AmCham hosted a special breakfast briefing and discussion session at the Nile Hilton on January 18 for a visiting delegation of US congressional staffers and congressmen, in Egypt at the invitation of AmCham and the American Egyptian Cooperation Foundation. The discussion focused on ways of fostering understanding between Egypt and the US in regard to economic and political issues.

AmCham president Taher Helmy highlighted the importance of organizing visits for congressional staffers, as this gives them “first-hand accounts” of how Egypt operates, especially at this exciting time when both political and economic reforms are moving forward under the leadership of Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif. He praised the government’s approach to reform, adding that it was “moving in the right direction.”

The delegates expressed their gratitude to both AmCham and the American Egyptian Cooperation Foundation for the chance to visit Egypt and discuss bilateral relations, including issues surrounding the possibility of an Egypt-US free trade agreement (FTA). They praised the government’s openness to reforms, adding that it is vital to pursue political reforms as a means of ensuring that economic reforms are sustainable.

The floor was then opened for questions and comments. AmCham members asked the delegates how their visit would help clear up misunderstandings to the Congress on both political and economic issues. The delegates replied that there is no “real substitute” to actually visiting a country, as prior to their visit they had no idea about the actual amount of reforms that had taken place during the past 18 months. They promised to effectively communicate these changes to Congress.

Some AmCham members expressed concern that the US was using the prospect of an FTA as a means of pressuring Egypt into making more political reforms. The delegates assured them it would not.

The delegation, on the other hand, queried AmCham members about their views on the government’s priorities. The members gave a variety of responses – some suggesting the elimination of unemployment and poverty should come ahead of democracy; others believing that only a democratic system would give the poor a chance to be heard.