Interview by Hoda Tewfik Foreign Minister Amr Moussa has been visiting Washington for a "strategic dialogue" with the Clinton administration on regional issues. The talks, however, were dominated by the persistent deadlock in Middle East peace-making which has resulted from Israel's refusal to accept the US initiative for a 13 per cent withdrawal from West Bank territory. In an exclusive and wide-ranging interview with Washington correspondent Hoda Tewfik, Moussa said the US is sticking to its proposal and has rejected Israeli attempts to introduce modifications. The Palestinians, likewise, have rejected the proposed Israeli modifications, Moussa said, adding that they are not in a position to accept the pre-conditions which Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu seeks to impose. On other regional issues, Moussa declared Egypt's support for the territorial unity of Iraq and Sudan and its desire to see sanctions against Libya lifted What is your assessment of the situation in the Middle East peace process? Israel is seeking to impose its own conditions, so that the peace process will proceed at the pace Israel wants and according to the terms Israel sets. But the [Clinton] administration has refused to alter its initiative to accommodate the Israeli pre-conditions. The Israelis have failed to force or put pressure on the US to bring their initiative in line with Israel's terms. We have assurances from the US administration that the initiative, both as a whole and in its details, remains unchanged. We, Egypt and the Arab countries, as well as the European states, are not prepared to accept the Israeli logic of attempting to twist the arm of the Palestinians and alter the terms of the peace process, so that their withdrawals are as insignificant as possible and their gains are as broad as possible. This means that a settlement cannot be reached in the near future. If the deadlock remains unbroken, a new initiative must be made. Hence, the importance of the Mubarak-Chirac initiative [for a peace-saving summit] and of any other serious initiatives that may emerge. They are not a substitute for the American initiative; rather, they are meant to forge an international consensus on the situation that follows from Israel's refusal of the American initiative, or will follow if that initiative should definitively fail. What is the philosophy behind the Mubarak-Chirac initiative? It is very important to remind the world community that it too is responsible. The Middle East problem is not only a regional problem but is also related to international peace and security. Consequently, the world community, be it the United Nations, other international organisations or the European Union, is also responsible for dealing with the deterioration of the peace process. An international conference is needed, if and when the American initiative grinds to a halt. The Israelis should act according to the logic of things as they are. They should not adopt an extremist logic. They should know that the final status negotiations will determine the future of Jerusalem and the status of the Palestinian people and their self-determination. But if Israel now decides to change the character of Jerusalem, refuses to restore the [occupied] land, obstructs negotiations and asks the Palestinians not to declare their own state -- well, all this is unacceptable. [In that case,] the PLO has every right to say that it will declare a Palestinian state on 4 May, 1999. The Americans, and we too, are well-aware of the crisis in the peace process. It is in everybody's interest to save the peace process, provided that this can be done according to the terms of the Madrid [peace] conference. We have received assurances that the United States still abides by the fundamentals which were agreed at the Madrid conference. And yet America, instead of putting pressure on Israel, are actually putting pressure on the Palestinians urging them to resume direct talks with Israel? There can be no negotiations if the aim is to change the terms of the American initiative. Israel is seeking to impose its conditions and the Palestinians have said that they cannot accept these conditions. So, any talks will be a purely academic exercise. Israel is suggesting a 10-plus-3 per cent formula for withdrawal from the West Bank to create a new zone that will remain subject to its authority, although this is not stipulated in the signed agreements. This will be rejected, along with all other Israeli measures that violate the signed agreements. All Israeli unilateral actions, whether in Jerusalem or the Occupied Territories, should be dealt with as illegal acts. The principal objective, since Camp David and more recently Madrid, has been to bring about a full withdrawal from occupied Syrian, Lebanese and Palestinian territories by 1999, make it possible for the Palestinians to exercise self-determination, close the dossier on the Arab-Israeli conflict and move towards establishing a zone of peace and cooperation. Unfortunately, this is highly unlikely to be achieved now, and it is Israel which should be blamed for this. Israel should understand that we cannot deal with her, except according to the terms that were agreed upon. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has urged Israel and the Palestinians to resume direct negotiations and Netanyahu immediately leapt at this idea. Is America trying to save face after failing to deal firmly with Israel's refusal? As long as Israel does not change its policy, no negotiation can bear any fruit. Perhaps Albright is trying to give the Israelis a last chance, which for America would be another way of saying that its initiative remains unchanged. But will this not constitute Israeli pressure on the Palestinians, as long as the talks are bilateral, without American participation? It is obvious that Yasser Arafat will not accept the conditions that Israel is seeking to impose. The Palestinians are not ready to accept any modification of the American initiative. Therefore, I believe that Palestinian-Israeli dialogue would be an exercise in futility. So, what is the next step? The United States should publicly declare what the outcome of its initiative has been, and then the world community should determine the next step. The Mubarak-Chirac initiative is relevant in this context. But we cannot approve of the Israeli positions which directly violate the signed agreements and all the fundamentals of the peace process. What did you suggest to Albright as the way out of this crisis? I said that matters have reached such a [serious] stage that it cannot be saved by just a conversation here or there. It is not our role to tell the Palestinians meet this or don't meet that. We are certain that the only course that can produce results is for the Israelis to implement the signed agreements, just as they require from the Palestinians to implement these agreements. This is the only possible course. Any other approach will lead to nothing. If Israel is refusing to carry out a limited withdrawal, what are the prospects for the final status negotiations? It is obvious that the issue is not limited to the American initiative for a 13 per cent withdrawal. There has been a radical, and negative, change in Israeli policy. Israel does not want the peace process to continue, and is refusing any understanding based on the terms of Oslo or Madrid. This is what has to be addressed. The issue is much more serious than Israel's rejection of the American initiative. The issue is Israel's absolute rejection of the fundamentals on which the peace process is based, particularly the principle of exchanging [occupied] land for peace. This means that the credibility of the peace process has been threatened and undermined. Nobody is prepared to go along with Israeli policy on this. Nor are they prepared to believe the promises made by Israel. We have to take a firm stand against this Israeli position. What Israel is doing now is a farce. And yet, while we talk about rejection, Israel is taking action on the ground. We will never acknowledge Israel's unilateral actions. Israel stands accused of undermining the peace process and will be held responsible for this. There are those who suggest a suspension of negotiations... There are no negotiations now to suspend. We want negotiations, provided they are based on the terms which were the subject of agreement, and are not merely photo-opportunity negotiations. The Palestinian leadership has a historical responsibility and cannot accept less than this. Moving on to the strategic dialogue, how would you describe your talks with Albright about these complicated issues? These were wide-ranging talks, which were being held for the first time, with the participation of full delegations. The springboard is that the United States, as a super-power, has interests in the Middle East, Africa and the Mediterranean. Egypt, as a regional power, also has interests in these areas. So, we have to sit down and talk with America because it is there, its interests are there and its influence is there. As far as Egypt is concerned, its interests and Arab interests must be preserved. We are not only talking about the Middle East, we are also talking about Sudan and the Horn of Africa. It is no longer enough that when a problem arises, we deal with it. It is time that we discussed matters frankly. We must know what America is seeking exactly, because there are Egyptian and Arab interests at stake, and there are political, economic and security considerations. It was we who spearheaded the [Middle East] peace effort but we need to determine how this is linked to stability in the region, in the Gulf, in northern Iraq, in southern Sudan, the Horn of Africa, the Red Sea and the Mediterranean. There is also the issue of disarmament. We have to put these issues on the table and discuss them frankly. There is some concern over reported Israeli plans to have a presence in the Red Sea and Horn of Africa and also to buy submarines from Germany that can be equipped with nuclear missiles. Yes, there is concern, there are reports and there are also exaggerations. We should draw a distinction between the facts and the exaggerations. Israel is not a super-power that can be active in Africa, Asia, the Red Sea and the Mediterranean. Israel, regardless of the capacities of its armory, is still a small nation dependent on foreign military assistance. We are aware that Israel has some sort of presence here and there, which may have an impact on our interests and which may not. We are fully alert to all this and we are following up these developments closely so as to protect our interests. Will Israel's infiltration attempts have repercussions on the situation in the oil-rich Gulf? Israel is not in a position to influence the situation in the Gulf. There are major powers which have interests larger than those of Israel there. They act to preserve those interests, and not Israel's. As for the Ethiopian-Eritrean dispute, its roots lie in the relationship between these two countries and have nothing to do with Israel or the Arab countries. If Israel were to try and take advantage of this dispute, however, that would be something else. Did you discuss Egypt's relations with Libya with Albright? Yes, we did. I mentioned to her that there is now a phenomenon which may be called 'sanctions fatigue.' People are asking about the reasons for the sanctions and why have they dragged on for so long. It is true that the resolutions of the UN Security Council must be respected. On the other hand, there are interests at stake -- there are the Libyan people and their interests, and there are the Iraqi people and their interests. There is a contradiction between the Security Council's resolutions and the situation on the ground. And there are questions being asked within the Arab League, the Organisation of African Unity and the Non-Aligned Movement. Is there an American intention to clamp additional sanctions on Sudan? The talk now is about the means of solving the problem of Sudan and the role of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development [IGAD] in this connection. We are against the partition of Sudan and reject any policy that may lead to the secession of the south from the north. Egypt plans to join IGAD soon. In this strategic dialogue, what then were the major points of agreement and of disagreement? Egypt has always acted within the limits of international legality and always faithfully discharged its regional and international duties. This is why we chose to initiate this wide-ranging and forceful strategic dialogue with the United States. I believe that this will greatly enhance the future of bilateral relations and of concerted action in the Middle East, now that we have been able to make clear that we are committed to the principle of exchanging land for peace, that we care for the destiny of the Iraqi people, that we care for the unity of Iraq, that we care for the unity of Sudan, that we care for the destiny of the people of Libya.
