|
Tuesday, May 19, 1998
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, It is my pleasure that we meet today at this time-honoured institute, to freely exchange views on an issue of common interest to all of us; not only because it relates to a question of a sublime human and moral value, but it also deeply affects our common interests at present and in the future. It also determines our vision of the conditions of a region of highly strategic importance at a time where the world is on the threshold of a new third millennium. It is an era that foreshadows plenty of exciting development changes expected to take place in an unprecedented pace across the eventful history of the community of mankind. I need not to underscore the special importance we do accord to dialogue with the thinkers and intellectuals of France, given our special relationship with its people and civilization. This relationship is based on mutual respect, like-minded line of thought and joint interests as well as high esteem and deep appreciation by both nations to each other's culture and civilization. This provides deep-rooted grounds for friendship and understanding between both countries and highest-ranking relations amongst nations. At the outset, I would like to make it clear that in thinking of peace, we are not confined exclusively to the Middle East region. Our commitment rather extends to the enhancement of world peace in the widest and all-encompassing sense of the word, as peace among all peoples is an integral whole and a sublime, noble value that constitutes a basic obligation to all nations without exception. It is our duty to preserve and protect this value all over the continents of the world. This value even reflects the internal situation within each state, considering that stability of social peace nationwide is a basic underpinning for development and progress. Failing this, it would be difficult for the potential and resources of the community to be mobilized for the battle of building, reconstruction and glorious progress. In the Middle East, peace is a basic demand for all people of the region. It represents the "situation", which allows such peoples to dedicate their human and physical resouces towards making a better future for successive generations. It is also the prerequisite for stability and ability for long-range planning. First and foremost, peace is the initial commandment revealed by Allah in all Heavenly Messages. From this starting-point, it was natural for the Arab Kings and Heads of State in the latest Arab Summit, held in Cairo, June 1996, to reaffirm commitment by Arab States to pursue just and comprehensive peace as an unwavering and irrevocable strategic option regardless of obstacles or challenges. Strategic goals are notably stable and invariable under all circumstances and require clear and unequivocal vision and strict commitment by all sectors of the community to serve and work for realizing them. You may agree with me that to realize peace in the Middle East and other regions of the world, it requires necessary sine qua non factors which should be the object of national consensus, particularly within the active sectors assuming a basic role in formulating national goals of the community. These essential factors which should be further accepted by all the peoples of the region are as follows: 1- A popular awareness that the formula proposed to realise peace is a fair one that strikes due balance between rights and obligations of both parties. In the absence of justice, the structure of peace would be too fragile to stand the test of time and therefore would never survive. The feeling of being subject of oppression or domination would undermine the very essence of peace and reduce it down to a form without content. Thus, peace can lose credibility and favourable environment wherein it can come true. 2 - For peace to be just, it should be based on the free will and acceptance of all parties. No single party should seek to impose on the other a peace that is based on a status quo where no other alternative is available, or a peace that reflects disparity between the military or physical power of both parties. Such imposed peace which does not meet agreement-on a parï-passu-basis-by all parties can never survive, and will be definitely liable to collapse at the first test of time. 3 - For peace to be just, it should be based on legitimacy and rule of law. This is an issue that is an object of appreciation of countries like France and Egypt. Both countries do hold sacred legal norms and view submission to the rule of law as one of the most important features of democratic systems, failing which, equality of both parties would be non-existant. In the absence of equality, justice would cease to exist and imbalance will reign. 4- The successive experiences in modern history have tought us that to provide a firm ground for the peace process and enable it to influence the future of peoples and the movement of history, it must be based on a clear-cut political and legal groundwork acceptable to both the international community and both parties involved throughout all stages of negotiations. Failing this, negotiations will evolve in a vicious circle having no end or criterion. Thus, the outcome of negotiations will be determined by the ability of a certain party to impose its will and vanquish the other party's will, by forcing it to accept what it would have never accepted at its own free will. 5- So long as a conflict goes on between a certain state and a group of states, the peace that puts an end to and eliminates traces of such conflict must be comprehensive. The fruits and positive impact of such peace shall cover all states parties to the conflict. Therefore, it stands not to reason that peace be exclusively confined to certain parties or a certain party would seek separate partial deals because this reflects a negative image of the intention of such party, and arouses suspicion as to its serious orientation towards a comprehensive peace that uproots and addresses the reasons and traces of the conflict. 6- Peace is the definite way to achieve security. With all parties having upon their free will agreed upon a balanced and equitable formula for achieving peace, it will be difficult, for any party, however extreme it may be to mobilize the members of the community towards the resort to violence and terrorism, due to the lack of political and moral justifications. Correspondingly, should the peace process falter or hope for its success cease to exist or vanguish, this will lead to the collapse of security and increasing tendency towards violence, regardless of severe suppressive measures taken by security authorities to prevent violence and terrorist acts. 7- When we talk about security, we must think particularly of a balanced and equitable security for all parties. This requires a situation that gives no advantage to a specific party versus the other. To achieve this, two basic conditions must be fulfilled: First: No party shall be exclusively allowed to possess arms of more destructive power than those owned by the other parties. Specifically, no party shall exclusively possess weapons of mass destruction, whether nuclear, chemical or biological. Hence, we always call upon Israel to put an end to its nuclear military programme and to adhere to Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), as an unavoidable step towards a nuclear-weapon-free Middle East. Second: Any party shall not give itself the right to achieve military superiority and no international power begets temptation shall not support any party in this field, for the sense of superiority to use force or uncontrolled agression. 8- Both parties having concluded an accord on their respective rights and obligations, they shall abide, verbally and precisely, by every word stipulated in the accord, as a sign of their keenness on ensuring the stability of dealings between states and credibility of the peace process itself. Under no pretext, shall any party have the right to fail to implement its obligations, or impose on the other party a way of implementation not stipulated in the accord, or claim the right to postpone the implementation of the accord until the other party has implemented all its obligations and covenants. The principle of reciprocity does not give any party the right to act as such, rather it imposes on both parties to proceed with implementation of the stipulations of the accord on a parallel, consecutive and continual basis until the accord has been fully implemented. 9- It is self-evident that the rights and obligations of a state that has signed an agreement with another party should not be absolutely affected, by any reshuffle in the government of the party concerned because international agreements are signed by states, not by governments. Any premise or practice contradictory to this principle are deemed violation of the provisions of the international law and its mandatory rules, violation of which may not be agreed upon, taking into consideration also the resulting instability of international relations. Moving from this theoretical background to talk about the status quo, we will find a group of disconcerting negative phenomena that began to appear after reshuffling the Israel Cabinet in the summer of 1996. Since then, events have gone on one and the same pace. This would lead any fair observer to say that the new Israeli government insists on adopting a dangerous policy based on violating agreements and covenants to which Israel had already committed itself and attempting to impose a new fait accompli not only upon the Palestinians but rather on all parties concerned whether regional ones or international powers. After several attempts to eliminate the Declaration of Principles signed in September 1993 and the transitional agreement signed in September 1995 apart from the cancellation of their provisions theoretically and practically, Israel found out it was impossible to repudiate all these agreements totally and straight forwardly; so it started to resort to casuistry in order to void their contents by accepting what goes in harmony with its intentions and rejecting what runs opposite to its wishes, persistently breaching its special obligation on a wider redeployment in the West Bank reneging on dates previously agreed upon in supplement documents of the Hebron Agreement concluded in January 1997. Furthermore, it intensified its settlement policy in the occupied territories with no justification, especially if we take into account that many of the housing units in existing settlements have not been occupied up till now. The settlement policy was extended to East Jerusalem in such a way that generates tension in most parts of the Arab and Islamic world even among many Christians in addition to the confiscation of Arab lands and the revocation of identity cards from Arabs resident in Jerusalem. At the same time, Israel gives itself the right to determine the Palestinians' obligations according to its own separate will and threatens with the gravest of consequences should they fail to fulfill these obligations it imposes upon them without any legal source or practical justification. While Israel adopts such a policy, it persistently prevents the friendly powers of both parties concerned with the situation in the Middle East for strategic or humanitarian reasons from interventing in order to support the peace process and pull it out of the blocked tunnel it has entered due to the Israeli practices. Israel, however, cannot accuse such international powers of being partial towards the Arabs or hostile to Israel. I am here speaking in particular about the USA and the European Union. No one can suspect the legitimacy of both powers' concern about the situation in the Middle East, especially in view of the major role they both have played in the foundation of the State of Israel and the enhancement of its capabilities in all domains. We have seen lately how the Israeli government caused the abortion of the good offices carried out by the USA over the past weeks to persuade both sides, the Israeli and the Palestinian to accept a balanced USA formula in order to implement their obligations under the transitional period in preparation for the negotiations of the final status. Although this formula has been accepted by the Palestinian side and President Clinton and Secretary of State Madeline Albright have exerted continuous efforts in order to obtain the consent of the Israeli government to this formula, yet all signs indicate that the Israeli side hangs on to refusal and manoeuvring under various pretexts. Israel resorts to feeble excuses and meaningless justifications in its endeavour to isolate the Palestinians and bar the international community from any role in salvaging the peace process. One time Israel says that both parties are capable without mediation of reaching an agreement; another time it says that if Europe wants to play a positive role, the latter should not intervene in the negotiations on the Palestinian track and confine its role to reviving the multilateral negotiations. Israel, however, very well knows that all signs point out the falsehood of the pretexts it offers. Israel has neither been able to reach an agreement alone with the Palestinians on any of the main points suggested more than a year ago. Nor does it conceive the possibility of seriously resuming multilateral negotiations under the current stalemate on the Palestinian track. As for the Lebanese track, the Israeli attitude towards it is based on fabricating a contradiction and a dissociation with the Syrian track, in spite of being well-aware of the close correlation between both tracks for several considerations. All this does not mean that the situation drives to desperation. Nor should it bar our minds from contemplating a way out of this impasse which forebodes grave consequences for all parties should it be sustained for a long period. The point is that the powers interested in playing a vital role should be fully cognizant of the various aspects of the situation in order to be well aware of the available options for performing an effective and vital role. Moving to the European position in particular, we see that the European continent is completely qualified to, but even called upon to carry out such a role. This does not necessarily oppose but rather supports, endorses and adds up to the role of the USA, particularly in view of the fact, that the European continent is geographically, historically and culturally, the closest region of the world to the Middle East and that under geopolitical considerations security, stability and prosperity in both regions are closely associated and that it is impossible for either region to take indifferent standpoints towards current events in the other region. What even makes us more interested in the European role and more confident of its impartiality is that France, our friendly state, plays a major part. Of all the countries of the world, France is one of those most deeply aware of the core and nature of the conflict, besides being most knowledgeable of the developments of the peace process and optimal means of surmounting existing impediments hindering the path of the peace process. Hence, it was not strange of President Chirac to announce in Cairo in April 1996 that it was a top priority for France and Europe's policy towards the Middle East to help in making peace. The President as well underlined the necessity for all parties to honour the agreements signed. Furthermore, it was not unfamiliar that this French vision be reflected on its stance in the Amsterdam Conference in June 1997 and on the active move and positive suggestions of President Chirac on the fringes of the Group of Major Industrialized Seven Summit held in Denver, USA in the same month. Moreover, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Védrine gave an accurate description of the situation when he stated that the peace process is being smothered because of the Israeli policies and practices and that it is inevitable to radically change the whole situation in order to overcome the state of paralysis which threatens countries of the region and neighbouring regions. In view of these considerations combined, I agreed with President Chirac during our discussion of the situation yesterday evening addressing a joint call by both states to others supporting the peace process and endeavouring to salvage it from the current stalemate. The call provides for a conference to be attended by these states to urge both sides to adopt positions likely to lead to the resolution of the current differences on the obligations of the transitional period. Thus, the states interested in salvaging the peace process would put both parties face to face with their responsibilities not only towards the international community but also towards their own peoples. This is the greatest and most crucial historic responsibility; afterwards every situation will be dealt with in time. Of the features that fills us with admiration towards the French position on the peace process is that such a stand is not taken by the official France alone. Indeed the writings of French intellectuals which reveal a profound understanding of the situation in the Middle East and the obligation upon all effective international powers to help make an end of the existing stalemate and give the peace process a fresh push forward before it collapses and the hopes pinned thereon dissipated. This requires that the Israeli government be pursuaded to honour its obligations, and covenants, respect agreements already signed and enter into serious negotiations on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks in order to reach a comprehensive settlement on the basis of the groundwork of Madrid Peace Conference, especially in view of the fact that the governments of Syria and Lebanon are sincerely determined to reach a just and permanent peace. Dear Friends, In Egypt, we are drawing these days towards a period of overall reconstruction that would allow our people to step into the 21st century armed with a massive development revolution which extends to all fields of science, research, production, services and modern technology in order to create a better future for our children and grandchildren together with a cultural awakening of unlimited proportions in aspects of thought and all walks of life. We want to turn large areas of Egyptian deserts into green areas thriving with sustainable life. We hope human society could reach a practical solution to desalinate sea water at reasonable economical cost, so that living at levels close to poverty lines peoples could provide nutrition and basic services to their childrens. Therefore, we hailed the conference organized by France in the past months, with the object of attracting the world's attention to this serious issue, on which man's destiny would depend over the coming centuries. We want the Egyptian intellect to prosper and reach out to the maximum possible limits of creativity and innovation and keep away from the spirit of introversion, exaggeration and extremism. In that respect, we do rest on a solid cultural and civilizational background and traditions implanted by the Egyptian intellect in our day-to-day life, even in periods when many regions of the world had been shrouded in darkness and backwardness. We seek to raise the standard of educational and health services all over Egypt. We want to compensate areas that had suffered from poverty and need through long centuries and were neglected by both official bodies and non-governmental activities alike. We believe that proper education is the starting-point towards any reform or progress. In order to complete reform in education, we should also expand scientific research, upgrade information and promote culture to high levels. We want to confront ideas and themes that claim to be fundamentalist and falsify religious teachings in order to undermine the underpinnings of progress and jeopardize the structure of society. They seek to throw the society into dark bottoms of ignorance, extremism and fanaticism. They are trying to forcibly turn the tolerant and noble spirit of religions into justifications for violence, terrorism and devastation which would wipe out all achievements made by man over successive centuries through strenuous efforts and revolutions that have left their mark on the destiny of man everywhere. We seek to strengthen the bases of social justice in Egypt by means of a new social contract in an age governed by market concepts. These concepts, in our estimation, should not prevail over the state's role of controling the movement and pace of society, within the framework of freedom, democracy and social responsibility which give full rein to individual whims at the expense of public interests. We seek to contribute, with the international community to forging out a new world order that guarantees an equal opportunity to all peoples, eliminates the huge disparity between the North and the South and gives oppressed peoples, that have suffered exploitation through long periods, a hope for a better life. We look forward to a well-balanced, multipoler, multi-system and multi-option, rather than one world order that is controlled by a limited group that express a specific culture and values. This group cannot impose its vision, civilization and policy on peoples that have outstanding cultures and values. We want to prove to the coming generations that we have never approved of the premise of the "conflict of civilizations and cultures". We have never denied the great progress made by man during the Renaissance Period and we will never give in to calls of isolation and fanaticism. We have a high dream of establishing a new society that enables man to resolve the contradiction between reason and stagnation, spirit and material, originality and contemporary life, values and interests and freedom and calls for neo-totalitarianism. We are fully aware that the way to achieve these high dreams is not strewn with roses and good intentions, but rather, filled with thorns, obstacles and serious challenges. However, all this should not discourage us, nor should it take the edge off our determination, nor instil despair into our hearts which are full of self-confidence and aspiration. Our means to achieve this high dream is a durable 2and comprehensive peace, balanced and equally reciprocal security, strict justice free of bias or prejudice, strenuous, sustained and relentless endeavour and absolute safety that embraces the whole of Egypt and spreads its umbrella over each and every citizen wherever he lives as well as on Egypt's guests and visitors. We do give paramount importance to the safety and security of our visitors. To this end, we should vie with each others. Let our wills and hearts be united, because we all share the same destiny. We have no way but to listen to the voice of reason and logic and raise the banners of brotherhood and freedom everywhere. Thank you very much. |
|
||||||||
Print this page 
Mail this page 