Ian Colquhoun Published Edinburgh Author

Egypt: Will history repeat itself?

The 24 news cycle of late has been largely dominated by the ‘revolutions’ currently occurring in the middle-east.  Though it is encouraging to see what at first glance appears to be a proletarian based phenomenon, the region’s importance geographically, commercially and strategically , means that changes there will inevitably lead to changes for us all, some in the short term, others in a much longer period.

The duplicity and hypocrisy of ‘western’ governments in denouncing totalitarian regimes but  supporting said regimes in the middle-east is well documented and widely accepted as being ‘the lesser of two evils’, which of course really means ‘we’d rather they had a nasty government than an Islamic one.’

It’s great to see Egypt’s people demanding more. So they should. But anyone who thinks this will be a permanent arrangement is at best, optimistic and, at worst, deluded.

A leading U.S General today stated that IF the Suez Canal was closed his country would have no choice but to take direct action. We all know what that means. This is nothing new.

In 1881, the once mighty country of Egypt was under Ottoman Turkish rule, governed not by the Sultan in Constantinople but by his Viceroy , or to give him his correct title, the Khedive.

The Khedive’s regime in Egypt was corrupt, militarily incompetent and saw most of the ordinary people live in poverty. The best Egypt’s young men could hope for in life was not to be conscripted into Egypt’s Army and sent to The Sudan. A rich elite governed Egypt with an iron fist while the fellahin of the Nile Valley were little more than its slaves. Then along came Colonel ‘Arabi Pasha.

Though an officer in the Ottoman army, ‘Arabi Pasha was an Egyptian through and through, and hated to see his country in such a state. Crippling debts to western powers soaked up most of the country’s money and left Egypt like a beggar, despite the world’s most important trade route, The Suez Canal –owned by Britain and France- running though their country.

‘Arabi Pasha , with full support of the Egyptian Army and people, deposed the Khedive and set up an interim military government to oversee a transition to a new civilian government. Does that sound familiar? ‘Arabi also declared the Suez Canal to be Egypt’s and announced that all foreign debts were to be defaulted upon, much as Nasser did during the Suez crisis of the 1950’s.

In 1882, as in the 50’s, Britain would tolerate neither the threat to Suez, her vital trading artery, nor the thought of lost revenue from Egyptian debts.

‘Arabi’s Egyptian army initially beat of a hastily assembled British expeditionary force, but was soon routed by the main Imperial force under General Wolsely at Tel-el-Kebir in the Nile delta. ‘Arabi was exiled and most of his surviving soldiers later allowed to be sent to their deaths in The Sudan in a futile expedition against radical Islam in 1883.

The British installed the deposed Khedive’s son as a puppet ruler in Egypt, with license to do as he pleased as long as nothing disturbed the vital canal.

Britain acted too hastily in deposing ‘ Arabi. They tried to save face internationally but in reality all this did was to destabilize a much wider region.

By destroying and then disbanding Egypt’s army, Britain actually made the threat to the canal WORSE.

With no reinforcements or supplies coming from Egypt, it took a radical Islamic revolt in Egypt’s huge neighbouring colony of The Sudan barely 2 years to wipe out Egypt’s army in The Sudan and establish a Shariah state in its place.  This new Islamic state – the first and only African country to oust its imperial masters by force of arms alone- threatened not only to consolidate its power in The Sudan, but to inflame the entire Islamic world and was a much bigger threat than ‘Arabi’s Egypt would ever have been.

British soldiers sent to The Sudan in 1884-85 to evacuate Europeans won a series of impressive but ultimately pyrrhic victories against The Sudanese, the only achievement being to prove that small European armies could crush vast armies of ‘savages’.

Paradoxically, Britain then created and trained a new, better Egyptian Army which not only successfully defended Egypt from a Sudanese invasion in 1889, but was by 1896 strong enough to invade and ultimately reconquer the Sudan – albeit with the backing  of a British Brigade and gun-boats.

When The Sudanese kicked out the Egyptians – whom they labeled ‘ unislamic’- in 1883, all they really did was substitute foreign tyranny for a far worse home- grown tyranny.

Egypt itself was to remain a British colony until the 1940’s. Its governments since have governed like modern versions of the Khedive. All for the rich elite. It is a wonderful thing that this may change. But be wary.

Egypt’s interim government is clearly just Mubarak’s government without Mubarak. That is plain to see. There are probably dozens of would be ‘Arabi Pasha’s’ in her army, and who can blame them?

The Sudan now has oil deals with China, which might indicate that , for the time being, Suez will remain open, but the canal has banks in Egypt too, and it is doubtful that a ‘new’ Egypt won’t want to maximize its revenue and prestige by playing the ‘big man’ over the canal. That is why when the dust settles, in Egypt, as in the other countries currently experiencing change, we are, sadly, more likely to see similar  governments in place with a new face to them.

The big fear of Europe in the 1880’s was the Islamic revolt in the Sudan spreading across Arabia and Islam uniting to rid the region of foreign influence. That was in the days when there was no Israel to further complicate stability in the region.

What the Egyptian people really need to ask themselves is ; do they wish to swap a local tyrant for one in Washington or London? Let’s face it. There’ll be war if any more anti-western regimes take power in the region, though no doubt western intelligence has already began to attempt to subvert that.

Egypt could always do as its neighbour The Sudan has done- make friends with China, whose ships account for more than 50% of traffic through the Suez Canal. Though one suspects that Egypt has been the plaything of greedy foreign powers for long enough- its people deserve something better, let’s pray that they get it, and that Europe’s (and the USA’s) legions need not descend upon the cradle of civilization once more for another war over money and resources.

A new phrase was added to the diplomatic gobbledygook phrasebook recently when the west alluded to having a ‘moral responsibility’ towards Egypt. ‘Moral responsibility’ really means ‘ The Suez Canal’.