Former US ambassador to Egypt Frank Wisner is one of the most prominent American diplomats of the past 40 years. He is the son of CIA official and was posted to Egypt from 1986 to 1991. He has also been US ambassador to India and the Philippines. He was chosen by former US president Barack Obama to send a message to former president Hosni Mubarak during the 25 January Revolution. In an interview with Al-Ahram Weekly, Wisner said that the US Trump administration firmly believes that American national interests are served by a strong relationship with Egypt, also revealing the real story behind the message he carried to Mubarak during the revolution and commenting on the present Qatar crisis. Wisner said that the two-state solution in Palestine may not be achievable as originally drafted and that both the Palestinians and the Israelis should negotiate issues like water and energy while negotiating either a two-state or a one-state solution. The normalisation of relations between the Gulf countries and Israel will not be possible without a prior understanding between Israel and the Palestinians, he said.
Is the two-state solution still on the table between Israel and the Palestinians? It is really a tough question because it is not actually obvious, though it is said that it is still on the table. As you know, the two-state solution was reached by the governments of the United States, Israel, and a number of other states who agreed to it. It was at the heart of the Beirut Initiative in 2002 and led to the creation of the Palestinian Authority, being seen as the best way to settle the long-standing crisis. That said, I don't know anyone who knows how to get from here to an agreement between Israel and the Palestinian parties and the Arab world in general on the achievement of a two-state solution. If you know someone, please tell me. What I do know is that on the ground the realities are building day by day, and these make the achievement of a two-state solution as originally drafted virtually impossible, certainly as originally conceived. Please be my guest and drive, as I did recently, from Jerusalem to Nablus and tell me how you unscramble an egg. So I believe it is the solution, but I don't know how to get there because I don't know how you could implement it without a major rethinking of the premises on both sides of what the two states would look like. I find zero political will or leadership in either state to engage in that kind of relaunching exercise of fresh steps in negotiation and implementation. And I know of no outside force that can impose a fresh vision over the heads of the unwilling parties on the ground.
Is it more practical now to negotiate for a one-state solution, given the current situation with the Netanyahu government in Israel and the Trump administration in the US and the differences between the Palestinians? That's a thought, and it is obviously an option, but what is a one-state solution? If you could answer that I would tell you whether it is an option, but let me warn you that there are many kinds of Israelis and they all have different views of what one state would look like and what the Palestinians would agree to. Can you imagine Palestinians in the future being given equal rights with Israelis to elect a political leadership and define policies in the institutions of a binational state? Tell me what your one state looks like, and I will tell you how you can negotiate it. It is really tough, and it may be tougher than the two-state solution, but I believe negotiating is necessary and negotiating a two-state solution is the right way to start. However, I also believe that in addition to negotiating it is important that the Israelis and the Palestinians figure out how they can live with each other while they are negotiating a future — how they can live and let live and how they can solve important questions like water, energy and the economy. So while they are negotiating a two-state or any form of solution, how about spending some time talking about the practicalities of live and let live and talking to each other and mixing and sharing ideas and experiences so that they can understand each other's needs and problems?
Do you think the only way is to negotiate first on issues like water before negotiating on strategic issues like Jerusalem and borders? I am talking about two ways to move forward. One is to negotiate the politics of a two-state solution and sit down and say how could we make it work and how we can implement the Oslo Agreement and get back together again and keep the Arab world, the US, and others fully interested in that discussion. The second level is not negotiation, but a conversation, a dialogue, between the Israelis and the Palestinians about how they can live with each other while the political future is being worked out.
How do you view the idea of starting steps towards normalisation between the Gulf countries and Israel to encourage the Israelis to enter into concrete negotiations? My personal view is that the Gulf countries cannot and will not normalise relations with Israel until they see a satisfactory outcome to the Palestinian problem. They will not abandon the Palestinian cause completely to make a separate deal, but this doesn't mean they can't talk to Israel. There can be many levels of discussions. There can be all sorts of ideas of cooperation that could literally normalise relations between the Gulf countries or any other states and the Israelis. I frankly do not believe that normalisation is possible in the absence of an understanding between Israel and the Palestinians, however. That is my personal view.
You were last in Egypt in February when you met President Abdel-Fattah Al-Sisi. How do you view the Egyptian-American relationship under the Trump administration? Some have said the US administration has decided to improve relations between Washington and Cairo and leave aside certain issues like human rights. The Trump administration has done a careful assessment of American national interests, and it believes those interests are served by a strong relationship between the governments of Egypt and the United States. The administration looks back over decades of experience to justify that assessment. Secondly, this administration is very careful to define what is in the American national interest and to be certain to give that national interest priority. Thirdly, Americans as part of our nature believe in human rights and the protection of the rights of citizens and the participation of citizens in government, and we will always think and talk about this and make it important to our view of our relationship with other countries, but that does not mean to say that dialogue about these important issues needs to be confrontational. We can talk about each other's principles. Egypt has principles too. Egypt believes in stability and the sovereignty of states to make the right decisions. Our policies must be defined by national interests. I believe that this is the view of this administration.
Concerning the message from president Barack Obama you gave former president Hosni Mubarak during the 25 January Revolution, do you think that if Mubarak had listened to the message it would have been better for him? It is really hard to say. I believe that the oral message that I was asked to take to the president was a good message. I believe the message talked about ways in which Egypt could get through the crisis and emerge on a more consensual basis, but I am not so foolish as to believe that given the times, the emotions, and the feelings of the people in the streets that there was still an environment in which a solution of a consensual nature could have been reached between the Mubarak regime and Egyptian public opinion. I cannot say that. There was a hard mode, a mode of passion in Cairo — we want change, we are not listening — it was not a time in which people could calmly and reflectively figure out how one regime could transform itself into another. Good ideas at the wrong time are not a particular merit. But I believe they are important to the people who express them. I believe it was right for the United States, given the importance of our relationship with Egypt and with the region, to offer good advice and not just wash our hands and walk away and say pack up your bags and leave Mr President.
Didn't Obama's message advise Mubarak to leave? There is only one person who can answer that question.
Have you been in contact with Mubarak since then? No, I think he deserves peace and quiet. He has had enough of Wisner in his life.
How do you view the problems between Qatar and Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain concerning Qatar's helping and financing terrorism? I do not work for the US government now, and I am not in touch with it, so my personal observation is that I believe that this issue is not and cannot be about the sovereignty and foreign policy of Qatar and neither is it about Iran. It's about the support and sponsorship of institutions and individuals who espouse or engage in acts of terror or acts that lead to the commission of acts of terror. Therefore, I believe it is important for the state of Qatar to make it clear that its policies in no way support terror, either the individuals who practice it or the organisations that are involved in it, and that it is prepared to meet its Gulf neighbours and Egypt on common ground and figure out how to monitor and be sure that the implementation of any understandings Qatar advances ends any support that it may give to individuals or organisations of ideas that promote terror. I believe promoting that objective would protect American national interests, and we will both protect the interests that we have regarding terrorism, but also the interests that we have in the importance of our relationship with the Gulf and Egypt and also our relationship with Qatar.
Has the American administration changed its position towards Syria and Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad? The situation in Syria remains deeply troubling and chaotic. At the moment, I don't see a political way out of the crisis. I believe we will not know if there is a political way out until there is an agreement between the Syrian government and its sponsors Iran and Russia and the United States and our friends and between the government and the principle figures in the opposition about a political process that will bring Syria back together again and on which a ceasefire can be based. I believe that a partial ceasefire is always helpful so that fewer people are killed, but until there is a political process there can't be any way to achieve an enduring solution.
Russia has made efforts towards finding a political solution at the Astana Conference, but without success. Do you think America should become more involved? We would like to find a way out of this too. I think we and the Russians need to talk. I do not yet see a formula that will get us to a full political solution. I think the discussions between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin have actually been limited to a partial ceasefire for the moment.
