By: Dr. Ahmed Ibrahim

  The status of foreign policy in the presidential elections differs from one country to another, as candidates in presidential elections usually focus on internal issues, particularly if their country suffers from economic and political crises, a matter which makes political and economic reform more important than foreign policy. Yet, in case of any foreign threats, it becomes impossible to separate internal and external issues.

In Egypt, the presidential election held in September 7, 2005, was the first of its kind in the history of Egypt and it took place amid intense social, economic and political crises in light of a comprehensive vision towards realizing reform in the different fields. Because of Egypt's relationships with the international community, it seems hard to ignore foreign policy in the elections. This is due to the fact that 5% of the Gross Domestic Product in Egypt depends on international aid from world countries.

This is in addition to Egypt's role in regional and international circles. We noticed, however, the contradictory stances of the presidential hopefuls, a matter which their platforms clearly reflected as regards their visions and thoughts towards all issues, particularly Hosni Mubarak (National Democratic Party), Noaman Gomaa (Wafd Party) and Ayman Nour (Ghad Party). While analyzing the different stances of the three presidential hopefuls, it is important to answer the following questions to help understand their stances:

1.  What are the stances of the presidential hopefuls from foreign policy issues, or in other words what is the degree of harmony between the partisan platform and that of the election as regards foreign policy issues? 
2.  What is the position which foreign policy occupies in the platforms of the three hopefuls? 
3.  What are the stances and visions of the presidential candidates as to the issues related to Israel, the United States, combat of terrorism and Arab joint action? 
4.  What is common in the visions of the three presidential hopefuls with respect to foreign policy? To answer the aforementioned questions, let's begin with the sources of their stances on foreign policy while paying a special heed to the degree of harmony between their electoral platforms and the partisan platforms.

As to the stance of the NDP hopeful Hosni Mubarak on foreign policy, it looked like a detailed work plan which includes specific points without an obvious relation between the content of his platform and the basic documents of the NDP represented in an analytical vision divided on eight main elements: Egypt and the Palestinian cause, Egypt and Iraq, Egypt and Arab order reform, Egypt and situation in the Sudan, Egypt and Africa, Egypt and weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, Egypt and foreign reform initiatives and Egypt and international civil society institutions.

As regards the stance of the Wafd presidential hopeful Noaman Gomaa, the election platform is identical with that of the Wafd Party where it has included five foreign issues:

 the foreign policy of the Sudan, the US, Egyptian-Israeli relationships, and Egyptian-African relationships. With respect to the Ghad hopeful Ayman Nour, his electoral platform summed up the matter to the voter in a question: do the current status of the Arab nation and the failure of the Arab League, the suffering of Iraqi and Palestinian peoples and double-standards policy hurt you? The platform of the Ghad hopeful focused on six issues: the Sudan, the Palestinian cause, the development of the Arab League, economic cooperation with Europe, the reform of the United Nations besides activating Arab joint market.

• The position of foreign policy issues in hopefuls platforms: Foreign policy issues did not occupy a pivotal status in the platforms of the presidential hopefuls due to many reasons at the top of which is preoccupation with internal issues related to realizing political and economic reform, particularly democratic transformation process and the confrontation of the economic crises.

Added to that is the agreement of all major powers in Egypt on the nature of some sensitive issues such as Egypt-US relationships and peace treaty with Israel. Indeed, the major powers in Egypt believe that in light of the hegemony of one super power on the international order, Egypt is in a dire need of keeping close ties with it. On the other hand, some political powers such as Tagamu (Grouping Party) and the Nasserite Party believe that Egypt's special relations with the US severely harm its independence and sovereignty. Also, many political powers intensely refuse normalization with Israel before the latter's full withdrawal from the Palestinian occupied territories and the establishment of the independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.

 The electoral platform of Mubarak focused on six issues one of which was "Egypt secure and strong: pivotal role regionally and distinguished status internationally". The platforms of Wafd and Ghad hopefuls did not pay a greater heed to foreign policy issues as both focused on internal issues related to annulling Emergency Law, the independence of the judiciary, realizing economic reform and improving health care and education. Stances of presidential hopefuls on sensitive issues related to Egypt-Israel ties, Egypt-US special relationships, combat of terror and Arab joint action: On its part, the Wafd Party called for not establishing joint projects with Israel and it confined Egyptian-Sudanese ties to a mere strategic depth, rather a joint destiny.

 The proposals of the Ghad hopeful were just premature headlines of some topics which have not been deeply dealt with. Out of all presidential hopefuls, we have to shed light on the stances of Egypt Arab Socialist Party hopeful Waheed Al-Uqsori who called for boosting Arab nationalism spirit and the importance of establishing balanced ties with all foreign powers to help realize the interests of Egypt and the Arab nation as well.

This is in addition to adopting neutralism and developing Arab capabilities to liberate Arab occupied territories. In light of the aforementioned analysis, we deduce that the stances of Mubarak, Nour and Gomaa on foreign policy issues look similar as the ideologies of the parties they represent look similar too. On the other hand, the boycott of some parties to the elections deprived the first multi-candidate presidential election of an ideological diversity and political pluralism which could have enriched the Egyptian experience.