Speculation that a peace deal is on the cards reached fever pitch as President Mubarak arrived in the US. Mohamed El-Sayed Said, in Washington, investigates possible agendas and interviews the Egyptian ambassador in the United States President Hosni Mubarak started yesterday a three-day visit to the US amid increasing expectation of an imminent breakthrough in the current Middle East diplomacy deadlock. This morning President Mubarak is scheduled to meet with US senators and members of the house of representatives interested in ME politics, followed by meetings with American Arab organisations, including the ADC (American Arab Anti-discrimination Committee), Council on American Arab Relations, Arab American Institute, American Muslim Council, American Egyptian Cultural Association, and Egyptian American Council. The highlight of Thursday's meetings, though, will be between Mubarak and US Vice-President Dick Cheney. The next day Mubarak will meet Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, in addition to leading figures from various Jewish organisations, before he meets the US president on Friday evening and Saturday morning. Compared with previous visits to the US two new features have appeared on the president's agenda. The meeting planned with representatives of Arab American organisations is an innovation in his US tours. To make the point even sharper, the president will address Arab Americans through a speech to be delivered by Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher on the occasion of the ADC convention, on Thursday. The Egyptian Embassy will be holding a reception in honour of delegates to the convention. In another significant move the president will also meet with eminent Jewish religious leaders rather than the usual representatives of politically oriented organisations with strong ties to the Zionist lobby. The focus appears to be almost exclusively on the next move in peace diplomacy, and the visit was preceded by a flurry of speculation in Arab and Foreign news media on an initiative to be launched by Egypt to revive the peace process. The aim of the initiative is seen as the building of a Palestinian state by the beginning of 2003 which will then negotiate -- as a UN member recognised by the international community -- outstanding issues with Israel, including withdrawal to pre-1967 borders within three or four years. The US, for its part, declared at the end of the Quartet meeting (the USA, Russia, the EU, and the UN) in Washington early last month its intention to hold an international conference promoting a negotiated peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians, though more recently it has deferred the likely convening of any conference from July, as originally announced, to the end of the year. In his interview with Al-Ahram Weekly (published on this page) the Egyptian ambassador to Washington poured cold water on speculation surrounding the existence of any new initiative by Egypt beyond ongoing demands for full Israeli implementation of already existing agreements and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Occupied Territories. Speculations on the next move by the US are much less specific, with the convening of an international peace conference attended by the Israelis and the Palestinians facing seemingly ever-lengthening odds. The American administration is still debating three different scenarios: the first two -- the piecemeal approach to Middle Eastern diplomacy advocated by the Pentagon and the National Security Council, and the pursuit of a comprehensive agreement advocated by some officials within the State Department -- have been around for some time. But Ambassador Nabil Fahmy believes a third position is now emerging, combining elements of the first two. It will comprise several steps, to be taken progressively, that will seek to accommodate both Israeli security demands and Palestinian political aspirations, leading to a final settlement within a few years. The approach will differ from both the Oslo framework and Sharon's position in two important aspects: the final status will be clear from the beginning, so that the Palestinians can see the light at the end of the tunnel, and the crucial immediate step in the political process will be a "transitional" rather than "interim" agreement. Fahmy, though, denies having seen any coherent document combining the various elements of an American proposal, insisting that discussions in which he is involved on behalf of the Egyptian government have been oral and fragmentary. Views expressed by Fahmy and other Egyptian officials suggest Mubarak will face a negotiating climate characterised by a lack of any clear or detailed American approach to peace-making. Within this context President Mubarak will aim at influencing the shaping of the American ideas through his direct encounters with President Bush. How then can we explain the urgency with which the Americans called for the visit? The urgency of the visit and the value placed on it by both sides certainly suggest that there is something on the table more concrete than merely the suggestion of an international conference as announced by Powell. And it is likely that an American proposition exists that is more articulate than Egyptian officials are conceding. That the Americans, too, are unwilling to disclose any details -- mouths are being kept firmly shut -- simply deepens the mystery. American officials have declined to make concrete statements on the visit. Yet a consensus is emerging among commentators -- fuelled by the meeting between Sharon and Mubarak's chief political adviser, Osama El- Baz, in Israel last week -- that something is cooking, and that something is likely to be a specific proposal for the basis on which a Palestinian state may be declared, on less than 50 per cent of the occupied territories, as the first step on the long road to a final peace settlement. Nabil Fahmy Nabil Fahmy, Egypt's ambassador to Washington, is a seasoned diplomat. He is pragmatic and vigorous rather than sloganeering and legalistic and he is devoted to his work. Some critics interpret his apparent distaste for socialising as aloofness and even arrogance. For me, he is a professional of the highest order. Only one thing bothers me about him: his inclination to deploy his diplomatic skills in media interviews. You can't get anything out of him that he does not want to reveal. In this interview, however, I felt he was much more open and less elusive than usual. Whether some of his answers to my questions will prove to be a diplomatic cover-up, or hold true in a fluid situation which defies the journalist's desire for big news only time will reveal. We met last Sunday in the newly renovated Egyptian ambassador's residence, and we spoke in Arabic. Ambassador Nabil, how would you characterise President Mubarak's coming visit to the United States, only three months after his last one? It is a working visit with no social aspects. The entire time is scheduled for negotiating the peace process with the diverse elements in the decision-making set-up: the administration, the Congress, the media and the American communities concerned with the Middle East. Only if time allows, will bilateral and other regional issues be discussed. The focus is the Palestinian question, because of the gravely deteriorating situation and its impact on the interests of all the parties concerned. It is high time to make a joint, comprehensive assessment of the whole situation; to explore the best possible ways for exiting from this situation in the weeks and months ahead. These include the proposed meeting or conference for the resumption of negotiations for a political settlement. The last statements coming from Egypt, particularly from Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher seemed somewhat sceptical, or even hostile to the idea of an international conference? The idea was unclear. It wasn't clear whether the talk was about an international or a regional conference and whether they were talking about an interim arrangement or a final settlement. Israel, in particular, seeks to undermine the principles of peace- making and to replace internationally agreed principles with new ones of its own. In fact, it seeks to determine the level, the form, and the scope of negotiations, including the nature of Palestinian representation by denying Arafat attendance. This is to us unacceptable. There is also ambiguity on the time frame for the holding of the conference or meeting, and for the implementation of its conclusions if there will be an agreement on a final settlement. Egypt is determined to put on the table the outstanding issue of a final settlement, from the very start. Given all those ambiguities, why did President Mubarak accept the idea of coming to the United States at this point. Didn't we always say that agreement on these issues of fundamental importance should be preceded by detailed and thorough deliberations before the president comes to finalise matters? And why the urgency if there is not, as rumoured, something of a specific nature that needs the president himself to finalise? While the question is legitimate, I disagree with its connotations. It is crucial to respond to America's invitation at a time when it comes to articulate its thinking, or position on those fundamental issues of peace in our region, for a number of reasons. First, the situation on the ground cannot be endured. In fact, it may blow up again any time with open threats to reoccupy land liberated through Oslo. Secondly, all the parties concerned, especially the EU, are pressuring the US for a quick and decisive move. Third, the administration itself is under intense counter-pressures to leave the whole matter at the mercy of Israel. So it is very important for Egypt to step in, express it views and provide information and opinions at the highest level. President Mubarak has to use his weight with the American leadership to influence its thinking at a time of great differences among the various departments and leading personalities within the administration. Let us come to grips with the dispensations which President Mubarak will have to deal with during his visit. There are two views on this administration's intentions. Mainstream Arab views believe that this administration is far from serious about bringing about a comprehensive and just peace in the region, and that its real objective is to humiliate and destabilise the Arab world by using Sharon to the full. Others, basically Arab Americans, think that the administration is really serious in its peace diplomacy. What is your position? I am for the second view. The Americans are sensing the deterioration in the regional situation and they fear that without restoring calm, its whole anti-terrorism policy may collapse. They understand the urgent need for a move towards peace. The point at stake though is whether this move will focus on gradual steps, or on a comprehensive and final settlement. This is still debated. But even if we assume that the Americans are reluctant to move and that they are totally biased, the need for engaging them becomes even more acute because there will be no peace without the Americans. What you are saying is that the president will try to influence a still amorphous American position. What do you expect the outcome of the president's visit to be: a policy statement, a joint declaration, a document? The meeting and the deliberations are more important than issuing a statement. The issue is the shaping of the peace process. Its outcome will emerge not at the end of the meeting, but when the Americans come to declare their position and their approach to resolving the Palestinian- Israeli conflict. And from our standpoint, Egypt has a political, moral and historical responsibility. It is the leading Arab country and the one that pioneered the peace process. It should see that this process is consummated and reaches its right destination. It has to stand by the Palestinians. It has to explain thoroughly and it has to influence the ongoing thinking and processes. What about the talks of an initiative or a plan launched by Egypt, during El-Baz's recent meeting with Sharon? Is Egypt going to accommodate Sharon's ideas on a limited withdrawal? My own view is that what was published in the Israeli press is not correct. Egypt is demanding full withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders. If there is no specific Egyptian plan do we have an American one? Within the administration there are three trends. The first focuses on a comprehensive resolution. But this position lacks a detailed plan of action, or the political instruments through which things move from one phase to the next. The second buys Sharon's position as the most viable option. It speaks of negotiations for a long interim stage which starts after Palestinian reforms and without Arafat. The interim stage is defined from the Israeli point of view with no regard to Palestinian interests. Recently, a third position has come to be deliberated. This option seeks to reconcile the gradual approach with the comprehensive one. It mixes some elements from both the Arab and the Israeli concerns. It believes that the aim is a final and comprehensive settlement, and that this aim has to be spelled out, from the start. On the road to this aim, a number of steps have to be taken so that the sovereign rights of the Palestinians are exercised gradually, through a specific time frame. The intermediate step is called transitional not interim. This last position remedies the main shortcoming in the Oslo process, which lacked finality. The end-process should be detailed and supplied with the instruments of transition from one stage to the next, including the territorial map and the number of refugees to be returned and compensated, the issue of Jerusalem and guarantees of free entry and rights of worship, and the situation of the settlements. Are you talking about an already articulated solution or just a free-floating thinking process? This is what is being debated within the administration and circulated among the quartet (the USA, Russia, the EU, and the UN), and the parties concerned. Undoubtedly, Egypt is expected to contribute its own views in the context of the president's visit. How formal are these ideas when explored with the "parties concerned"? The administration has not formally suggested these ideas. And the process is neither final nor complete. The issue is yet to be settled within the administration itself. And President Mubarak is expected to make crucial contribution with substantial bearing on the debate within the administration. When Americans explore these or other ideas do they provide you, as the Egyptian ambassador, with written documents, or anything in written form, or is the discussion oral? There are no documents. As I said, there is a blend of ideas that may come out solid, or remain rather fragile. It is in Egypt's interest to intervene in the process of shaping these ideas and to help articulate an acceptable solution which meets Palestinian and Arab rights as formulated in international resolutions. This is why the president is here. Related stories Pushing for statehood Destroying Arafat's leadership Unifying positions Consultations for peace 30 May - 5 June 2002 Measuring the steps 30 May - 5 June 2002 Holding out for peace 16 - 22 May 2002 Blowing in the wind 9 - 15 May 2002 Putting the message across 7 - 13 March 2002 Keeping Egypt-US ties 'healthy' 17 - 23 June 1999
