14 - 20 March 2002
Issue No.577
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 14 - 20 March 2002 Issue No.577 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Redressing the damage
Last week President Hosni Mubarak and US President George W Bush hammered out a number of issues vital to their interests and to stability in the Middle East. In an exclusive interview, Egypt's Ambassador to Washington Nabil Fahmy speaks top Nevine Khalil
What did President Mubarak's visit to Washington last week achieve?
Nabil Fahmy
The basic objectives of the visit were threefold: One was to address the American public, to try to redress the damage done to the image of the Arab world and the Muslim world as a result of 11 September. I think the president was very successful in doing that. In interviews with the press, his speech before the Council of Foreign Relations and the dialogue he had with opinion-makers [over breakfast] on the last day of the visit.
The second objective was to deal with the regional issues of concern to us, the most important of which was the peace process -- emphasising that to end the cycle of violence you have to deal not only with security issues but also with political issues; [achieving] a better balance between what is being said against the Palestinians and what is being said against the Israelis; and finally we wanted assurances of greater American engagement in the peace process. So I think we took a small -- but important -- step forward on the peace process.
The other most prominent regional issue was Iraq. The conclusion we drew was that it is obvious that [the Americans] have no love lost for President Saddam Hussein. But there is no decision now to use military force against Iraq. We explained that the Iraqi government should implement all the Security Council resolutions, that the return of inspectors would be useful, and that issues should be dealt with through consultations within the context of the UN system.
The third goal was on bilateral issues. President Bush was very positive in his comments about President Mubarak and Egypt, whether related to issues of combating terrorism or as a strategic friend, or the fact that we [re-launched] the strategic dialogue. Even debates in Congress all reflect that it is a solid relationship, whether or not we agree or differ on some issues.
It is clear that the US is sticking to the Mitchell recommendations and the Tenet plan as the best ways to revive the peace process. Meanwhile, it is only paying lip-service to other proposals, such as the Saudi initiative and President Mubarak's invitation to a three-way summit bringing himself, the Palestinians and Israeli leaders together. Is this correct?
You're obviously all wrong, as was the American press. What President Bush said [during the visit] is significantly different from what he's been saying in previous months. He had not mentioned "a Palestinian state" in almost three months; he had not talked about sending General [Anthony] Zinni back to the region in several weeks; he had never said that Vice-President [Dick] Cheney would be dealing with the peace process as a priority during his tour; he had not talked about the cycle of violence on both sides.
All this seems to be completely ignored by people, just because he did not make any immediate announcements.
Did Egypt ask the US to pressure Israel into changing its hard-line policies towards the peace process and lifting the siege on Palestinian President Yasser Arafat? Was this perhaps to allow Arafat to attend the Arab summit at the end of the month?
In diplomatic circles, we don't like to use the word "pressure," but yes we did ask the Americans to engage the Israelis to change their policy of using excessive force against the Palestinians, and to take measures that would create an environment conducive to going back to the negotiating table.
We also made very strong points regarding the siege of the Palestinian people. As for President Arafat attending the summit, we highlighted and underscored that his absence from the summit would fuel anxiety and anger, which would not be conducive for the summit to reach positive results.
Do you think the US feels that its interests in the Middle East are at stake as a result of the escalation of violence and the moribund peace process?
I personally think that the Americans understand that the increased sense of anti- Americanism in the region is detrimental to their interests there. The reason you hear arguments about whether the US should intervene or not in the peace process, or that US interests are not really at stake, is because the Americans have not yet found, in their own minds, a solution that they believe is conducive to success. It's because of the fact that they are not comfortable and confident that their efforts will be successful that there is the argument that they can afford not to do more because their interests are not at stake.
But I believe that ultimately people are rational, and if they look at things in the long term, they will understand that US interests are at stake if conditions continue in the manner they are.
Was the US convinced by Egypt's argument that the issue of implementing UN resolutions in Iraq should be treated separately from the US-led war against terror?
They continue to dislike the regime in Iraq, but there is no longer a direct link to the war on terrorism. In the past, they accused the Iraqi regime of participating in terrorism and there were inferences that the anthrax threat may have come from Iraq. None of that is on the table anymore, the present posture vis-à-vis Iraq relates to their dislike of the Iraqi regime, and the accusation that it is pursuing a weapons of mass destruction programme.
However, there is a growing momentum towards addressing the Iraqi issue by force -- but that is not because they are accusing Iraq of terrorism, but because they don't like what they see in Iraq.
How important do you think it is for the US to have Arab support -- both on the level of governments and public opinion -- if and when it decides to attack Iraq?
I think when a global power looks at a problem in any region, it looks at how the main players of that region will react. In the Middle East, Egypt is a main player -- if not the main player.
So I think it is very important for the US to understand how our reaction will be, both officially and among the public. This does not mean we have veto on what they will do -- nor do we have to agree with it. But as friends of the US and as regional players, we make our positions quite clear.
What are the guarantees that the newly re-launched US-Egypt strategic dialogue will be more successful than its predecessor, which never really got off the ground?
You're right, it didn't. We decided several times before, almost four years ago, to establish a dialogue but it was never established. We never actually had a serious start to the dialogue; we announced we would do it but we never sat down. Now we've developed a structure and we are in the process of designating who will head which committee, developing delegations for different work groups, then they will sit together and develop a work plan. It will always be looking towards the future because this is not about immediate day to day issues.
Frankly, I think the American side has done its homework on this quite successfully, and the ball now is mostly in our court to put together our team, and I expect Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher will do this in the near future.
Why didn't the dialogue succeed last time?
The reason it didn't take shape is that we established it at the ministerial level with no foundations. In other words, it was a dialogue between the two foreign ministers -- which is important, but because of their schedules [it was] very difficult for them to meet frequently. We both wanted it but we didn't really make a commitment to have the institutions for it.
I think we both made a mistake in not providing the proper foundations. Now, the American administration has put forward a proposal in that respect, and we will hopefully put together our concept soon. It would be disappointing if we did not do it within the next six months.
How valuable has Egypt's assistance to the US-led war against terrorism been?
It's been extremely valuable. Combating terrorism is a multi-dimensional issue, which involves security, intelligence, social, economic, financial and juridical issues. It is an extremely complicated set-up of issues because this is a problem that has no borders, and is not defined by cultures and comes in different forms.
In the Afghan theatre, we shared with the US-led coalition our experience and our know-how in dealing with terrorism, particularly these kinds of terrorists. And we will continue to assist in resolving the terrorism problem worldwide.
The US State Department's human rights report came out on 4 March, and it was less critical of Egypt's human rights record than in previous years. What is your general evaluation of these annual reports?
Let me first say that the reports are an annual [publication] and were not specifically intended to come out when the president was here. He usually comes in April, so it was a coincidence that it came out on the same day as he began his [official] visit.
I think that the practices which are the subject of human rights reports are better understood now in the West, in the context of our region and our own domestic situation. Therefore a better understanding makes it a more positive reflection and doesn't take things in the abstract. Furthermore, I think we have addressed some individual practices that are not consistent with the international trend in human rights.
We pursue human rights for our own reasons, not because we are asked to do that; if there are mistakes in our system we correct them ourselves. I am not embarrassed to say that. Every country has problems with human rights including in reports by Amnesty International against America.
I am not defending the reports; what I am saying is that they have matured a little bit in dealing with the situation.
Why does President Mubarak spend such a long time on Capitol Hill, which houses the US Congress, during his visits to the US?
In the US system, decision-making happens at three levels: public opinion, Congress and Administration. You have to address all three continuously.
While I spend one third of my time every week talking to and addressing people on the Hill, the opportunity to meet a president is a completely different level for congressmen. They want to meet him on a person-to-person basis, and secondly because they respect his opinion as a mature leader of the region with a long experience and they want to hear it from him. They are looking for assurances from a friend on many of the issues that affect them.
As for us, it is beneficial because we are an influential player in the global and regional communities and the US is a global player with interests everywhere. In many circumstances our interests and concerns will overlap in agreement or disagreement, so it is always important to understand each other.
Why doesn't Egypt have an influential lobby on the Hill?
We do. The issue is that we don't have an 'Arab' AIPAC [the influential pro- Israel lobby]. The Arab community in the US is much less political, and the Egyptian community in particular has not had a tendency to be politically active -- although they are extremely successful as professionals.
Our lobby on the Hill today is essentially the efforts made by the embassy and its staff, which is not an American lobby, we are a foreign party. The other type is an American lobby which has come from the grassroots in America.
I continuously encourage Arab- and Egyptian-Americans to first go and become Americans: participate in politics, go vote, make sure your congressman knows you voted for or against him. I don't need them to stand up and argue Middle East issues -- I will do that. By being more active politically as Americans, they will be able to influence American policy in a manner to make it more balanced vis-à-vis the Middle East.
This needs numbers, funding and time, and it has to be done from within America.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page