In the aftermath of 11 September, the US seemed to shift its priorities in the Middle East. At times, the changes to its policies have brought it head to head with its traditional allies in the region, including Egypt. Soha Abdelaty talked to Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher in an exclusive interview about US foreign policy in the Middle East during the post-9/11 period Foreign Minister Maher began the interview with the following remarks Terrorism did not start on 11 September. We have suffered, and other countries have suffered from terrorism. And in this regard, I have two observations to make. First, I hope the point that we have emphasised all along -- that President Hosni Mubarak has made all along -- which is that terrorism is an international phenomenon requiring international cooperation, will be understood; and I think it has been understood. Secondly, understanding that terrorism is an international phenomenon, and it is something that is condemned by all of us, does not mean that it should become the only consideration for any policy. You cannot treat every question that is posed to you in the field of international relations as though it pertains to the question of terrorism. To do so would give you a distorted view of every problem. You confuse terrorism and freedom fighting. You confuse your relations with every country with the fact that some of the terrorists come from this country or that country. This should be a period that passes and is overcome. It's finished, you cannot live and think only of 9/11. There are many dates that are very important dates. The important thing is that we have to cooperate against terrorism and deal with things with a sense of proportion. OK, we are fighting terrorism, but it's not the only dimension of international relations. Judging from your observations, you seem to agree with the view that the US has shifted its foreign policy priorities. How did this affect US policy towards Egypt and the region? [Terrorism] should not be the most important dimension [of foreign policy]. There are the aspects of justice, international law, people who are under occupation and need to be liberated. There are problems of development. All of these things have to be tackled. You cannot put between yourself and the whole world and its problems 9/11 as a sort of veil. It was a tragedy. We condemned it. It was a terrible moment in history. But we've also known terrible moments. Other countries have known terrible moments, too. We were able to overcome our difficult times with our own vigour and with a call for international cooperation that was not always responded to. What is disturbing is that very soon after 9/11 -- of course the American people were in shock, which was to be expected -- the Israelis took the opportunity to mix the cards; to confuse the whole issue and present themselves as if they were in the same fight as America. What America was fighting was terrorism, what the Israelis were fighting for was to maintain their illegal occupation of a people who want their independence. There is no comparison between the two situations. But the Israelis were able, through their very strong propaganda machine, to impress upon many Americans this confused and distorted view of the situation. Among the changes to US foreign policy is what seems to be a greater inclination to interfere in the domestic affairs of various countries including Egypt; a case in point is the Saadeddin Ibrahim case. Would you agree? There have been changes. Cooperating against terrorism and against terrorists, however, should not be a pretext for changing the basic rules of international law: non-interference in the internal affairs of countries, respecting the sovereignty of countries and abiding by international law and the rule of law. If a country does not abide by the law and is encouraging terrorism, there should be an international effort to force the country to stop supporting terrorists. Along those lines, some of the actions that the US is undertaking or which it is considering under the banner of the war against terror, like a possible attack against Iraq, could destabilise the US's traditional allies in the region. What do you think? I think the problem of Iraq is different. There has been no proof of any link between Iraq and any of the terrorist organisations that are mentioned with regards to 9/11. Secondly, with Iraq it's a problem of whether there is implementation or non-implementation of Security Council resolutions. The decision in this regard is up to the Security Council. It's not a unilateral decision by any country. We believe that the Iraqis have to abide by Security Council resolutions. This is a matter of Security Council resolutions, and whether they are implemented or not. If a country does not implement resolutions, sanctions are imposed. If they [the resolutions] have been implemented, sanctions have to be looked at. But if the US decides to go ahead with the attack... We have made it very clear that we are against any military attack against Iraq. But as President Mubarak has said, an attack would destabilise the region. Can't the US see the extent to which such an action would be threatening to its traditional allies or does it not care as much as it used to? I think you should put the question to them [the US administration] not to me. We have shared with them our assessment at the highest level; President Mubarak has spoken publicly about this and I believe that everybody should ponder what President Mubarak says because he has a track record of being right. He expressed this opinion out of his concern for the interests of the peoples of the area and the cause of legality and respect for international law. Some American policies have frustrated people in Egypt and have caused considerable disruption for the governments in the region. How will Egypt manage its relations with the US while, at the same time, not antagonising domestic public opinion? We have told the Americans about the negative impacts some of their positions have. At the same time, we have reaffirmed our determination to maintain a close relationship with the United States because it is not only in the interest of Egypt and the United States, but because it is in the interest of stability in the area. So we do hope that they will come to realise that they have to listen to the advice we give them because it is objective advice built upon our experience. We'll continue to call on them to take actions that are compatible with international law. Some observers are suggesting that 9/11 marks a new era in international relations, describing the previous one that began after World War II as the international law/United Nations era. Now, however, we have a sort of lawless world. I don't think that we should exaggerate and say a new era has begun. Terrorism started before 9/11. People fought terrorism before, and I hope we will continue to do so in cooperation, but not subject everything to this. I don't think it's a new era. It's a new era as much as finally the world has understood what we have been saying for years, namely, that terrorism is an international phenomenon. When we were suffering from it, nobody thought that we were in a new era or that it was an earth-shattering experience. I'm not minimising what happened. I'm not saying that the United States has no right to defend itself. It does, just as we have the right to defend ourselves. But these actions should be taken according to the existing rules of international law. We are not going to change the rules of international law because of something that has happened and which I don't think can be compared to World War II. The two are of different scales completely. Do you think that the US has a clear plan for what it's going to be doing next in its war on terrorism, or do you think that the administration is merely improvising as it goes along? They have not shared any plans with us. But I do hope that when they have such a plan, that they'll take into consideration all the dimensions, not only the anger, not only one side of what they want to do. Every action has many reactions. And it has many facets. And I hope that [the US] will [develop] a comprehensive view of how we can all work together to ensure that the law is respected by everybody, without distinction. When we speak about weapons of mass destruction, we have to speak about all the countries that have them, not only those who potentially have weapons of mass destruction, but countries who actually possess weapons of mass destruction. If every time we find there is a country that has weapons of mass destruction, we decide to go and attack it, if this becomes the rule, then it should apply to everybody. If we are going to fight terrorism, we have to fight it in all of its forms, whoever the perpetrators are, and in a way compatible with international law. These are the lessons that have to be learned, the most important of which is that double-standards don't work. They're in the interest of no one. If you have a rule of law you apply it to everybody, then you have a safer world. If you have a rule of law that you apply according to your whims, or according to whether A or B is your friend, or you dislike C, or you don't sympathise with E, then you will create chaos. We have learned that rules of law are universal. Related articles: 9/11 Supplement -- 12 - 18 September 2002 9-11 - WAR COVERAGE -- Archives
