Afro-Arab Relations in Retrospect
How we got to today’s situation
Extracted from ‘The Arabs and Africa’ edited by Khair El-Din Haseb; published in
1984 by Croom Helm, London, for the Centre for Arab Unity Studies, Beirut, Lebanon
Being the proceedings of a seminar co-sponsored by the Arab Thought Forum, held in
Amman, Jordan 24-29 April 1983
The July 23 Revolution and Africa
Part VII
Mohamed Fayek
The historical links between Egypt and the rest of the African continent go back
thousands of years. Pharaonic Egypt had strong relations with both the heart and the
periphery of the continent. In modern times, Khedive Ismail established an Egyptian
empire that extended as far south as Equatorial Africa, and as far east as the shores of the
Red Sea down to Somalia. Al-Azhar always enjoyed great prestige in the eyes of African
Muslims.
But despite these links Egypt never developed a nationalist orientation toward
Africa until its Revolution on 23 July 1952. No sense of belonging to the African
continent existed, neither at the mass nor official levels. Nor was there any
connection between the Egyptian nationalist movement, embodied in Egypt’s
political parties, on the one hand, and the African nationalist movements, on the
other, at the time.
If there was an orientation toward Sudan, it was not because both countries were
African but because Sudan has always been viewed as an inseparable part of the
Arab nation, the unity of the Nile valley being complementary to Arab unity.
Egypt’s lack of an African orientation can be attributed to two reasons. Firstly, a
misconception imposed by imperialism whereby Africa was portrayed as being
divided into ‘two Africas’: the Arab-Muslim one, north of the Sahara, and subSaharan black Africa. This was further manifested in the pattern of communication
and trade routes established by the imperialist powers. While such routes were
established between the colonies and the capitals and ports of the imperialist states,
the African Sahara was meant to be a barrier between the Arab North and the
African South, with no similar lines of communication to contribute to their
interaction and integration. Even the international community, including the
United Nations and its specialized agencies, took this division for granted when
dealing with African states and regions. This, in turn, reinforced the influence of
that misconception. The Sahara has, throughout history, been a corridor linking
the North with the South, both in trade relations and in cultural influence.
1
Secondly, the African movement itself, which was initiated by black Americans in
reaction to discrimination against them, adopted the theme of the black man’s
dignity and freedom and his returning to his roots – while the black Americans had
neither knowledge nor concrete links with the African continent, other than the
colour of their skin. Hence the birth of what is called ‘Africanism’ based on their
African descent – but only with black Africa in mind. African unity was to them as
much a way of reviving the ancient African empires of Ghana, Songhi, Mali and
others, as it was the unity of black Africa. With this, Africanism, before reaching
the African continent itself, took a separate path from Arab Africa. Egypt,
therefore, as well as the rest of North Africa, had no connection with this particular
African movement.
It was the July Revolution in Egypt which unveiled Egypt’s African face, and its true
affiliation to the continent. Nasser designated the areas of Egypt’s foreign policy as
comprising three circles: the Arab, African and Islamic. In his book, Philosophy of
the Revolution, he stated:
… We cannot under any condition, even if we wanted to, stand aloof from the terrible
and terrifying battle now raging in the heart of the continent – between five million
white and 200 million Africans
… Surely the people of Africa will continue to look at us – we who are the guardians of
the continent’s northern gate – we who constitute the connection link between the
continent and the outside world.
We certainly cannot, under any conditions, relinquish our responsibility to help spread
the light of knowledge and civilization to the very depth of the virgin jungles of the
continent … Africa is now the scene of a strange and stirring turmoil … We cannot
… stand as mere onlookers, deluding ourselves into believing, that we are in no way
concerned …
The Reasons for the July Revolution’s Interest in Africa
The leadership of the July Revolution could without difficulty envision the African
dimension of Egypt’s identity, when it embarked upon drawing up a new scheme to
mobilize Egypt’s human and material resources. Such a dimension is naturally inherent
to Egypt’s geographical location, and its need to take advantage of what may be termed
the ‘genius of the place’ in accordance with its traditional interests.
From the experience of the July Revolution’s fierce struggle against imperialism, which
started with military operations against the British occupation in the Suez Canal area, the
revolutionary leadership realized that Egypt’s independence would never be achieved so
long as imperialism had a strong grip on Africa. The first step was to terminate the
British occupation of Sudan, even at the price of conceding the claim to the unity of
Egypt and Sudan, raised earlier by King Farouk to assert his power over both parts of
the Nile valley – and even though such a claim resulted from the consensus of the
2
Egyptian people and was thus adopted by the nationalist parties and movements
before the revolution. The revolutionary leadership’s view, in this regard, was that the
unity of the Nile valley was viable only if the Sudanese were given the right to selfdetermination. The Revolution realized that true and genuine unity is that which
represents the will of the Sudanese people, rather than that based only on historical rights
or those of conquest, hence its full support for self-determination. If a unified state,
created by the free will of the Sudanese, was established, its frontiers would extend to
the heart of the African continent and thus border several neighbouring African
countries still under colonial rule (British, French or Belgian). Such a state would
certainly be a serious threat to imperialist interests on the African continent. Since the
basic mission of the July Revolution was to fight imperialism in all its forms, Africa was
one of the strongholds of imperialism which the Revolution had to confront.
Prior to this, it was traditional Egyptian national security interests that counted. Ever
since the dawn of history, the rulers of Egypt have been concerned to secure the
sources of the Nile. Now, with the new values and spirit that governed the July
Revolution, this objective could no longer be achieved by subjugation or be extending
the power of Egypt, as was the case in the past; rather, it could only be done by
liberating Egypt from imperialism and establishing friendship with the peoples and new
governments of Sudan, Uganda, Kenya, Congo, Tanganyika, Rwanda and other areas
where the Nile tributaries rise.
Later, there was a third reason for the Revolution’s African orientation. After the
Revolution’s success in establishing new industries and expanding old ones, African
markets became one of the best for Egypt’s products, especially given its policy of
expanding trade relations with the Third World.
However, even if this African orientation was an end in itself (considering that the
African dimension is an element of Egypt’s make-up, and that Africa, as mentioned
above, is one of the three circles designated by Nasser as foreign policy concerns) the
need to curtail Israel’s activities in Africa was one of the major reasons for the
Revolutions early emphasis on Africa.
The July Revolution and African Liberation Movements
Before the July Revolution, the only way open to African liberation movements to gain
independence was the constitutional-evolutionist one, namely to ask the colonial power to
accord each particular colonized country more self-rule until full independence was
achieved. The methods adopted to support such claims were all within the established
constitutional framework, according to international agreements and human rights
charters. This was how India gained its independence. African nationalist movements
were influenced by this approach, especially in the British colonies and dependencies
where strong connections existed with India, through local Indian communities.
Furthermore, many African nationalist movements were also influenced by Ghandi, who
started his political life in South Africa.
3
If some of these movements used violence as a tactic, such as the Mau Mau in Kenya,
then they were more ‘human rights’ movements aimed at redressing the injustices
inflicted on the indigenous population by the colonial power (such as uprooting them
from their lands and communities) than independence movements. Violence, moreover,
was a reaction to the violent methods used by the colonial power itself.
The July Revolution created a new opportunity for African liberation. Its success in
bringing about the end of the British military occupation of the Suez Canal, as a result of
the military resistance organized by the Revolution, the failure of the Tripartite
Aggression against Egypt in 1956, and the successful nationalization of the Suez Canal
all proved to the leadership that military occupation is untenable when faced with wellorganised popular military resistance, however strong the military occupation may be.
The British base in the Suez Canal area was the most powerful in Africa, and the most
strategically significant Britain had anywhere. The failure of the 1956 aggression was the
prelude to the fall of the British Empire itself, described at one time as the one on which
‘the sun never sets’.
The July Revolution provided an example of what military resistance against imperialism
can achieve and generated effective assistance and aid to African liberation movements
as a result of which Egypt became the strong ally of all revolutionary forces in Africa,
and Cairo became an important base for African liberation movements.
Military Assistance to Liberation Movements
Egypt was the first state in the world to supply African liberation movements with
weapons for use in armed resistance against imperialism and racism on the continent.
Egypt also provided these movements with military training in its Sa’iyqa School (for
Egyptian stormtroopers) as well as at its military academy. Egyptian intelligence
services participated in operations to smuggle arms to resistance areas and in securing the
safe transport of resistance fighters to Cairo for training.
Egypt bore the major responsibility in this endeavour until 1963 when the African
Liberation Committee, an affiliate of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), was
formed by nine member states, including Egypt, and financed by the OAU. After both
Algeria and Tanzania gained their independence, they also contributed to this type of
assistance. Military activities were directed against colonial forces which refused to
grant occupied African regions the opportunity to develop self-rule as a prelude to
complete independence, such as in the Portuguese colonies and Rhodesia after the
Unilateral Declaration of Independence aimed at establishing a racist regime.
Egypt’s ability to supply these movements with military aid was enhanced by the
rearming of the Egyptian armed forces following the 1955 arms deal with
Czechoslovakia, which left a large stockpile of British-made weapons and ammunition –
now no longer needed – available for distribution to African liberation movements.
When these weapons appeared in resistance areas, no suspicions were raised about
4
Egypt’s role in supplying them since they could have been smuggled from British
colonies in Africa.
Egypt provided such aid to all liberation movements regardless of their political
ideologies. Thus, in many instances, Egyptian aid was given to more than one movement
in the same region. For example, in Angola before independence, Egypt’s aid went to the
MPLA, which is now in power, as well as to GRAE, led by Roberto Holden and to
UNITA, led by Jonas Savimbi. The size of the aid was proportionate to the particular
size of each movement and its activities. It was in this way that Cairo maintained
friendly relations with all nationalist forces in Africa, without preference for particular
leaders, since the aim was always simply to terminate colonialism.
Political Offices of African Liberation Movements in Cairo
Cairo hosted many delegates of African nationalist organizations who visited it to
establish relations with Egypt, to convey their cause to the outside world through the
powerful Egyptian mass media, or to attend conferences.
At the end of 1955, the African League was established to manage the affairs of these
delegates and to facilitate their contacts with the large number of African students and
envoys either receiving education in Cairo or visiting it for other reasons. Another of the
League’s goals was to enhance the Egyptian peoples’ awareness of Africa, so to speak,
and to establish channels of communication between Egyptian intellectuals on the one
hand, and African students studying in Egypt and delegates of liberation movements on
the other.
Then came the idea of opening political offices for these movements, similar to those of
the Algerian liberation movement in many countries throughout the world. The purpose
of these offices was to establish connections between each African liberation movement
in its own country, and Egypt – which was the movement’s major source of aid.
Furthermore, these offices were intended to establish contacts with the outside world,
whether informational, diplomatic, educational or financial. Egypt was the first country
in the world to host a large number of African political offices representing the
major African liberation movements.
The presence in Cairo of those political offices and of delegates from African liberation
movements provided a great opportunity to the African revolutionaries to get acquainted
with one another, to exchange expertise and information about colonialism (their
common enemy), and to form one African framework embracing all these movements
and emphasizing the concept of a total African revolution against colonialism and
imperialism.
Egypt’s Media Assistance to African Liberation Movements
From the outset, Nasser had a considerable interest in establishing a powerful mass media
system, and especially a broadcasting network. Through broadcasting, Egypt could
5
communicate with all colonized countries across the artificial barriers imposed by
colonialism. Hitherto, the only sources of information to reach these peoples were
Western newspapers and broadcasts in local languages which were controlled by the local
colonial authorities and repeated the same news as that broadcast by the capital of the
colonial power.
Egypt started by establishing the Voice of Africa, which broadcast in Swahili along the
same lines as the Voice of the Arabs and was addressed to Kenya and the rest of East
Africa, in the wake of the Mau Mau events and the arrest of the Kenyan leader Jomo
Kenyatta. The reaction to this broadcast was fascinating, both in terms of the protest by
the British Embassy in Cairo and in terms of the feedback reaching Cairo from Kenya
directly.
Later on Cairo directed other broadcasts in local African languages to all parts of the
continent. Liberation movements were given the opportunity to communicate with their
peoples through such broadcasts. At the same time, the African liberation movements’
political offices in Cairo were able to speak to the outside world and convey to it the
developments of their struggle. Resources were made available to movements with
representatives in Cairo to issue a magazine in the name of the African League, edited by
the movements’ offices, and voicing their peoples’ struggle and explaining their cause.
Cairo thus became the first capital in Africa – indeed, in the world – to echo the
nationalist cause of the African continent as a whole, and to speak for all of Africa
and its revolution against colonialism. Thus, whenever a new African liberation
movement emerged its first aim was to reach Cairo, not only to get the political, financial
and military support it needed but also to make its voice heard throughout Africa and the
outside world, and to be recognized by progressive countries.
Egypt could, through this channel, relay to all Africans the message that it was truly a
part of the African continent, if not its throbbing heart and liberation base. This was one
of the factors that eliminated the artificial barriers which imperialism-colonialism had
tried for a long time to build between Arab North Africa and sub-Saharan black
Africa as mentioned earlier.
The Role of the Egyptian Revolution in Supporting African Liberation Movements
Since the July Revolution, Egypt has adopted the cause of national liberation and
liquidation of colonialism and assumed a special responsibility for African Affairs. Due
to its special relationship with African liberation movements, Egypt was the most
qualified country to present and represent the continent’s issues. At each annual meeting
of the UN General Assembly, Egypt invited the representatives of the African Liberation
movements to put their cause to the UN delegates, and to appear before the UN
Trusteeship Committee (the Fourth Committee) as petitioners, in addition to providing
other forms of technical and legal assistance.
6
Nasser succeeded in forming a powerful international front for these liberation
movements through his extensive contacts in the socialist camp and the Third World.
This started with the 1955 Bandung Conference, which was followed by the formation
of the non-alignment movement, where the basic membership criterion was support for
liberation movements.
As soon as Ghana, Guinea and Mali attained independence, and with the emergence of
outstanding African leaders such as Nkrumah, Sekou Touré and Modibukita, it was
natural that they should join forces with Nasser. Through these countries’ support for
Lumumba and the Congolese Revolution against Belgian separatist conspiracies, the first
African front, composed of African progressive states, was formed in January 1961 with
the signing of the Casablanca Charter by Egypt, Ghana, Guinea, Morocco, and the
Algerian Liberation Front, as members. The signatories stated ‘their determination to
liberate all African lands still under foreign control, by providing them with the aid and
assistance necessary for liquidating imperialism and neo-imperialism in all their different
forms …’
In the wake of the Bandung Conference, the Afro-Asian bloc at the UN was formed, to
become the largest of the UN blocs. Following Ghana’s independence in 1957, the
African bloc was established and after the first non-aligned conference in Belgrade, the
non-aligned bloc was formed. Egypt occupied a major place in all of these blocs
through its involvement in, and consistent support for, African liberation issues.
No less was Egypt’s involvement in popular congresses, such as the All-African
Peoples’ Congress, which held its third conference in Cairo in 1961, and the Afro-Asian
Solidarity conferences which were always held there.
The July Revolution’s Position on Neo-Imperialism in Africa
In the early 1960s following the failure of the 1956 Tripartite Aggression against Egypt
and the achievements of the Algerian Revolution which proved the futility of extending a
colonial power’s presence overseas, and after Africanism took on new dimensions by
being transferred to the continent itself following Ghana’s and Guinea’s independence,
traditional imperialism was almost ended. The main thrust of Africanism was liberation
from colonialism and imperialism.
The 1960s witnessed wholesale independence of African countries. The two major
colonial powers at the time, Britain and France, had to give up the traditional form of
imperialism while at the same time finding new ways to protect and maintain their
interests. This was achieved in the following ways:
1.
The continuation of the newly-independent states’ economic dependence on the
former colonial power and its corporations, which monopolized production and
marketing, and thus maintained their control on the price of raw materials. By
this the former colonies were tied to the international capitalist system, controlled
7
2.
3.
by Western capitals through their banks and monopolistic multinational
corporations that were supported by communication and trade links.
The colonial powers took advantage of the newly-independent countries’
pressing need for armies to protect and consolidate the new states by providing
them with the necessary training and weapons, whose production and trade
they monopolized. Moreover, even the officer corps and military leaders of
the former colonies remained loyal to their former colonizers and these
powers took advantage of this by concluding mutual defence treaties before
they left. According to some of these treaties, military occupation would be
maintained, as was the case of French troops in western and equatorial African
countries, while others sought to maintain the former colonial power’s control by
monopolizing training and the supply of weapons.
The colonial power’s control over all technical jobs which required special
expertise. This was possible because of the scarcity of African technicians and
the lack of suitably qualified people for higher administrative posts owing to the
shortage of African university graduates. Indeed, some countries, like Zaire, did
not have a single native university graduate or army officer at the time of
independence.
The Egyptian Revolution also presented a new model for self-sufficient development to
the countries of Africa and an alternative to imperialist control of the international
system. Nasser succeeded in realizing Egypt’s economic independence and in giving
the Revolution a social dimension, through an emphasis on equal distribution of wealth,
and in directing development for the benefit of the masses. The Revolution also created a
new political will outside the orbit of international polarization, as Egypt’s central role in
the non-aligned movement and its call for a new world order signified.
All this attracted many African leaders who wanted to follow Egypt’s example, despite
all the difficulties facing them. Egypt offered them all possible assistance to achieve this
and curtail the influence and control exerted by the imperialist powers. Egypt did this
with three goals in mind: firstly, to facilitate resistance to Zionist activities on the
continent, which had always been related to those of the imperialist countries;
secondly, to consolidate non-alignment and the Third World movement; and
thirdly, to enhance the prospects for Egyptian-African cooperation, which
imperialism had hitherto tried to thwart, whether in the economic, cultural or political
fields.
Egyptian Aid to Independent African States
Military Aid
Egypt presented the African countries with a good example of liberation from foreign
dominance when it succeeded in breaking the Western arms monopoly. The 1955 arms
deal between Egypt and Czechoslovakia was the first time a country outside the Eastern
bloc had obtained Soviet-made weapons. From this point on Egypt was able to supply
the African states with either British-made weapons no longer needed by the Egyptian
8
armed forces, or with Soviet-made weapons. It could also provide military training for
both kinds of weapons, without provoking the sensitivities which might have been
aroused by a direct relationship with the Soviet Union. Moreover, it was able to provide
African states with any number of technicians in all fields, when the imperialist countries
withdrew theirs as a means of pressure.
Economic Aid
Egypt put major emphasis on economic cooperation with African states, especially trade
exchanges. The Nasr Company for Foreign Trade, an Egyptian public sector company,
opened offices in different parts of the continent. With this cooperation, Egypt was able
to break the monopolies of companies owned by imperialist concerns, thus ridding the
African countries of their control. Egypt also made loans to African countries which
were otherwise vulnerable to international economic pressure. Such loans were invested
in Egyptian-run projects.
Resisting the Secessionist Movements
Africa has always experienced the problem of secession, a remnant of tribalism which
both threatens the unity of the nation and has been exploited by imperialism as a way of
maintaining its interests. Egypt contributed in resisting secessionism in more than one
African country. It sent troops to the Congo to support Lumumba in his efforts to end
secessionism in Katanga province, and after his assassination it provided support to the
Congolese Revolution until Congolese unity was restored.
Egypt also supported the federal government in Nigeria, supplying it with pilots, weapons
and equipment to put an end to secession of Biafra (which Israel supported with arms
supplies) even thought this took place after the 1967 military defeat. Nasser stated at the
time that he did not want to see an African setback after the Egyptian one and that
imperialism should not be allowed to reconsolidate its influence in Africa given what had
happened to Egypt in the war of 1967. Furthermore, Biafra’s secession was aimed at
creating a new entity in this rich African region where imperialism could play a role very
similar to Israel’s in the Arab region. Egyptian aid was thus a decisive factor in restoring
Nigeria’s unity.
The July Revolution’s Assistance to African Muslims and its Impact on Egypt’s
African Policies
The Egyptian Revolution was interested in assisting African Muslims. It sent educational
missions to Islamic areas and to schools affiliated with African Islamic associations. It
also contributed to establishing many mosques and set up a number of Islamic centers in
Somalia and Tanzania, each with a mosque, a school, and a free medical care unit.
Egypt also directed Qoran broadcasts to Africa as well as another service for Arabic
language education. Because most African Muslims read the Qoran in the Arabic script,
without knowing the Arabic language itself, it was easy for them to follow Arabic
9
language lessons by radio and books which the broadcasting stations sent on request.
Scholarships were provided to African Muslims at Al-Azhar and other Egyptian
universities and schools, especially for those who came from areas which denied them
education just because they were Muslims, such as Eritrea under Haile Selassie’s rule in
Ethiopia. After 1955, not a single Eritrean student who came to Egypt was denied the
opportunity to study and special instructions to that effect were issued to border
authorities.
In its first years, the Revolution established the Islamic Congress as its channel of
communication with African Muslims, and for providing them with assistance. This was
in line with the concept of the three circles in which the Revolution’s foreign policy
operated: Arab, African and Islamic. Then the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs was
established in addition to the Ministry of Religious Endowments, which also had
responsibility for spreading Islam. Apart from these, the President’s Bureau for African
Affairs undertook the basic task of contacting African political and religious leaders and
conducting studies on Islam and Muslims in Africa. Other governmental institutions
provided assistance to African Muslims according to this bureau’s recommendations.
Because of the deliberate denial by the imperialists of educational opportunities to
African Muslims, the July Revolution took special interest in the education of African
Muslims, considering Islam as the most widespread religion in Africa. Hitherto
education in most African colonies had been left to Christian missionaries and Muslims
were not allowed to establish missionary schools. Furthermore, the missionaries
concentrated their activities in non-Muslim regions to attract the Africans to Christianity.
In many African countries, the outcome was paradoxical as they had Muslim majorities
but Christian minorities in control of government and administration. In Nigeria in 1959,
for example, there were 14 Muslim students from the North registered at the University
in Abadan, while there were 354 Christian students from the East. And this was despite
the fact that the Muslim population of the North was three times that of the Christian
East.
The various types of assistance were provided discretely. Egypt avoided publicizing
them because of the danger of affecting sensitivities or creating suspicions on the part of
some African leaders and governments, especially the Christian ones. Biased propaganda
would have distorted the true purpose of Egyptian assistance and imperialist mass media
and intelligence agencies would have portrayed the aim of Al-Azhar and Nasser as that of
establishing an ‘Islamic empire’.
But despite the Revolution’s appreciation of the importance of spreading Islam in Africa
to strengthen Afro-Arab relations, it placed some restrictions on this policy:
1. Egypt was keen to limit its growing ties with Sufi sects and religious leaders and
associations to the religious and cultural spheres, without any involvement in
political activities.
2. Egypt refrained from forming any Islamic blocs in Africa in order to avoid adding
new divisions based on religion to the many other divisions imposed on Africa by
imperialism to distract the Africans from fighting their common enemy.
10
3. Egypt totally withheld any assistance to secessionist movements that aimed to
establish Islamic mini-states, such as the one attempted in East Africa on the
Kenyan coast. Egypt also supported the unification of Zanzibar and Tanganyika.
At a time when some viewed this unity as the disappearance of an Islamic state,
the July Revolution perceived it as a way of reinforcing the Muslims’ influence in
East Africa, since this would avoiding provoking many sensitivities created by
establishing Islamic mini-states that would have given rise to religious fanaticism.
4. Nasser refused to portray the Palestinian question as an Islamic one, despite
pressure by some African Muslim leaders, such as Ahmadu Bello of Nigeria, so
as not to limit African support for that cause to Muslim Africans only. Nasser
insisted on presenting the Palestinian question as one of colonialism and racism,
since this was certain to attract support from all of Africa.
Egypt’s Political Prestige in Africa
After the July Revolution, Egypt provided outstanding and effective leadership in the
politics of the African continent and for a long time Egypt was the centre and prime
mover of events concerning Africa. As discussed earlier, Egypt made a significant
contribution in eliminating imperialism and supporting liberation movements in Africa,
as well as in founding the Organisation of African Unity and in other attempts, which
preceded it, at unifying the continent and realizing its independence. No wonder, then,
that Egypt confronted and clashed with all blocs affiliated with and tied to imperialist
forces, such as the Monrovia and Brazzaville groups. To face up to this, Egypt, together
with other African progressive states, formed the Casablanca Group, until the formation
of the OAU which superseded it. Given his central role in laying down the foundations
of non-alignment, Nasser insisted that this principle should be included in the OAU
charter. Non-alignment has been the only available means for newly-independent nations
to dissociate themselves from the orbit of imperialism and to maintain their
independence. This explains why the July Revolution provided aid and assistance to
African states: to enable them to stand up to imperialism.
Egypt’s friendship with the Soviet Union and the socialist block in general – a friendship
of equals – benefited all of Africa when its major problem was to eliminate European
colonialism and for a long time Egypt acted as a link between the socialist bloc and the
rest of the African countries, thus paving the way for their subsequent close relations.
Great African leaders such as Nasser, Nkrumah, Nyerere, Modibukita and Kaunda were
able to keep Africa outside the global superpower conflict and the dangers of the Cold
War inside the continent by collective moves to forestall foreign interference. In 1960,
Africa’s progressive states, including Egypt, sent troops to the Congo to support
Lumumba, and later to bolster the Congolese Revolution against the Belgian invasion of
Stanleyville in November 1964. Nasser reacted to this by attacking the USA which
participated in the invasion by providing planes, piloted by Americans, to transport the
Belgian paratroopers who carried out the invasion. Nasser declared that Egypt would
lend its full support to that revolution. With this, Egypt and the progressive states
succeeded in creating African public awareness against any similar future intervention in
11
any part of the continent and against the military presence of any power from outside
Africa. Consequently the African states were able to resist foreign intervention under the
banner of non-alignment.
After Egypt failed to maintain its non-aligned status, it lost its progressive image in
Africa. In 1978, Egypt provided President Mobuto of Zaire with military assistance to
crush revolutionary forces. Mobuto was also assisted by French and Belgian troops and
American C-141 planes. From this it can be seen the Egypt clearly supported American
policy in Africa, and henceforth its involvement in the continent was tied to American
policy, to the extent that Sadat called for French intervention in Chad during its civil war
and sent Egyptian military assistance to the anti-Libyan camp in this conflict. Thus
Egypt’s role in Africa switched sharply from that of backing every African country
against imperialism, to that of a partner of imperialist forces on the continent.
With its geographical location, and human and cultural strength, Egypt can always play a
leadership role in Africa, which is enhanced by its great record of pro-liberation positions
during the African struggle for independence. This role is also enhanced by the fact that
many of the African heads of state and outstanding leaders who were involved in the
liberation movements during Nasser’s lifetime still occupy important positions of power
throughout Africa. Furthermore, Egypt enjoys special prestige in the hearts and minds of
Africans, especially intellectuals, because it provides them with a sense of belongs to a
deep-rooted civilization. But all this depends on its assuming the responsibility for
confronting imperialism and reinforcing the movement for economic liberation, and
consolidating African cooperation and solidarity. However, Egypt’s relinquishing of that
leadership role – when it switched sides in favour of imperialism – did not end its
prestige, as it manifested by the failure of all attempts to expel Egypt from the OAU and
the standstill in the Afro-Arab dialogue after some Arab states tried to exclude it from
that forum.
Egypt’s African and Arab Orientations:
Conflicting or Compatible?
If such a question can be raised in some Afro-Arab countries where a diversity of ethnic
groups exists – and thus where the issue of ethnic and national identity can be exploited –
it is absolutely irrelevant in Egypt where the population is homogeneous.
The July Revolution’s support for Africa started at a time when Egypt’s leadership of the
Arab world was strong and vigorous and the pro-African policy was by no means an
alternative or a competitor to the Arab one; rather, it was supplementary and
complementary. The major purpose of the African policy was to fight colonialismimperialism and this was the same goal as the nationalist movement had inside Egypt and
throughout the Arab homeland.
Egypt’s African policy did not prevent Egyptian-Syrian unity in 1958 and Egypt’s
interest in Africa continued with the same fervour after that. However, that union
12
aroused fears amongst some African leaders: Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, for example,
had some reservations about whether or not it might conflict with his scheme for
African unity, which aimed at a total unity of the whole continent, with one army and
one government (this was, in the event, too idealistic a scheme, which no one supported
outside Ghana, and it disappeared after the end of Nkrumah’s rule). One of the
objectives of the African policy was to save Sudan from the danger of partition.
Sudan’s southern part belongs geographically to the heart of black Africa and, during
their occupation, the British had tried to link it to neighbouring African countries which
were then under British rule. To this end they deliberately neglected transportation routes
linking the North to the South. The Egyptian revolutionary leaders, confronted with this,
thought that Egyptian-Sudanese unity would also serve Egypt’s African policy. Thus we
have an example of how the Arab and African policies complemented each other.
Egypt’s membership of both the OAU and the Arab League involves it in a number of
areas in which both organizations have common interests such as anti-colonialism and the
struggle against underdevelopment. Similarly, many of the problems which plague the
Arab world are also found in Africa, such as settler-colonialism, as embodied by South
Africa and Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and which also confronts the Palestinians in the
form of Israel. Both organizations also support the non-aligned movement and there are
no ethnic problems which prevent overlapping membership of both organizations: nine
Arab countries are in Africa and their population accounts for approximately one third of
Africa’s total and for two thirds of the Arab nation. At the UN, the Arab states have
always supported African causes.
However, in the early history of the OAU some Africans were strongly opposed to the
formation of regional organizations because of the divisions and splits that some groups,
such as the Casablanca and Monrovia Groups, have created. Apart from these two
groups, representing the revolutionary and the conservative states respectively, there was
the Francophone group of countries, sponsored by France and composed of African
countries which were tied to France and its interests in Africa and were thus an obstacle
to anti-colonialist efforts within the OAU. This issue was settled by abolishing regional
organizations of a political nature that divide the continent, while maintaining
organizations and regional units which are geographically based and do not contradict the
aims of the OAU, such as the East African Economic Community, the union between
Ghana, Guinea and Liberia, and the union comprising the four reconciliation states, as the
existence of such organizations was not incompatible with the OAU charter and
represented a step in the overall direction toward the unity of the continent. The Arab
League is considered one such regional organization.
However, Africans who frequently visited Cairo were upset to observe Egypt’s emphasis
on its Arab origins and identity, as demonstrated in cultural and artistic activities and its
major preoccupation with Arab causes and issues, which were not matched by similar
attention to African issues and thus invited unfavourable comparison of Egypt’s two
policies. Many Africans who acknowledge the compatibility of both identities were
anxious that this should no longer be the case, especially with the growing interest in
maintaining a strong relationship of cooperation between the Arabs and the Africans.
13
The Afro-Arab summit of 1977 issued a resolution calling for the establishment of
organic cooperation between the OAU and the Arab League. This reflected the interests
of all Arab countries in Africa and Afro-Arab countries, including Egypt, represent a
bridge on which the future of this relationship depends.
A View of Afro-Arab Cooperation Based on the
Egyptian Experience in Africa
Resisting Israeli Activity in Africa
Afro-Arab relations cannot be determined solely by the Arab-Israeli conflict and the
Palestinian cause and there are two other approaches for consolidating Afro-Arab
cooperation. The first, which has always proved fruitless, is to ‘buy’ African support for
the Arab nation through Arab loans or aid in return for the severing of relations with
Israel. Egypt followed this approach on a number of occasions and the experience
proved disappointing. At meetings or conferences attended by African states, Egypt
would press these to issue communiqués in support of the Palestinian cause. Later on,
however, it found out that the African governments granted Israel new privileges which
strengthened Israel’s interest. This was done either as an apology to Israel, or to satisfy
the imperialist powers and their multinational corporations, which themselves exerted
intense pressure on their governments. Egypt, after discovering this, refrained from 1963
on from asking for such communiqués against Israel and came to the conclusion that
resisting Israeli activities in Africa should be based on a second approach, that of
assisting African states to consolidate their independence, especially in the economic
field, and thus free them of major economic pressures to have relations with Israel, and
creating a network of joint ventures with these states, especially in the economic,
technical and cultural fields.
The prospects for the effectiveness of this second approach can be gleaned from the
lessons of the first, which has traditionally been followed by a number of Arab countries,
including Egypt. Buying support through loans or aid was easily countered by Israel
which was always ready to step in and pay a higher price for economic penetration. This
happened in Zaire, and was about to happen in both the Ivory Coast and Gabon, had it not
been for the Israeli massacres in Lebanon in 1982, and we should expect it to be resumed.
Israel has so far succeeded in establishing 13 trade missions in various African countries.
Therefore, a comprehensive strategy for Afro-Arab cooperation should be worked out,
the details of which can be discussed in another context. But the major point here is to
focus on creating a network of shared and permanent interests between the Arab and
African states.
The Position of the Arab States towards the OAU
The founding of the OAU was in itself a great victory for Afro-Arab cooperation.
However, instead of Afro-Arab countries doing their best to consolidate and strengthen
the organization, they unfortunately brought with them the Arab problems which have
14
become a major burden to its future development. Thus following the Camp David
accords they tried to expel Egypt from the OAU. Even considering the devastating
effects of the accords on the Arabs, such a move was hardly justifiable from the African
standpoint and its failure came only after OAU members split into two camps, creating
tensions inside the organization which did not serve Arab interests. Then there was the
problem of admitting the Saharan Arab Democratic Republic to the OAU, which now
constitutes a serious threat to the organisation’s survival. This was followed by another
dispute between the Arabs on holding the African summit in Tripoli (Libya), because of
some leader’s refusal to go to this country due to their differences with its leadership.
The result was the failure to hold the annual conference for the first time in the
organisation’s history.
Many African leaders and officials are now complaining of the behaviour of the Arab
members who, by burdening the organization with their problems, are threatening its very
survival.
Islam and Arab Political Moves in Africa
Islam has undoubtedly had a deep cultural and civilizing impact on Africa. It is also the
most widespread religion on the continent and Arabs can naturally capitalize on this to
reinforce Afro-Arab cooperation. However, this does not mean that Islam should be the
only axis around which Arab political moves in Africa revolve, as reflected in the
proposition that Arab aids should be provided only to the Muslim African countries or be
conditional on the effectiveness of Islam in them. This has been the subject of
complaints by several African states. Despite widespread adherence to Islam in Africa,
Muslim officials are rarely in positions of sufficient influence in their own countries for
that criterion to be met. Thus any Arab bias toward Islamic countries in Africa will not
be in the interest of Afro-Arab relations as it will attract negative responses from other
African countries, and will provoke the sensitivities of others with Muslim minorities,
making them suspicious of any Arab activities. Many African ambassadors to Arab
countries complain of being frequently asked whether they are Muslims, as if this is the
only justification for Afro-Arab cooperation.
That is why Egypt has avoided the idea of Islamic blocs inside Africa and has tried to
avert religious fanaticism from which Muslims might suffer more than non-Muslims.
Africa has fewer problems of religious fanaticism than any other continent. In Africa,
one can often find in the same family a pagan father, some of whose children are
Christian and others Muslims, and they all live as one family under the same roof.
But there is a strong feeling within Africa that the Arabs are prejudices against nonMuslims. This feeling is strengthened by memories of ancient history when the Arab
slave traders used to limit their raids and trade to the non-Muslim Africans, thus
obliging many African tribes to submit to Islam in order to avoid slavery.
Undeniably, this was exploited by colonialism and Christian missionaries in their
education curricular, where the Arabs were portrayed as mere slave traders and the
15
missionaries as the liberators of the Africans from the Arabs – an erroneous and unjust
portrayal which ought to be refuted.
The Role of Arab-African Countries in Afro-Arab Cooperation
The larger framework of Afro-Arab cooperation should not obscure the special
relationship between the Afro-Arab countries on the one hand, and the other African ones
on the other. The African character of the former is a major asset and the possible basis
for future Afro-Arab relations. Thus the attempt to expel Egypt from all the mechanisms
of Afro-Arab cooperation within the OAU, in the wake of the Camp David accords, could
have destroyed that basis had it succeeded, while in fact the Afro-Arab dialogue has
merely been suspended.
Afro-Arab countries can play a more active role in the interest of Afro-Arab cooperation
and of Arab information in Africa if, within the framework of the Arab League, each of
these countries is given the task of taking care of particular Arab concerns in African
regions in which it is more influential than in others. Egypt, for instance, has the
potential to be most influential in East Africa and the Nile valley, given its historical and
geographical ties with that region. Algeria, with its prestige among progressive states,
can use its influence with liberation movements. Mauritania, as one of the former
French colonies in West Africa, can take advantage of its historical and cultural ties
with other African countries in that region. It played a major role in establishing a
rapport between Nasser and the leaders of West Africa. Morocco can also play a role
in many Muslim West African countries. All in all, the various Afro-Arab states can
make much use of the historical and positive record of the Arab presence in Africa,
generating meaningful Afro-Arab cooperation: however, this will require the
coordinating of the Arab mass media and the Afro-Arab cooperation agencies of the
Arab League.
16