, led to increasing instability. Demirel's


government began an economic stabilization program in early 1980; however, by summer,

political violence was claiming more than 20 victims daily. A severely divided GNA was

unable to elect a new president or to pass other legislation to cope with the crisis.

The 1980s:

On Sept. 12, 1980, the Council of National Security, or CNS, led by General Kenan

Evren, moved to restore public order. Thousands of terrorists were captured, along with

large caches of weapons and ammunition. While political activity was banned and the

former political parties dissolved, the CNS initiated steps to restore democratic civilian

rule by 1983. These measures included a national referendum on Nov. 7, 1982, which

resulted in overwhelming public approval (91 percent) of a new constitution drawn up by

the 160-member Consultative Assembly and modified by the CNS. The referendum

simultaneously approved General Evren as president for a seven-year term. A temporary

law banning former political party leaders from politics for 10 years also went into

effect..

The Motherland Party, or ANAP, was founded by Turgut Ozal, Deputy Prime Minister

from 1980 until 1982 and architect of Turkey's successful economic austerity program

under the military government. In the 1983 elections, ANAP won an absolute majority in

the then 400-member Grand National Assembly. The Populist Party came in second; the

Nationalist Democracy Party third. The new government took office in December 1983.

The Ozal administration, the first civilian government since the early 1970s to rule

without coalition partners, made economic reform its priority.

The 1990s:

Early elections were held in October 1991. Former Prime Minister Suleyman Demirel's


True Path Party won 179 seats in the parliamentary elections and formed a coalition

government with the Social Democratic Populist Party, which had won 99 seats. In 1993,

Demirel was elected president after Turgut Ozal died, and Tansu Çiller became Turkey's

first female prime minister. In the March 1994 local elections, the "Refah," also known as

the Islamist Welfare Party or RP, emerged as the big winner, capturing the mayorships of

Ankara and Istanbul and most municipalities in Turkey's southeast, even though the True

Path Party received the largest percentage of the vote. Originally dismissed as a protest

vote, the Welfare Party emerged as a real force, signaling further changes in Turkey's

government system. The Republican People's Party, or CHP, absorbed the Social

Democratic Populist Party and thus became a part of the ruling coalition. At the

September 1995 CHP party convention, Deniz Baykal was elected party leader. Baykal

and Çiller failed to conclude an agreement to continue the coalition, forcing the

government to resign on Sept. 20, and leading to a 45-day parliamentary "crisis."

President Demirel then asked Çiller to try to form a new government. Çiller established a

True Path Party-only minority government in late September, but was defeated by a

motion of no confidence in October. Demirel gave Çiller a second chance to form a

government, and she again turned to Baykal. They formed a new True Path Party-

Republican People's Party coalition that won a confidence vote on Nov. 5, 1995. The two

parties cooperated in passing a new election law and set general elections for December.

In the December 1995 elections, three parties emerged with nearly identical electoral

support of around 20 percent: the Islamist Welfare Party ,"also known as Refah" or RP,

of Necmettin Erbakan; the moderate center-right Motherland Party, or ANAP, of Mesut

Yilmaz; and Çiller's moderate center-right True Path Party, also called DYP. A scramble


to form some sort of coalition ensued. The True Path Party and the Motherland Party

eventually formed a government in which the position of prime minister would alternate

between çiller and Yilmaz. These two parties represented the secular Turkish mainstream,

but as a result of animosity between their two leaders, they were unable to successfully

forge a lasting coalition that would have precluded a role in government for the Welfare

Party. The True Path Party-Motherland Party coalition lasted only a few months,

collapsing in May 1996.

In July 1996, the True Path Party entered into a coalition with Necmettin Erbakan's

Islamist Welfare Party. Çiller and Erbakan agreed to form a government in which

Erbakan, because his party had garnered more votes, was the senior partner. Thus,

Erbakan became the first Islamist prime minister of Turkey; çiller was to take over the

position in January 1998.

The coalition was no more successful than the previous one. The Erbakan government

attempted to "reach out" to a new group of international partners; challenge the military's

political role; and chip away at secularism. In response, the military, throughout the

spring and summer of 1997, supported a growing popular movement of business, labor,

and community groups calling for the government's resignation.

The military also demanded compliance with several measures to ensure a secular state,

including the removal of all Islamists from the government. More than 70 officers were

dismissed from the military for links to Islamist organizations, and enforcement of the

ban on Islamic dress in public buildings was pushed by the military. Both of these moves

resulted in mass demonstrations lasting until 1998.

In June, mass defection in the True Path Party cost the government its parliamentary


majority. Prime Minister Erbakan resigned on June 18. The Turkish Chief Prosecutor,

Vural Savas, successfully argued before the Constitutional Court that Erbakan's Islamist

Welfare Party should be dissolved for threatening the Turkish constitution and secular

state. In addition to the office of the Chief Prosecutor, the politically influential Turkish

military was publicly opposed to the Welfare Party. Erbakan and several other members

of the party were banned from participating in the government for five years. Many

Welfare Party members joined the newly formed Virtue Party, or FP.

At the request of President Demirel, Mesut Yilmaz of the Motherland Party formed a new

coalition government with Ecevit's Democratic Left Party, or DSP, and Cindoruk's

Democrat Turkey party. These three parties were able to govern with just 223 of 550

seats in parliament, because Deniz Baykal's Republican People's Party, or CHP,

supported the coalition (at least on a case-by-case basis) without being a formal member.

In June 1998, Prime Minister Yilmaz announced that he would resign at the end of the

year and hand over power to an interim government until new elections in April 1999.

In November 1998, Baykal's Republican People's Party withdrew its support of the

minority government after government officials, including Prime Minister Yilmaz, were

accused of corrupt practices during the privatization of a state bank, and also of links to

elements of Turkish organized crime.

Although Yilmaz denied these allegations, his government fell on November 25 of that

year in an opposition-sponsored vote of no confidence. In early December, President

Suleyman Demirel asked Bülent Ecevit of the Democratic Left Party, or DSP, to form a

government to succeed that of Prime Minister Yilmaz. Although the president had held

discussions with the then largest party in parliament, the Islamist Virtue Party (the


banned Welfare Party's successor), it was not asked to form a government. This was most

likely the case because the Virtue Party (as was the Welfare Party) was opposed by both

the secular parties in parliament and by the Turkish military. Ecevit's caretaker

government won a vote of confidence on Jan. 17 and ruled until national elections were

held on April 18, 1999.(5)

The Basic issues of Turkish Foreign policy :

1. Cyprus.

2. Turkey and the EU.

3. Turkey and the NATO.

4. Terrorism.

5. Middle East.(6)

Modern Turkey, thanks to her geostrategic location with borders in Europe, the Middle

East, and the late Soviet Union, has been able to play a role in world politics far greater

than her size, population, and economic strength would indicate. Historically, Turkey is

located on one of, if not the most, strategic and traditionaly most coveted pieces of

territory. She controls the historic invasion routes from the Balkans and the Caucasus

mountains onto the high Anatolian.

It also commands the entire Fertile Crescent down to the oil rich Persian Gulf and

the Red Sea. Moreover, Turkey is also at the crossroads of major air, land, and sea routes

of modern times, joining the industrially advanced lands of Europe with the petrol

lands of the Middle East. Furthermore, she posesses the sources for most of the water

irrigating lands as far as the Persian Gulf. On the other hand, during the Cold War she

was also on the line of conflict between the zones of two military superpowers and their

respective alliances. And from the north to the south, she was in a rather sensitive part of


the Mediterranean, where both superpowers have tried to expand their spheres of

influence and counterbalance each other.This particular geographical position makes

Turkey a Balkan, Mediterranean, and Middle Eastern country, all at the same time. It

also makes Turkey doubly susceptible to international developments near and far and,

therefore, greatly sensitive to changes in the international and regional political balance.

before anything else, since the various effects of Turkey‟s geographical position, which

influence.(7)

Comparison between the official positions between Egypt and Turkey

towards the Middle East:

Egypt:

I quoted this part from the official site of the State information service of Egypt “Egypt,

with its geographical location and historical role along with its inalienable

principles , has been the main power in the region and the hub of the Arab action and its

main catalyst. Its pivotal role constitutes the underpinning of regional stability, peace,

security and development. Building on this firm fact, Egypt has shouldered, across

various epochs, its solemn responsibilities in defense of its Arab nation , in support of its

causes and preserving its rights according to a future far-sighted and objective vision that

many short-sighted people find hard to discern or feel. Within the context of these

responsibilities, Egypt had played a major role, during the 1950s and 1960s, in supporting

the liberation movements in the Arab world. As a result of Egypt „s adoption of such a

pioneering policy aimed at liberating Arab countries from the yoke of foreign occupation,

imperial powers collaborated to wage an aggression against Egypt in 1956. However,


this has never weakened Egypt's will or resolve to forge ahead with its policy.

Egypt „s adherence and commitment to the Palestinian cause is firm and permanent,

dictated by its Egyptian national security considerations along with geographic, historical

and blood bonds with the Palestinian people.

Before the July 23rd Revolution, occurrences in Palestine have been the focus of interest

of the Egyptian national movement. Egypt was a key party to the pre-1948 war events as

well as to the war itself ,as the Egyptian army was in the vanguard of this war..

Moreover,Egypt helped in establishing Fatah movement and then the Palestine Liberation

Organization PLO. (Reference is made to the draft resolution submitted by the

Palestinian leader Ahmad al-Qushairi to Alexandria Summit in September 1964, where

the PLO was approved and endorsed, with a strong support by Egypt, as the

representative of the Palestinian people.)

Egypt has mobilized its full potentials in every phase of the conflict for the sake of

Palestine: during the phase of military confrontations (1948-74) Egypt was the forefront

fighter; allocating all its resources and sacrificing scores of thousands of its best young

men in five consecutive wars :1948, 1956 tripartite aggression, 1967 war and the war of

attrition and the liberation war of October 1973.

Following the October 1973 victory, Egypt was busily engaged into a peaceful settlement

based on the United Nations resolutions. The peace battle was no less ferocious. In all its

phases, Egypt's goal has been to achieve a comprehensive settlement .The fair and just

and solution has been the core of any comprehensive solution . Egypt invited all Arab

parties, including the Palestinians, to Mina House negotiations and the Camp David

framework on peace in the Middle East included full provisions on the phases of


settlement of the Palestinian cause.

Under President Mubarak, Egypt has maintained unwavering commitment to fully

support the Palestinian cause especially after the liberation of the Egyptian territories and

most of the Egyptian diplomatic action was channeled into supporting the Palestinian

stance. Egypt had helped in the evacuation of the Palestinian leadership following its

ordeal in Lebanon (1982). Egypt has also supported the struggle of the Palestinian people

during the first Intifada (1987) and backed the declaration of the state of Palestinian

(1988).

Egypt has also backed the Palestinian side at Madrid peace conference (1991) and then it

supported Oslo agreement approved by the Palestinians in 1993 along with other

supplementary agreements. . Egypt sponsored Taba talks in 2000, where both sides

reached a formula that is close to a final solution. Egypt also backed the Palestinian

stance at all regional and international levels and made strenuous efforts for the

liberation of the Palestinian territories and the establishment of the state of Palestine with

al-Quds al Sharif as its capital.

It is an established fact that Egypt's international relations are based on several bedrocks

atop of which comes international stances on the Palestinian cause, to the extent that

these relations are being positively or negatively determined depending on the stances by

the international groups and powers on the Palestinian cause.

In this context, there comes the intensified large-scale activity by President Mubarak and

the Egyptian diplomacy in various international forums in defense of the Palestinian

people's rights.” (8)


Turkey:

According to the website of the Turkish ministry of foreign affairs I Quoted the

following:” The establishment of a lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East

as well as the evolution of this geography into a stable and prosperous region is the

shared desire and goal of the international community. In fact, this is what is essentially

and primarily needed for the security of all countries of the region. Turkey believes that

dialogue and cooperation must be the major tools to this end. It is evident that other

methods do not contribute to bringing desired peace, security and stability the region. On

the contrary, they make the ongoing chaos and conflict even worse.

Within this context, Turkey, from the very beginning, has been a strong supporter of the

Middle East peace process, viewing it as a golden opportunity. Accordingly, Turkey has

not only tried to develop bilateral relations in the region, but also deployed efforts for the

creation of an atmosphere conducive to regional cooperation.

Turkey desires earnestly a just and lasting settlement to the Israel-Palestine conflict,

which lies beneath the problems in the Middle East, through mutual negotiations on the

basis of a vision of two states living side by side within secure and recognized borders,

and in the framework of the relevant Resolutions of the UN Security Council (242, 338,

1397, 1515), the principle of land for peace, the Road Map and the Arab Peace Initiative.

Moreover, Turkey wishes the completion of the Middle East Peace Process through

concurrent revitalization of peace talks in other tracks, such as Israel-Syria and Israel-

Lebanon.

Our country, as a facilitator in the search for peace, remains at equal distance to both

parties with regard to the conflict. This is mainly why Turkey enjoys the confidence of


both Israelis and Palestinians.

Turkey is convinced that what lies beneath the current crisis between Palestine and Israel

is the crisis of confidence. Turkey avails herself of her good relationships with both

parties of the conflict and strives for building confidence between the sides. Turkey is

not only among the first group of countries that recognized the Palestinian State

established in exile in 1988, but she is also the first country with a Muslim poopulation

that recognized the State of Israel in 1949 following its foundation.

In the aftermath of the end of the Cold War, Turkey welcomed the first and the second

Oslo arrangements of 1993 and 1995 that followed the 1991 Madrid Conference which

opened a new page in the Middle East Peace Process. In this framework, Turkey has

given her full support to the efforts for the success of the process since 1991, while, in

accordance with her historical mission, she maintains her good relationships that are

predicated on the principle of good will with not only Israel, but also Palestine and the

other Arab countries. Turkey‟s good ties with all sides represent a versatile tool for a

future accomplishment of endeavours to establish an environment of confidence between

the parties.

The negotiation process which was interrupted by the Second Intifada in Palestine in

2000 was re-launched by the conference that was gathered in Annapolis, USA, on 26-27

November 2007. The conference took place with the participation of 46 countries and a

number of international organizations. Turkey was represented by Foreign Minister Mr.

Ali Babacan at the conference, who paid a series of visits in October to Syria, Israel,

Palestine, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait respectively, in the run-up

to the conference.


Turkey continues to make contributions in the political arena as well, to the endeavours

for the establishment of peace. Within this framework, Turkey supported the convention

of and the political process started by the Annapolis Conference. At Annapolis, a

compromise between Israel and Palestine was reached on the “Common Understanding”

document, the text of which was read by President Bush. In that agreement, it is aspired

to start at once the bilateral negotiations with good will to ensure the conclusion of a

peace agreement that would achieve the settlement without exception of any unresolved

issue including all the fundamental matters in the context of advancing the target of two

states living side by side in peace and security.

Turkey supported this meeting as an opportunity for peace from the date it was offered.

Turkey also announced that we were ready to make the necessary contribution to the

post-conference process.

Turkey is convinced that completion of the steps taken in the political field is solely

possible through the implementation of the context of the economic dimension of the

Middle East Peace Process. Therefore, Turkey attaches utmost importance to the

establishment of the economic and institutional infrastructure of the future Palestinian

State. “(9).

Conclusions:

Both countries are major regional powers in the Middle East.

Both Countries Have strong relations with the US but Turkey is more

involved with US through the NATO pact.

Due to the fact of that Turkey is a member in the NATO and has direct

military relations with the US they have direct and indirect normalized

relations with Israel and the clear example of that the recent Turkish

mediation for indirect negotiations between Israel and Syria.

The case is different with Egypt, despite the fact that Egypt has diplomatic

relations with Israel but there is an official and public opinion resistance


in the direction of normalizing relations with Israel that is to say that

Egypt is more involved as a defender of the Palestinian and Arab rights.

Although Turkey is an Islamic country and that the public opinion is

against Israel aggression towards the Palestinians but the situation that

shapes Turkish foreign policy in the Middle East is a bit different than the

Egyptian one because Turkey as mentioned above is not a direct actor in

the Middle East peace process on the contrary Egypt is the super direct

actor and the clear example is what happened in Gaza recently at the

beginning of this year plus the direct mediation the Egypt leads between

the two rivals Fath and Hamas and on the other hand the Security

mediation between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

Refrences:

1. Gamal Hemdan ,The Genious of Place and time (source is in Arabic. 2. http://www.sis.gov.eg/En/History/Modern/080700000000000001.htm

3. Arab Strategic report , Ahram center for Political and Strategic Studies

2006-2007 (source in Arabic). 4. http://mfa.gov.eg/NR/rdonlyres/884E0C2B-4436-4B74-B22C-

A1ACBD9F1731/3307/report.pdf . (source in Arabic).

5. http://0-

search.ebscohost.com.library.alliant.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&

jid=W0X&site=ehost-live

6. http://www.mfa.gov.tr.

7. http://www.sam.gov.tr/perceptions/sampapers/mustafaaydin.pdf

8. http://www.sis.gov.eg/En/Pub/Palestinian/

9. http://www.mfa.gov.tr/turkey_s-relations-with-the-middle-east.en.mfa

http://www.sis.gov.eg/En/History/Modern/080700000000000001.htm

http://mfa.gov.eg/NR/rdonlyres/884E0C2B-4436-4B74-B22C-A1ACBD9F1731/3307/report.pdf

http://mfa.gov.eg/NR/rdonlyres/884E0C2B-4436-4B74-B22C-A1ACBD9F1731/3307/report.pdf

http://0-search.ebscohost.com.library.alliant.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&jid=W0X&site=ehost-live



http://www.mfa.gov.tr/

http://www.sam.gov.tr/perceptions/sampapers/mustafaaydin.pdf

http://www.sis.gov.eg/En/Pub/Palestinian/

http://www.mfa.gov.tr/turkey_s-relations-with-the-middle-east.en.mfa

The Egyptian And Turkish Foreign Policies (1)

Documents

Transcript of The Egyptian And Turkish Foreign Policies (1)