At a time of regional turmoil, how does Egypt assess its current and future relations with the major protagonists in the Middle East? I think the time has come for stronger relations with the regional non-Arab countries, such as Turkey and Iran, with which we have strong historic and cultural ties. We played a role in containing the Turkish-Syrian dispute. We made an attempt to defuse it, or [at least] to make it the subject of dialogue and negotiation, instead of allowing it to become the spark that could ignite an armed conflict. This effort represents a new approach for Egyptian policy, one that perceives the stabilisation of relations, not only within the Arab context but also within the framework of non-Arab neighbouring countries, as essential for maintaining order in the Middle East. In other words, the objective of Egypt's foreign policy is to work to build a regional climate of understanding, stability and peace. This [thinking] has always been at the core of Egypt's position [on Turkey], despite the questions that have been raised, both in Egypt and the Arab world, about Turkish-Israeli relations, Turkish policies concerning Iraq and the Turkish-Syrian dispute. Egyptian policy made a point of stressing that the Arab world should not lose Turkey and that Turkey should not lose the Arab world. We need to lay sound foundations for a healthy and sound relationship with Turkey. This approach had a [positive] impact, in terms of setting the situation in the right context and the right framework. Moreover, as a result [of this approach], there was a shift in the Arab perception of the issue: we moved from a perception of confrontation to one of dialogue, and from a perception of Turkey as a violator of Arab interests to one that sees Turkey as an integral part of those interests. This evolution is a good thing, from the perspective of Egyptian foreign policy. Moreover, this is also an evolution in overall Arab policy with respect to neighbouring [non-Arab] countries. I believe if we succeed in settling the [Turkish-Syrian] dispute by dialogue, then we could safely say that this is a big step forward. What about Iran? As far as Iran is concerned, I can say that Egyptian diplomacy has been moving in the direction of stressing our points of agreement instead of giving too much attention to the points on which we disagree. Today, Egypt and Iran are [engaged] in a dialogue. The two countries are not taking apprehensive or negative positions towards one another. They are rather adopting a positive approach in order to patch up their differences and deal with their bilateral problems. There has been a programme of exchanging visits, modest as it may be. Still, it is there and it is a good start. I met with Iranian President Mohamad Khatami. I also met with Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi, as I had with the former Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati. There has also been an exchange of visits by economic delegations. All of this has helped cool off the [former tensions] in [bilateral] relations. There is another neighbouring non-Arab country, however... Israel is quite a different story. With Israel we do not have the historic, cultural elements that bind us to both Iran and Turkey. There is a dimension of reconciliation that can be pursued further, if Israel will accept a just and fair deal that safeguards Arab rights. However, there has been a setback on this road of reconciliation, as a result of the drastic shift in Israeli policy against the peace process. This said, there are some encouraging elements. Egypt -- and we hope Israel too -- is not thinking of engaging in a conflict. The assertion of the late President Anwar El-Sadat, that the October 1973 war is the last war, is still valid and should serve as a framework for future relations. This, however, should be reinforced by an Israeli endeavour in the direction of peace. It is the lack of this attitude on the part of Israel that is the reason for the present severe clash between Egyptian and Israeli policies. What advances have been made in relations with the key Arab states? It is important to remember that there are certain rules and traditions which govern our relations with these countries. [As a case in point], I would like to recall th1e tripartite summit [of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria] that took place in 1994, and the Damascus summit that paved the road for the 1996 Arab summit. This [tradition], I think, explains some of the aspects of Egypt's policy regarding these [key] countries. Moreover, I want to underscore the [strength of] Egyptian-Moroccan relations, as manifested in the recent bilateral summits that were led by President Hosni Mubarak and King Hassan, and the efforts that have been made to reinforce the special relationship between the two countries. Algeria is also important for Egypt. Cairo follows the problems faced by Algeria closely, because this is an important country with a role to play in the Arab world. This role cannot be overlooked. And Iraq? Safeguarding the interests of the Iraqi people is for us a constant concern. Iraq is an integral part of the Arab world. This is a fact that cannot be ignored. What about Egypt's relations with the wider Arab context? In relation to the peace process, Jordan clearly has an important role to play. Coordination is essential to support the Palestinians in reaching a fair deal. Let me add that when we talk of the key Arab countries, we are also referring to Yemen [which has a strategic location] overlooking the Red Sea. And then, of course, there are our relations with the Gulf states, and Sudan, with whom we have a very special relationship. And there is also Libya, which completes the circle of dialogue around us. An integral element of our foreign policy that I would like to stress is our economic relations. We do have strong economic relations with a number of Arab countries, including Tunisia, Jordan, and Morocco. I would also like to add that we have certain special relationships with the countries in the Horn of Africa. The same goes for Lebanon. In general, when we speak of inter-Arab relations, we mean all the countries of the Arab world, without discrimination. No particular country is excluded from the process of exchanging views. In light of this approach, do you believe Egypt is capable of regaining the position it held in the 1960s as the uncontested leading regional power? You cannot assess Egypt's regional role in the 1990s by the criteria of the 1960s. You simply cannot do this. The 1990s are not the 1960s. We are talking about different facts and different challenges. Today, we believe that Egypt's regional role should derive from the establishment of common interests. We believe that regional influence should not be based on the imposition [of will]. Interaction is what we are talking about. We are talking about a good and wise investment of Egypt's historic relations [in the region], and we are talking about the broad regional horizons that are now facing Egyptian diplomacy. It is this concept of common interests that should provide and underwrite a positive approach to forging a regional policy that can be led by Egypt. Related: Fixing the holes
