Editor: Farida Ibrahim- Third Year Political Sciences French section
The year 2024 was a pivotal one in the trajectory of global
transformation, witnessing major developments in the international
system. Considering these developments, the Faculty of Economics and
Political Science held a seminar to discuss the Arab Strategic
Report, issued by the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic
Studies in collaboration with the faculty, on Tuesday, April 29,
2025.
The seminar began
with an opening session at 9:30 a.m., with welcoming remarks by Dr.
Amani Mahfouz, Head of the Political Science Department at the
Faculty of Economics and Political Science; Dr. Ayman Abdel Wahab,
Director of the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies;
the Dean of the Faculty of Economics and Political Science; and
finally, the Vice Dean for Community Service and Environmental
Development.
The first session
of the seminar began at 10:00 a.m. and was titled: “The
International System... Between American Centrality and the Shift of
the Center of Gravity Toward East Asia.” It was chaired by Prof. Dr.
Hassan Nafaa and featured Dr. Gamal Abdel Gawad, Dr. Raghda El Bahey,
and Dr. Heidi Kars as speakers. The session concluded with some
discussions between the speakers and attendees.
Prof. Dr. Hassan
Nafaa began by thanking Dr. Amani Mahfouz for inviting him to the
seminar, stressing the importance of discussing this report as a
wake-up call due to its value to the faculty, the center, and what
it offers researchers and students. He then outlined the topics
presented in the report for discussion: firstly, the crisis of the
decline of the liberal order established after World War II, which
passed through several phases; secondly, the U.S. elections as a
turning point and the implications of Trump’s re-election on
American politics; thirdly, conflictual issues such as the
Russia-Ukraine war; and fourthly, continental issues discussing
matters such as the rise of the far-right in Europe.
Prof. Nafaa then
handed the floor to Dr. Gamal Abdel Gawad, noting his expertise in
international relations. Dr. Abdel Gawad spoke about the crisis of
the international order, explaining that what he had learned from
theories does not clearly explain current events, describing it as a
“mismatch” or likening it to the theory of “black swans.” He
emphasized that the key skill today is the ability to deduce and
seek innovative solutions, with the main burden falling on the new
generation. He argued that we should not impose rigid rules in
political science but rather derive them and observe and explain
what happens in our world. International relations as a discipline
are rooted in the liberal order—a mix of liberal values and systems
including individual freedom, free trade, abolition of slavery,
etc.—which flourished after World War II and the Cold War and was
revived with the U.S. and Britain’s inheritance of the Middle East
and its division into states. Now, this order is under immense
pressure in its ideological core in recent years, and its future is
uncertain. This is evident in three dimensions: first, a shift in
the power structure from Europe to China—the third-largest economy
and largest industrial power with rapid technological advancement,
which is no longer exclusive to the West. There is a transfer of
power centers, a process of decline and rise. What's new is that
this transfer from Western power to another power raises the
question: are we moving toward a globalization of multiple blocs or
a multipolar world? There has also been a development in the
fluidity of money, goods, people, and ideas—something the world
witnessed with clear cooperation after the Cold War. There has been
a shift from cooperative to conflictual relations (more
trade-related now—customs tariffs). Human rights, democracy, and
liberal principles no longer dominate the scene, especially with the
rise of the far-right across the West, leading to a change in
ideological character. But where will this situation take us? Most
likely, to complete instability.
Next, Dr. Raghda El
Bahey spoke, explaining that the Arab Strategic Report is a
distinguished and precise document that offers accurate monitoring
and analysis of global events at the international, regional, and
even national (Egyptian) levels throughout 2024, with clear trends
on which the future can be anticipated. She began by discussing the
shift of civilizational precedence toward East Asia, noting that its
roots go back to the late 20th century with the emergence of the
concept of the Asian Century. This concept was built on several
facts, including economic rise and engines of labor, production, and
innovation in China, followed by India. The strength of the Asian
continent lies in its economy. It’s not just about a shift in
civilizational primacy to the East, but about economic factors.
Politically, the Asian continent has a complex and non-homogeneous
political environment, ranging from democracies in Japan and South
Korea to authoritarian regimes in neighboring countries facing real
challenges in poverty and social inequality. Thus, she argued, there
is more than one Asian Century. Asia is undergoing demographic and
economic transformations that could hinder its role, such as a
declining labor force due to aging populations, leading to
increasing pressure on social security systems. In contrast, Asia
also faces security and geopolitical challenges, notably tensions in
the South China Sea and the potential conflict between China and
Taiwan, which could reshape strategic balances on the continent.
Despite the rise of major powers like India and Brazil, and partial
emergence of Africa, complete Asian dominance remains questionable.
The international system is not heading toward Asian unipolarity but
rather toward multipolarity, where powers like Western Europe and
the U.S. continue to maintain leadership roles politically,
economically, and militarily.
There is ongoing
debate about whether the liberal international order is in its death
throes or merely facing a temporary crisis from which it can
recover. It still enjoys strong institutional roots, such as the
International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, in addition to its
cultural component manifested in globalization and American cultural
dominance—something Asian powers have yet to offer a complete
alternative to. She concluded her remarks by stating that the
international system is in a state of intellectual and analytical
fluidity. It is possible to infer the continuation of American
hegemony just as it is possible to infer its decline. On one hand,
the U.S. still possesses the world’s most powerful military and
greatest cultural influence. On the other, signs of its retreat are
evident—foreign conflicts, growing isolationist tendencies
domestically, and discussions about the end of the American century.
The world stands at a crossroads between East and West, where the
features of a new international system are taking shape. Wars such
as the Russia-Ukraine conflict or a potential China-Taiwan
confrontation may accelerate this transformation. However, the shape
of this system, its number of poles, and the time of its full
emergence remain unclear.
Dr. Heidi Kars then
took the floor, affirming the significant value of the strategic
report, which represents a qualitative addition to the Arab library
as it comprehensively monitors international, regional, and local
interactions. She focused her intervention on three main axes within
the chapter on international interactions. First, systemic
transformations in the international order: she discussed ongoing
structural shifts in the global system, noting that the world is
going through a transitional phase marked by instability and
uncertainty. The system is no longer clearly bipolar nor
definitively multipolar, and there is an erosion of the foundations
upon which Western hegemony was built. Although rising powers,
especially China, were previously seen as the main challenge, the
paradox now lies in the fact that the biggest threat to the liberal
order may come from within itself—specifically from within the
United States due to internal economic and political changes.
Second, the impact
of transformation on the Global South: Dr. Kars questioned whether
the Global South is merely a recipient of these changes or if it
plays an active role. She used Africa as an example, noting the
intense international competition over the continent from major
powers such as China and Russia, as well as regional powers like
Turkey and the Gulf states. Despite this, some African countries
have begun to play flexible and negotiated roles, such as
diversifying international partnerships and avoiding dependence on a
single actor.
Third,
epistemological structuring in the field of international relations:
she pointed out the centrality of Western thought in the discipline
of international relations, where Western—particularly American and
European—theorizing dominates the field. However, there have been
attempts by researchers from the Global South to present theoretical
alternatives that move away from Western centrism and address real
issues that traditional Western literature cannot adequately tackle.
This is sometimes referred to as the movement of decolonizing global
knowledge in international relations.
Dr. Kars concluded
her remarks by referring to a report from The Economist magazine
stating that the Israeli army is using artificial intelligence
systems to identify its targets in Gaza by analyzing vast datasets,
including communications, satellite imagery, suspicious activities,
and technologies based on facial and voice recognition. Despite
their apparent precision, these technologies rely on inputs that may
be inaccurate, explaining the large number of civilian casualties.
There is growing concern that this method may become a new “trend”
in future wars. This point is essential to understanding how modern
technology has transformed the nature of warfare in Gaza and should
have been included under the section on "technological and military
developments."
At the end of this
fruitful session, Prof. Dr. Hassan Nafaa concluded by speaking about
the most prominent issues discussed in the annual strategic report,
notably the rapid collapse of international institutions established
after World War II, which had formed the foundation of the system of
international justice and legitimacy—such as the International Court
of Justice and the International Criminal Court. The moral and legal
role that Western powers had claimed, particularly in protecting
human rights, has regressed, as these values have either been
targeted or neglected in practical reality. This erosion in the
performance of institutions raises fundamental questions about the
future of the international system: Is it still possible to reform
the United Nations system, especially the Security Council, despite
its rigidity and inability to adapt to the new balance of power? Or
does reality dictate the need to consider the establishment of an
alternative global order—something that usually only happens after
major shocks like world wars?
Following this, the
second session began under the title “The Regional System… Shrinking
Axis of Resistance and Disruption in Normalization Calculations,”
chaired by and with speakers Dr. Moataz Salama, Prof. Dr. Nevine
Mosaad, Dr. Mohamed El-Sayed Idris, and Dr. Ali Galal Maouad.
Dr.
Moataz Salama began by thanking and welcoming his colleagues and
Prof. Dr. Ahmed Youssef. He then discussed the Arab and Middle
Eastern systems and the interactions between them, focusing on
developments in 2024. He pointed out that the “Arab” section of the
report covered numerous issues, but the topic of the “Axis of
Resistance and the Disruption of Normalization Calculations” was
chosen as the focus, without limiting or diminishing the importance
of other topics.
The Arab system was
divided into three parts. The first part addressed issues of the
Arab system, most notably: from the “Al-Aqsa Flood” to the “Northern
Flood,” indicating the symbolic beginning and end of a pivotal year
in the region. It also analyzed the reality of chronic Arab crises
that have become a stable deadlock without full settlements—such as
in Yemen, Libya, Sudan, and Lebanon—posing a threat to national
unity.
The second part
focused on the transformation of rules of engagement, highlighting
the increasing Israeli violence in Gaza, excessive deterrent force,
and the long war, along with the confusion in decision-making
processes within Israel and the absence of a cohesive collective
mindset. The report also discussed the decline of non-state groups
such as Hamas and Hezbollah, raising questions about whether this
decline is tactical or a strategic fading. It reviewed the Lebanese
scene from limited engagement to open war.
The third part of
the report tackled the internal Israeli conflicts, noting that all
parties are competing from a right-wing platform, reflecting the
narrowness of the political spectrum there. It also discussed Hamas’
position in power despite the war and its public conflict with the
Palestinian Authority, raising questions about the reality of joint
Palestinian action.
The Arab section
concluded by analyzing the Gulf Cooperation Council countries’
positions on normalization, highlighting the divergence among Gulf
stances and the national calculation differences between them, and
the upcoming Arab Summit’s internal divisions. It raised the
question of how topics and solutions to Arab regional conflicts can
be presented amid ambiguous Arab roles and a dysfunctional Arab
state.
Prof. Dr. Nevine
Mosaad then spoke, focusing on several observations. First, despite
the report’s importance and courage in addressing thorny issues, its
language and terminology are difficult—especially for those outside
the academic field. Second, she objected to excluding the
Hamas/Israel model from examples of asymmetric wars and rejected the
idea that Israeli strikes and spatial control undermine
decentralization. She considered that what happened does not
contradict the evolution of asymmetric warfare but rather reflects a
shift in Israeli strategy from spatial confrontation to targeting
the idea and spirit.
Third, she
discussed the term “parallel non-state actors,” calling for
clarification of the difference between this and “armed actors.” She
gave the example of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as an unarmed
actor yet a central political player, as well as governments that
run the state during times of political weakness.
Fourth, she
rejected the idea that Iran is retreating from its regional project,
considering that the imperial nature of Iran’s project does not
allow for inward withdrawal; rather, it is a long-term,
trans-political-systems project.
Fifth, she
addressed the issue of proxy wars, noting that the report’s analysis
of the Houthis’ evolution from a tool to a central actor requires
understanding the actor’s own motivation development, especially as
they moved from a tool to a representative of a popular sector.
Lastly, she
emphasized the importance of analyzing the performance of the
official Arab system, especially in central issues such as Palestine
and Syria, pointing to weak outcomes despite official statements.
Then Dr. Mohamed
El-Sayed Idris spoke about the Arab and Middle Eastern systems and
their interactions, and the developments of 2024. He referred to the
G20 Summit in Mumbai, where a new Middle East project was proposed,
followed by the “Al-Aqsa Flood,” which proved the Palestinian
people’s ability to resist, toppling Zionist ideology and the West
as a whole. Despite this, the Arab system did not stand with the
Palestinian cause; some countries fund the Zionist entity, others
are helpless, while the Palestinian people endured for several
months.
These developments
revealed the Axis of Resistance extending from Iran to Hezbollah and
Yemen, creating an imbalance in power. This coincided with severe
strikes against Hezbollah and the emergence of ISIS in Syria under
American-agenda motives (noting that Syria in the past refused to
betray Hezbollah or normalize with Israel).
He mentioned the
previously ambiguous Turkish role, which has found strength in Syria
amid increasing Israeli power. We are now during dangerous
developments, accompanied by many questions about the Arab system’s
stance if a war breaks out between Iran and Israel over the nuclear
issue. Considering these ambiguous Arab roles, settlements appear to
be halfway measures.
The session
concluded with Dr. Ali Galal Maouad, who explained the challenges
researchers face in this context, citing a previous experience
related to Turkey to emphasize the difficulty of keeping pace with
these changes.
The report
addresses Turkey’s notable presence across different axes, pointing
to its political, economic, and military roles in several regional
issues such as Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, and Palestine, with notes on
the potential to focus more on files like Somalia.
The report
highlights the dual image of Turkey’s roles—positive as a
cooperative actor and negative as a source of threat—while pointing
to possible contradictions due to the multiple contributors to the
report. Dr. Galal reflected on the nature of this divergence,
attributing it to the weakness of the Arab system, the fluidity of
regional interactions, and the differing national interests among
Arab countries, alongside the increasing and continuing debate over
Turkey’s role.