Speech by Ambassador (Rtd) Dr. Ezzat Saad

Director of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs

First of all, I would like to express my deep gratitude and appreciation to the Conference’s organizing committee for the kind invitation and warm reception.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The MENA states in general have realized that the ability of the United States to shape the global order has become greatly in doubt, and that labeling it as the “indispensable nation” is complete nonsense, whether in view of deep internal political divisions, or the militarization of its foreign policy, as the political elite, both bipartisan, believes that maintaining U.S. global hegemony is essential to ensure American safety and international peace. Practice confirms that this elite, which is corrupt in my estimation, considers U.S. foreign policy as nothing more than a series of military challenges that require military solutions.

We have seen how this policy led to disastrous results in Afghanistan and in Iraq, as well as to the emergence of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, a humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen, chaos in Libya, and a total failure of the Oslo peace process between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Unfortunately, the United States has not learned lessons from the continuing failure of its policy in the region. In this context, some American analysts affirm that the U.S. political elite often attempts all the wrong methods before finding the correct solution; in case it finds a solution.

Specialists in international system studies also note that the continuous talk of the United States, and some of its satellite countries, about the “rules-based order,” which increased after the intensification of competition with China and Russia and the two powers’ challenge to American hegemony, is often a response to the opposite reality, that is, the absence of international law, and the tendency towards entrenching a system based on force and creating crises and chaos in the world.

This explains, in practice, Washington’s use of its “veto diplomacy” to prevent a ceasefire and the access of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip, Since October last and its refusal to put Article 99 of the United Nations Charter into effect, at the request of the Secretary-General, to convene the Security Council as soon as possible.

Accordingly, an observer of developments in the region can come to the conclusion that the U.S. hegemony is gradually, and clearly, declining, as many countries in the region adopt a policy of diversifying options in their foreign relations, and are keen to increasingly strive to demonstrate the independence of their foreign policy and the growing interest in coordination and consultation towards creating a new cooperative security environment, and rejecting the American approach to regional security, which is based on integrating Israel through further normalization and targeting Iran.

Many Western writers believe that the region is already in the “post-American hegemony” phase, and that this trend has become more obvious following the Ukrainian crisis. The past two years have witnessed the region’s states refusing to vote with Washington against Moscow, and also refusing to participate in the Western sanctions regime. In the case of China, despite Western pressure, all Arab and Islamic states still see that the issue of the rights of Chinese Muslim nationals in the Xinjiang region is an internal Chinese issue that should not be interfered with, based on the conviction that the West is using the human rights’ card for political purposes.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The United States has empowered Israel to bring the catastrophic situation in occupied Palestine to what it is today. The matter here is not only related to what happened after October 7, 2023 until present, but much before that, as Washington helped Israel become an apartheid state, perpetuating the occupation and committing continuous crimes against innocent civilians of occupied Palestine, far from international accountability.

In order to realize the dimensions of the catastrophe that took place in occupied Palestine, with direct American military and political support, it is sufficient to point out that, according to the joint Gaza Strip Interim Damage Assessment conducted by the World Bank, the European Union, and the United Nations, the majority of Palestinians in Gaza are suffering from multidimensional poverty, including “complete denial of access to health, education, employment, housing, safety, personal freedom and water poverty”. According to the report, it will take years to remove the hundreds of unexploded bombs that Washington has supplied to Israel, and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development expects Gaza to take “seven decades,” that is, until 2092, just to restore the GDP levels of 2022.

The Gaza war has exposed the extent of the wide gap between the value system that the United States, and the West in general, claims to defend on the one hand, and the actual U.S. behaviors as we see them in Palestine and other regions on the other hand. The matter here is not only related to the direct American involvement in the killing and terrorizing of thousands of civilians in the occupied Palestinian territories, along with the occupation forces, the destruction of hospitals, mosques, churches, cultural and heritage monuments, and the killing of aid and relief workers and journalists, but also the suppression of mass protests in American universities against Israel’s crimes in Gaza, dismissing hundreds of faculty members and arresting hundreds of students, in violation of U.S. laws, and issuing directives to journalists and correspondents covering the war to avoid or restrict the use of terms such as “genocide,” “ethnic cleansing,” “occupied territories,” “Palestine,” and “refugee camps.”.

It is highly unlikely that America will get rid of this hypocrisy and contradiction, which are an integral part of its foreign policy. In the issue of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, Washington raises the slogan of the “two-State solution,” but it uses its “veto” against admitting Palestine to the full membership of the United Nations. In its relations with Beijing, Washington affirms its respect for the “one China” principle, but at the same time it perpetuates the status quo in the Taiwan region by providing it with the latest weapons and supporting separatist trends. Ironically, the United States still grants itself the right to issue an annual report on the human rights situation around the world, in a farcical practice that reflects a disconnect from reality.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Since the 1990s, both Russia and China have utterly rejected the American strategy of defending its global hegemony at all costs, or the so-called preventive strategy. Washington viewed the rise of China, Russia’s recovery from the Soviet collapse, and Iran’s nuclear ambitions – which are legitimate ambitions similarly to all countries in the region as long as the West insisted on keeping Israel outside the nuclear non-proliferation regime – as challenges that could not be tolerated. Instead of resorting to diplomatic means to reach agreements, the United States entered a phase of competition and provocation, including the use of military force with the aim of “weakening Russia,” as senior U.S. officials affirmed, to justify Western military support for Ukraine. In the case of China, the United States has waged a trade war against it since 2018 and has stoked developments in the Taiwan region with the aim of pressuring China and strengthening anti-Beijing alliances in the Asia-Pacific region.

On the other hand, what enhances the tendency of MENA countries in general towards greater openness and cooperation with Russia and China, in addition to the enormous common interests and mutual benefits, is the fact that Moscow and Beijing adopt a different vision from the American vision of global governance, and it is largely consistent with the vision of these countries, such as the principles of non-interference in internal affairs, and respecting the system of values and traditions, the cultural heritage, the development model of each country, multilateralism, and distancing from hegemony.

Ladies and Gentlemen,  

As a reflection of the ongoing shifts in the global order, our region is witnessing a major trend towards self-regulation, which has become clear in recent years. This is because, in addition to the greater independence they have demonstrated in their foreign policy, the region’s states are adopting a more practical and pragmatic approach to regional and global affairs, based on coordination, interaction, and bridging differences. The region’s states also seemed keen to join international groups and organizations that could provide options, alongside Western-led institutions. In this context, it is worth noting that Egypt and most of the Arab Gulf states enjoy the status of a “dialogue partner” with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and that Egypt, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iran and Ethiopia welcome the invitation to join the BRICS group of emerging economies, as of January 1, 2024.

There is no doubt that expanding the BRICS membership involves a strong message stating that the post-World War II order must accept the multipolar reality and change with time. It is noteworthy that the large number of applications to join the Group, estimated at about 40 applications, is one of the manifestations of a deeper feeling of frustration with American hegemony. The West’s penchant for imposing economic sanctions, abusing international payment mechanisms, reneging on climate finance commitments, and ignoring the food security and health imperatives of the Global South during the pandemic, are all elements that explain the growing disillusionment with the global order that the United States dominates and fiercely defends.

It is hoped that the BRICS will effectively contribute to reshaping global governance by increasing the rates of trade exchanges in local currencies, and reforming the United Nations system and existing international institutions, which no longer respond to the interests of developing countries, in order to better accommodate the aspirations of emerging economies.