A few years ago, a prominent Egyptian figure was running for an exalted international position. This personage (who, I may add, was a distinguished academic) was well aware that he was strongly backed by the French government, who fully supported his nomination for the post, as did other countries of note such as Russia , Germany and China , in addition to several Third World countries. He was, however, extremely concerned about the situation with regard to two major powers: Britain and the United States ; namely, the Anglo-Saxon attitude towards his nomination. As I was at the time heading what was then the largest economic institution in Britain and Europe , the renowned professor kindly invited me to discuss the situation with him with a view to ascertaining the extent to which giant economic entities could influence the decision-making process in Britain and the US . This initial invitation led to a series of meetings during which I endeavored, in my own small way, to help this eminent Egyptian attain a position of international standing.

I was able to study this unique personality at close quarters, and discovered that in addition to several strong points in his character, there were a number of weaknesses. His impressive store of knowledge and learning stemmed from both the Latin and the Arab/Egyptian cultures, and it was with more than a little consternation that I realized that he tended to view Western civilization as a single cultural entity, whereas my personal experience had taught me that the opposite was in fact true. During our meetings, it became clear to me that this learned professor, whose intellectual make-up was largely of Latin origin, seemed totally oblivious of the fact that the Anglo-Saxon mindset differed radically from the Latin, and that the two sides viewed matters from an entirely different perspective and with different objectives in mind. I therefore ventured to suggest to him that he should in no way attempt to change the British stance towards him, because he would quite simply be wasting his efforts, as the foundation upon which the British had formed their opinion differed radically from that of the French. In any case, the British had already reached a conclusion and I knew full well from experience that they were not likely to change their minds once a decision had been made, especially as this decision had been reached in accordance with what the British perceived as their best interests. As for the American frame of mind, while it was certainly an offshoot of the Anglo-Saxon way of thinking, it was nevertheless less rigid in its "Anglo-Saxon-ness" (if I may use such a term), and as circumstances were favorable in that the US Administration had not yet announced its decision, I felt we stood more of a chance here. I recall that I repeatedly had to remind the Professor of the need to bear in mind the history and roots of the Anglo-Saxons in order to realize how very different they were from the descendants of the Greeks and Romans.

Sure enough, in December 1991 the Professor assumed the prominent international position, much to the joy and pride of millions of Egyptians. However, after only one year in office, the American political press began a harshly critical campaign against the Professor and his working methods. This campaign, together with the attitude of both British and American diplomats, made it only too clear that a clash was forthcoming. My long years of close contact with the Anglo-Saxons rendered me familiar with the path that such a difference of opinion would take, the way in which it would express itself, and the ultimate and inevitable escalation of events that would lead to the final confrontation. And when the Professor's mandate approached its final year, it became quite clear that US and British policies would allow for nothing less than an abrupt end to his period in office, for they thought only in terms of power and their own interests. The events of 1996 proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the two sides – the Professor and the Anglo-Saxons who held sway over the world – belonged to two completely different schools of thought. The refusal of the latter to accept the Professor had nothing to do with his being an Arab, and Egyptian or an African: it was simply that his mindset was completely alien to the Anglo-Saxon way of thinking. Nor would his impressive academic achievements stand him in good stead when the prevailing objective of his adversaries was the consolidation of their interests and power. It was with more than a pang of sadness that I later read the book written by the distinguished Professor in some four hundred pages covering his five-year term of office, for every page provided fresh proof that the clash that I had predicted could in no way have been avoided.

Notwithstanding my admiration for the Professor and his intellectual capabilities, my own experience with the Anglo-Saxon intellect have led me to the conclusion that dealing with these powers can only take one of three forms:

-An outright clash, the outcome of which is only too clear as evidenced by the fall of the Soviet Union, Saddam Hussein, Milosovich, and the president of the Central American state who was arrested by US forces inside his own capital and who still languishes in an American prison.

-Total submission to the will of the Anglo-Saxon superpowers, bearing in mind that the Anglo-Saxon "master" allows only meager leavings to those who offer their services in such a servile manner.

-To create a need whereby the Anglo-Saxons see an advantage in maintaining a good relationship with the non-Anglo-Saxon entity (dealings I may add that bear no relation whatsoever to anything as emotional as friendship or goodwill), and to market their role skillfully and in a manner that furthers their own interests in no lesser degree than those of the Anglo-Saxon party.