|
Thursday, April 18, 2002
Q: Mr. President: You have your own comprehensive strategic vision based on your experience as a war expert, a peace-maker and also on account of your leadership of a major regional state with a regional and even extra-regional influence, how do you assess what is going on in the world today? A: In short, the world is undergoing an "absurd" state of affairs. Under such crucial circumstances and complex situation, it is better not to go into details of this" absurd", Meanwhile we have to make a pause and look into a number of changes, including the following considerations: -We are living in a unipolar world, with a single super power. -The world is undergoing a radical change in alliances, blocs and groupings. Some military alliances have broken off and other alliances grown in scope. -The world is passing through an era of economic integration among great corporations and, an era of imbalances in power relations. - Let me tell you also that this "absurd" world of today is also schizophrenic. While there is a lot of talk about democracy and human rights, human rights are deliberately violated and fundamental principles of democracy are being flouted in the sight of everybody; there is a vast gap between what is said and what is done. Frankly, the international situation with its circumstances and intricacies is too difficult and complex to deal with such level of frankness required at present. I am saying this for no other consideration but to seek to reach an understanding that puts an end to the continuing blood bathes here and there. We have to be aware that we are no longer living in the Sixties, Seventies or even the Nineties. We are living in an era where cards as well as interests are equally mixed up. Q: Mr. President,it is to be noted that violence has grown into a wide spread phenomena; state violence or individual violence. Countries - some of them - may go to military war rather than to the negotiating table to settle their problems. Individuals may rush for knives or guns without thinking of negotiating an agreement or reasoning. Is this one sign of the "absurd". Mr. President? A: The most important reasons for violence are the sense of oppression and an absence of justice, which in turn lead to despair and frustration. When man reaches the point of despair, it will be all the same for him. Thus, he can act in an absurd way. Let us keep aside the general outlook to the phenomena of violence and speak about a specific situation; about the Palestinians and what is going on between the Israelis and the Palestinians; they tell the Palestinians that violence must be stopped. They tell them that suicide operations must be put to an end. The question here is: can this be achieved by a decision or a statement? I suppose and think that no body can stop suicide bombers but by sitting to the negotiating table and giving the Palestinians their rights. Who can conceive a possible halt to Palestinian operations while the Palestinian Authority's premises, infrastructure were destroyed and its security and policemen chased, killed or arrested. When Secretary Colin Powel came to us here in Egypt and when he called me from Ramallah following his meeting with President Arafat I told him quite frankly that one shouldn't think that "Al Quds Operation" will be the last. We should deal with the core of the problem. We should dispel despair and frustration from hearts. I said before, we have to head for the negotiation table; to give back rights to those entitled thereto and to start building new bridges of confidence. Q: Mr. President this looks obvious as far as the frustrated and oppressed are concerned. But how can you explain the acts of violence currently committed against Palestinians in the occupied territories? Was peace the wrong choice? or is it that the enemies of peace have acquired a stronger status? A: Frankly speaking, "the Jewish lobby" in US is now at the peak of glory,sway and dominance. Never before, has it reached such magnitude of influence and effectiveness. However, I am totally convinced that this will not last as it conflicts with the American people's values and principles. In my meetings with Jewish organization leaders and in the Congress I told them this, frankly. I warned them that blind bias will harm peace and the very Israeli people. It will also give anti-peace and extremist forces the chance of committing acts beyond check. In this connection, I remember one incident that can hardly be forgotten. Isaac Rabin came to Cairo to sign an agreement for establishing Palestinian National Authority with President Arafat in the presence of President Clinton. After signing the agreement. I told Rabin " you have to know that there are some parties in Israel and Palestine who do not want peace, but want to blow up and ruin everything". Rabin answered: "I agree with you, I am quite aware of this fact." Remarkably, after this conversation and ten days of signing the agreement, an explosion took place in Tel-Aviv, but Rabin didn't shack up, nor did he lose his nerves. On the contrary, he immediately declared that in spite of those subversive operations he would proceed forward with implementing what had been agreed upon, because he believed in peace. One month later, the bad surprise came to happen; they killed Rabin himself. After all, the question remains: who are the supporters of peace who seek to defend it and who are its enemies who always obstruct its course? I also remember, after signing the executive agreement for establishing the Palestinian Authority in Gaza and Jericho, first, Israeli Prime Minister Isaac Rabin called me saying: "the Palestinian Authority has to practice their duties on the Palestinian territories; this is better for both of us, please persuade Arafat to do so " I conveyed the message to Arafat who came to Cairo where we discussed all aspects of the issue, especially the security matters that worried the Palestinians. Therefore, when they found everything secured, he and the authority leaders decided to go there. After having lunch together at my home, I accompanied him up to the border gateway separating between the Egyptian and Palestinian territories. Why do I recall this story and this history? That is because, had not all taken place under the umbrella of peace, a Palestinian Authority would have never existed on the Palestinian territories, with its own president and organs. Failing this, the issue would have remained a refugees’ issue and the leadership would have remained in exile. Now we are facing a question of a people, we are facing an occupation that must be ended and land that must be restored to its owners. Q: Mr. President, after the September 11 events, the United States of America decided to launch war against terrorism and to build an international alliance of major and medium countries. In this respect, you had a specific point of view to the effect that to eliminate terrorism we have to eliminate tension centers. A: After the September 11 events, Egypt declared a clear stance condemning terrorism. Even before the September 11 events, we maintained a quite obvious and strong stance. Therefore, I immediately called for the need to address causes of terrorism, foremost of which is the persistence of tension centers with the situation in the Palestinian territories on top. Moreover, I also called upon the international community to be a partner in combating terrorism by convoking an international conference under the auspices of the world organization. I am quite sure, despite of the apparent lag in equitably settling and resolving the tension center problems, the world will discover in the immediate future that our declared stance was right; that in order to address the question of terrorism it would be inevitable to settle existing problems in tension centers. Q: Mr. President, will you allow me to go back to the focus of current events involving Powel, Arafat and Sharon. You have already met the US Secretary of State here in Cairo and he phoned you after his meeting with Arafat. So what is new and how do you see the situation now? A: The situation is still vague; that’s because I hear contradicting statements from the US side. Powel talked about a conference combining direct and concerned parties. Condeleezza Rice says " No to the conference" we have different proposals. Israel itself sends out contradicting statements. We also knew that the Palestinian Authority refused to take part in the proposed conference. Other statements came from the majority of world countries voicing disagreement to the idea of the conference. As declared, countries justification in this respect is based on obvious logic: there are already a multitude of international resolutions passed by UN Security Council and General Assembly, dealing with the same issues that should be addressed by the proposed conference. It should be stressed that those resolutions had touched the core of the issue as well as the questions of ceasefire and immediate withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Palestinian territories. We all recall the resolutions recently passed by the UNSC in this connection. Accordingly, it can be reiterated that the situation is vague and nebulous for all parties. Nevertheless, US Secretary of State Colin Powel is proceeding with his mission up to the moment. It sounds illogical to hold an international conference under the deteriorating conditions in the occupied territories, without an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian towns. Q: Mr. President, the European Union states are trying to do something; ministers are in continuous meetings; the German foreign minister is trying to offer an initiative where he assembled all proposed opinions so as to gain the trust and approval of all parties. Could the German initiative be then a basis for settlement? A: Europe is trying; it is under great pressure from parliaments and demonstrations denouncing aggression against Palestinians. However, it has not so far come up with a unified stance. We all know that Europe has many pressure cards to use against Israel and it is time to use them in the interest of peace and stability. The whole world is called upon to take up its responsibilities for salvaging peace in order to keep stability in the interest of everybody. The whole world is required today to save the Church of Nativity from aggression and siege. We all know the Church of Nativity, that sacred spot where Jesus Christ was born. I wonder whether the world will actually move to salvage this sacred place where Jesus Christ was born or will it keep motionless under this “absurd ” state? Q: Mr. President, while European Union countries are meeting so as to draft their initiatives and threat to impose sanctions against Israel, doesn’t this warrant an Arab summit? A: We should know that the European countries are Israel’s greatest economic and commercial partner, and have much to threaten with. However, the question here is: what is new in the situation to warrant another summit only a few weeks of the Beirut summit? Q: Mr. President, some talk of severing relations with Israel and withdrawing the Arab peace initiative. A: That you reiterate, quoting others as you claim, means simply to give Israel the chance to absolve itself from any obligation or commitment; to give it full, unfettered rein, to relieve it from the burden of peace, thus giving it its lifetime chance to escape the siege of world public opinion. Here, I would like to point out to you that severing diplomatic relations amongst states is a sovereign decision by states rather than that of a summit conference. Such decision should be based on national interest before any other consideration. There is no overbidding in such matter. Q: Mr. President, there are signs of faltering or tension in the Egyptian - Syrian and Egyptian - Yemeni relations. These signs were further emphasized by demonstrations where protestors hurled stones at our embassy in Damascus and carried signs bearing offensive phrases. Are these real signs ? A: There is no tension in the Egyptian - Syrian relations; over the few past days phoned President Bashar al-Assad and we exchanged views over various issues especially the situation in the occupied territories. I would like to stress here that some elements are trying to spoil relations and create a state of tension only for their personal benefits. Contacts between me and president Bashar are sustained and nothing effects them. It is also the same case with Yemen and Yemeni President Abdullah Saleh who is a personal friend of mine. He showed clear understanding and awareness of all dimensions of attempts schemed by some to spoil relations between Egypt and Yemen. But, what matters most to me is the need to maintain the unity of the Arab ranks. However, I will not dwell long on trivialities. Q: Mr. President, there is a phenomenon that calls for contemplation: would you please clarify its dimensions. When Iraq announced its decision to halt to pumping oil for a month, Iran immediately said that it did not agree with the act. Secondly, when military operations were activated in South Lebanon, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi, went to Lebanon where he met with the Lebanese President and Hizbullah leaders calling them for self-restraint. What is your explanation? A: What you have mentioned shows that the situation is very grave. Questions and destinies are not a matter of enthusiasm or recklessness nor are they uncalculated decisions. We have to be aware that we have different calculations. Every country in the world has the right to protect its security. What matters is that you do not harm other's interests in pursuit for your own interests and not at their expense. Q: Mr. president, will you allow me to go back to the same subject, but in a different format. Let me wonder what has peace brought about? Was peace, as some say, a disaster?, or has it actually born fruit? A: Do not forget that under peace, the Palestinians have become the masters of their decisions, they have now elected institutions; an elected president, an elected parliament, local councils, a government, ministers, police, ect. In short, the Palestinians are now the masters of their own decision that expresses their own will. We do assist and stand by their side, helping them surmount barriers that may face them. But we do not take decisions on their behave. We can also say that under the umbrella of peace, the Palestinians reached with Israel the "Oslo agreement ", which we were not aware of. We remember that, based on "Oslo ", the Palestinian authority came into existence, giving tremendous boost to the Palestinian question towards the restoration of the remaining Palestinian rights. It was after and on the grounds of "Oslo" that the Palestinians and Israelis signed the Washington, Cairo, Wye River and Sharm el Sheikh agreements where former US President Clinton himself was mostly involved. This meant worldwide recognition of the Palestinian entity ; all being fruits of the peace choice. That was the situation until Sharon's visit to al-Aqsa Mosque in September 2000 that sparked off Intifada. Under the peace choice, the Jordanians restored their territories under Wadi Araba agreement of 1994. Under Madrid terms of reference, the Syrians started negotiations that could have led to an agreement to restore the occupied Golan and other Syrian territories up to the June -4-1967 boundaries. It should be recalled that Oslo and Wadi Araba agreements and Syrian negotiations were reached on the basis of the Madrid terms of reference concluded in October 1981. These terms of reference were in turn based on UNSC resolutions 242 and 338. Egypt witnessed the first application of the "land-for-peace formula", an offshoot of Madrid conference. Accordingly, every inch of land and every grain of sand on our national soil was fully restored. Development and reconstruction started in all walks of life. Water was supplied; new cities built and more schools and hospitals setup. This led to a rise in standard of living. Thus, the fruits of peace reflected on the lives of Egyptians in all fields; agriculture; industry and economy. Before peace, there were constraints to everything, to development, income and even to freedom. But now, it is possible to pursue the course of democratic practice. Q: Mr. President, what Sharon and his military machine are committing in Palestine makes Egyptians feel that danger is at our doorsteps. There is also a common feeling that the war choice is excluded from the Egyptian political thought. Allow me, Mr. President, to enquire without exceeding bounds whether any state authority or institution, even the Presidential institution, has the right to exclude the war of choice? A: Everybody should know that the war decision is not an exclusive decision of the head of state. From beginning to end, this decision is basically the right of constitutional institutions. A decision of this grave magnitude should be approved by the constitutional institutions. People should agree on such crucial decision, as it is the people that will pay the price through their sons who will go to the battle fields. It is the people that will suffer from shortages in goods and materials, a decline in service level, because the larger part of state budget will be channeled to military and war efforts. I want you to fully recognize that the age of the "exclusive decision" is over. The war decision is not a game to play, nor is a subject of overbidding or bragging nor a slogan to be raised. Even President Gamal Abd el-Nasser was not able to take the war decision except through his institutions and so was the case with President Sadat. A leader of any country should listen to the points of view of his constitutional institutions and he has to discuss with them this subject from various aspects, including possibilities, results and implications. He must also identify orientations and readiness of his people. It is the people that have the right and that pay, the price out of their present and future. Q: Mr. President, a few satellite channels claim that the demonstrations staged in Cairo, and other Egyptian cities were other an expression social and economic conditions? A: Instead of circulating these words, those people should read history, recent and remote, to know how deep the Egyptian-Palestinian ties are. They should have recalled the sacrifices, support and backing by the Egyptians to the Palestinian people. I am quite sure that the vast majority of our youth follow up and quite well know what Egypt is doing and is seeking to achieve. We have to instill into the minds of our citizens that whatever the Egyptian land contains is a national asset that should be maximized , developed and preserved. But before talking about the economic crisis, we have to ask ourselves and look around us, to know and to ask where is that country which knows no ups and downs in its economy. We are part of this world, we are affected by whatever affects it. We are all fully aware that since the September 11 events in the United States, the world has suffered an economic shock that hit stock markets, trade and production and all transactions. This shock and its negative effects have spared none. In Egypt for example, tourism has completely or almost stopped. Volume of exports declined sharply. Thus, as I have indicated before, economy by nature is subject to ebb and tide. Now, thanks God, we can say that the situation has improved. Q: Mr. President, you are in constant contact with President Bush, either through correspondence in writing or through the phone and you had a fruitful and important meeting with him last month. Following that meeting, the orientations and course of the American policies and priorities have changed. Washington accepted, in the process towards a solution, to merge both tracks: the security and the political tracks. So what happened next and what is the situation with President Bush? A : My relations with President Bush are very good. We have constant contacts. There is understanding and frankness. This relation and understanding which are based on frankness play an important role in clarifying various points to the US decision makers and participants. This has contributed in changing the course and the orientation of the US policy concerning many details of the complicated and intricate situation in the occupied territories. Q: Mr. President, does this picture, nebulous and problematic as it is, mean that there is no solution? A: In order to reach a real solution to this crisis: First, there must be cessation to all military operations carried out by the Israeli army and full withdrawal from the Palestinian Authority territories. Second, security arrangements must be put into effect, based on the Tenet understandings as approved by both parties. Next, both parties should sit to the negotiating table for discussions based on international legitimacy and respect for agreements signed by both parties. This would give both the Palestinian and Israeli peoples the impression that security is back to prevail and to encompass both the Palestinians and Israelis. Efforts must be immediately started to reconstruct, the Palestinian infrastructure and superstructure devastated by the Israeli destructive machine, as a signal to the Palestinian people that the world understands their dilemma and shares in reconstructing their state. Reconstruction, setting up confidence bridges and eliminating of frustration and despair that have stricken Palestinians as well as reviving hope through practical steps constitute the only way left. I talked with several world leaders about this issue. British Prime Minister Tony Blair shares me the same views. He straightforwardly announced that the situation would never calm down until we have put a limit or an end to the current situation, reassuring the Palestinians of their rights and reconstructing what was devastated by the Israeli destructive machine. Once again I reassert that all these steps must be made on the basis of the international legitimacy resolutions and in the frameworks of agreements signed by both parties. Q: Mr. President, despite all efforts, regionally and internationally, Israel is still proceeding with its plans, and is even likely to expand its military operations range beyond Palestinian borders. What is your viewpoint in this regard, Mr. President? A: Everything is likely, and nothing can be excluded. At the same time, all should know that every action or deed has its own risks. Whosoever wants to undertake any act should well contemplate its effects, results, and implications. One should also bear the consequences of such act. It is true, as I told you before, that the world is undergoing a "state of the absurd", where anything can happen and is not ruled out. What is certain, and what I believe in, is that this approach and policy adopted by the Israeli government will not achieve the goal you are talking about, i.e., security. On the contrary, this approach will lead to more violence that will affect both the Israelis and the Palestinians; violence that can hit the entire region and go beyond. Q: Mr. President, will you allow me on the last question. As long as all probabilities are standing jeopardizing peace to the core, what are the decision-makers concerned and interested in the situation in the region required to do? A: All of us and even the entire world, especially its influential forces have a difficult and important decision to make. It is as follows: Are we and they for peace, or for chaos and instability? I quite well know that decision-making particularly in crucial matters and issues is a difficult and even complex process. Major decisions require meticulous calculations and supporting accurate information. They also need deep and sound assessment of the situation with all its dimensions. Decision-making also requires adequate knowledge and sound projection of the impact and outcomes, direct or indirect. I want to be clearer. Major decisions either here in Egypt or elsewhere should not be issued out of exasperation, reprisal or in response to ambitions or illusions of an individual or group of people. Anyhow, we act and move in every direction to contain the situation and avert total explosion. Others have to be well aware of the situation and risks implied. Every party will bear the consequences and outcomes of its acts. The situation is very critical, dangerous and fraught with all possibilities, good or bad, provided that we resort to reason and good intentions, giving up illusions of hegemony and expansion. All concerned parties must speak their mind and prove it with deeds. Are they for or against peace ? In conclusion, I can safely say that the Egyptian decision is made on the Egyptian soil, under Egyptian calculations, not motivated by a passing mania and its timing is not controlled by conspiracy-or manouvring-minded people. |
|
||||||||
Print this page 
Mail this page 