Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak believes all the Middle East's conflicts are amenable to a peaceful solution. He spoke to Christian Malar.
The situation in Iraq has gone beyond instability now. What are your concrete suggestions to bring stability back to the country, Mr President?
The instability began straight after the end of the war. No state, no solution, the army disbanded, the same for the police and the Ba'ath party. I said all that at the time. Moreover, I pointed out that it would be hard to control the situation. American and coalition forces strove in vain to impose stability. It was very difficult, because to maintain stability, you need to study the psychology of the people. In a country like Iraq, the people are not afraid of anything. In the final analysis, Saddam Hussein did manage to govern a country with a complex network of groups there are the Kurds, the Sunnis, the Shi'ites and a number of other ethnic groups and communities. If Saddam Hussein had been a just leader, nothing would have happened. Iraq needs a strong, fair leader. Now the problem is rebuilding the army and providing a high standard of training.
That goes for the police too. We put forward a proposal for training the Iraqi army and police, but other places were selected instead. However, we are still ready and willing to do so because Iraq is in the heart of our region. It's in our interest to make sure the country is stable.
Do you believe that Lebanon is at risk of civil war? Can Egypt and Lebanon's other neighbors act as a stabilizing influence? For the moment there's a lot of talk but no solutions.
Lebanon's stability is of paramount importance to us. We have close relations with all the parties involved. We are making considerable efforts to make sure Lebanon returns to its former role. There has been constant ongoing movement between our two countries for a very long time. But while we do have a role to play, we are not alone in this. Demonstrations cannot lead to wise decisions. I worry about this kind of demonstration, whether they're organized by the opposition or the majority. They could be infiltrated by people from other countries. It could also lead to confrontations ending up with the destruction of Lebanon. I am not on the side of the majority or of the opposition; I'm on the side of ensuring stability for Lebanon. I have said that the problem can only be solved by returning to the negotiating table. Both sides organizing demonstrations and people killing each other just takes us back to the past and to civil war.
When you say the negotiating table, do you mean a regional conference on Lebanon?
It might be the case that the opposing sides in Lebanon sit down together to find a solution. It wouldn't take a miracle to solve the problem. One side is demanding more ministers, while the other is refusing and invoking the constitution and the parliament. They're accusing their adversaries of crippling the Council of Ministers. If the conflicting parties get together to talk, they're bound to work out a solution. If they can't, it'll be necessary to call for a regional congress. This explosive situation can only lead to the destruction of the country.
There appears to be no way out of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel refuses to withdraw from the Occupied Territories and Fatah and Hamas are in a state of war. What is your opinion on the subject? What do you suggest?
The Palestinian cause is not new the situation hasn't been around for 58 hours, but for more like 58 years, since 1948. However, things have just been going round in circles. The solution was much easier before. I remember when Mr Sadat took part in the Camp David Accords. He was criticized and humiliated by some Arab countries. One clause in the agreement dealt with the issue of the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, who were to be redeployed outside these zones so that the parties could come to an agreement later. But Abu Ammar [Yasser Arafat] refused. A few weeks later, work began on building the colonies.
History should note that the then Israeli prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, indicated that the problem of the colonies could be resolved. But the situation has evolved over the last 58 years. And this is where we are today. Moreover, the Americans demanded that the Palestinians organize democratic and transparent elections. This is what the Palestinians did, and Hamas won. However, no one in the West was willing to acknowledge Hamas' victory. A blockade was thus imposed. But in the final analysis, it's the Palestinian people who are paying the price. Yet at the same time, we can never say that the two sides are stuck in an impasse. We're making efforts, as are others. I'm certain we'll reach a compromise, but it will take time. One side is insisting on its demands, while the other is saying that it won't make any concessions. We have to find a solution, or the Palestinian people are doomed. I don't think that they will put up much longer with their difficult living conditions or the climate of constant danger in which they have been living for years.
In your opinion, does the Iranian nuclear program represent a threat to the Middle East? Could it be a factor in encouraging a new arms race?
I have always said once in the presence of Saddam Hussein that we had to rid the Middle East of all weapons of mass destruction, including those in Israel. I have held talks on this subject with the Israeli government. If Iran builds its own nuclear weapon in the near future, and if the international community accepts the situation, then other countries in the region will think about starting up their own programs. Every state will try to defend itself. States with this type of weaponry will be able to threaten the region and thus impose their demands and conditions on other countries. But no one will accept that state of affairs, and conflict will break out. Whatever the case, the countries in the Middle East will not just be passive bystanders.
Given the complexity of the situation Iraq, Lebanon, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the nuclear issue in Iran do you see the region as a tinderbox waiting to go up in flames?
You forgot to mention Afghanistan and Darfur. The region is already in flames and we are finding it impossible to make progress. That also goes for the international community. I believe we have to think logically and act wisely. If we follow that route, we will be able to find solutions. There is always a way out from these problems. We are not asking for miracles, either in Lebanon or in Iraq. We just have to adapt the solutions to the nature of the people and the characteristics of the region. Afghanistan is rather far from the Middle East but it has an impact because it is a Muslim country. Darfur is a different problem. If the situation there degrades any further, it will be worse than Iraq.
Mr President, could you say a few words about the cooperation between France and Egypt, particularly on the issue of the fight against terrorism and Islamist networks in the Middle East? Recently, some Islamists have been extradited to France. I imagine that you have discussed the issue with President Chirac.
Why do we always end up talking about Islam when the issue is terrorism? I said a few years ago that terrorism would become an international phenomenon that would affect every corner of the globe. Terrorism must not be used as a synonym for Islam, which is a faith built on principles of tolerance. But the propaganda that springs up around some Islamists complicates the issue. We are cooperating with France on this question. If a terrorist has French nationality, he is the subject of an inquiry and is then extradited to France. The same goes for an American. You have to understand, once and for all, that terrorism is not a characteristic of Islam. It's an international problem. I began sounding the alarm in the early 1990s and I called for an international conference on anti-terrorist measures. No one wanted to hear me. At the time, they said it was just Egypt's problem. Now, the whole world is suffering from the phenomenon. Terrorism is not solely the affair of Egyptians or Muslims, but all races and religions.
One more question on the cooperation between France and Egypt on Darfur. What can be done to put a stop to this terrible human tragedy and prevent it from spreading?
I am in constant contact with President Chirac on this issue, particularly since the UN resolution on this question. It was a frustrating decision. I discussed the issue with the American president and I told him of my frustration. It is inconceivable to use UN forces to police all of Sudan's borders. What does the Darfur region have to do with all of Sudan's borders? Having said that, they could decide tomorrow to deploy UN soldiers all along our border with Sudan, which would be unacceptable both to us and to Khartoum. We are seeking a resolution to the Darfur issue with all the appropriate solutions at our disposal. Any deployment of UN forces at the request of the Security Council before the problem is solved between the two sides in conflict will have negative repercussions.
© Arabies Trends 2007
