'A just peace or no peace'

Hours before Arab leaders were due to issue their summit declaration, Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League explains to Dina Ezzat, in an exclusive interview, that the Arabs are serious about peace, and are as serious that such peace will never be on Israel's terms
Why was Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's offer to address the Beirut summit taken lightly by the Arab League?
How do you mean it was taken lightly? What did you expect us to do when the prime minister of Israel made his statements about addressing the Arab summit? Did you expect us to take his statements seriously?
Israel is still occupying Arab land. The Israeli government is committing grave human rights violations and is violating international humanitarian law in the Palestinian occupied territories every day and every hour. For months, the Israeli government has maintained its siege on the Palestinian people and their elected leadership. This government has been following a systematic policy of assassinations, demolition of houses and incursions into Palestinian cities and villages.
The obvious question is, what, if anything, has the current Israeli government done to serve the cause of peace in the Middle East? The answer is absolutely nothing. Actually, this Israeli government has done everything in its power to block the road to peace.
But the Arabs are still talking about peace. They are offering new initiatives for peace, so why not talk with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the man with whom the Arabs are supposed to want to make peace?
What we are talking about is full withdrawal from all Arab land occupied by Israel in 1967 in return for a comprehensive peace and normal peaceful relations with the Arab world.
This is what we are offering. We are trying to clarify the Arab position towards peace in the Middle East and, accordingly, we are being very clear about what is required for peace. We do not want to waste any more time on theatrics, ceremonial meetings and photo sessions.
We want to do serious business here. We want an end to the violations of human rights and international law committed by the Israeli occupation force against the Palestinians. We want a viable Palestinian state to be established. In return, the Arabs are ready to offer Israel normal peaceful relations and to end the Arab-Israeli conflict once and for all.
We want a peace that allows for an end to hostilities in this region. We want stability that allows for development. This is a serious offer that we are making, and we will accept nothing short of a serious response.
You do not think that Sharon is serious about peace. Is that why you responded to his offer to address the Arab summit saying that the Arabs would consider allowing him to come to Beirut and then see about allowing him to leave?
Again, I have seen nothing from this Israeli government that indicates that it is, even remotely, serious about pursuing a peace that is just and enduring. What the Israeli prime minister, or, to be more accurate, I should say the Israeli political establishment, is serious about are the useless attempts to impose the Israeli version of peace on the Arab world.
These attempts will never succeed simply because, on our part, we are very serious about rejecting and confronting those attempts. We will not succumb to the Israeli will. This will not happen. The sooner the Israeli government understands this, the better things will be for the entire Middle East.
This is precisely the message of any Arab peace initiative. This is the message from the Beirut summit to the entire world -- Israel included. The future of this region, which happens to be predominantly Arab, cannot be decided by the Israeli political will without any regard for Arab views. We want peace, but it must be a just peace. In the absence of a just peace, there will be no peace. It's as simple as that.
As I said in my opening statements before the Arab foreign ministers meeting, there will either be peace and justice or unending confrontation.
Some political analysts argue that it is Sharon's political will that will determine the outcome of the Arab summit.
I think you are reading the wrong analysts.
I personally do not know of any analysts [who are argue that], but if there are those making such statements, they have misunderstood the political map of the Middle East.
As secretary-general of the Arab League, I can assure you that neither the Israeli government, nor any other government, for that matter, is in a position to determine the outcome of the Arab summit or any other Arab meeting. The outcome of this summit solely depends on the views and positions of the Arab leaders which reflect the views of the Arab world and its vision for the future of this region.
For weeks, the Arabs have speculated as to whether Palestinian President Yasser Arafat would attend the summit, when, in fact, it is the Israeli prime minister who has the final say on this matter.
I absolutely disagree with what you are saying. You are misreading what is happening. Israel's prime minister has said a great deal about Arafat's participation in the Arab summit, but the final decision in this regard will be made by President Arafat himself, nobody else. His decision will be based on his judgment of the political implications involved.
And, I can assure you, Arafat's decision will be supported by all of us. After a consultative meeting for the ministers of foreign affairs that took place on Sunday night, I called President Arafat to express our complete solidarity with him and to assure him that everyone present at the summit intends to back the Palestinians' demands -- whether Arafat decides to come to Beirut or to stay in Ramallah.
So, did you personally advise him to come to the summit or to remain with his people?
As I told you, the decision is Arafat's. For my part, I respect President Arafat's decision and that's all I can say.
To press this point a little further, do you think it would be safe to argue that Arafat's decision is influenced by his concern over his future, especially if Sharon says that he will prevent him from returning to Ramallah?
As I told you, Arafat's decision takes into account the many political implications involved. I am confident that President Arafat is carefully considering all dimensions and implications of the matter, including the possibility that he might be prevented from returning to Ramallah by the Israeli occupation forces.
But let me tell you this, what President Arafat is going through is something that many struggling for their freedom have had to go through as they led their countries and peoples towards independence from an aggressive military occupier.
What has been the high point of the Arab meetings in Beirut so far this week, starting with the meeting of the Economic and Social Council?
First of all, the Beirut summit marks the second annual convocation of the regular Arab summit. As you well know, the decision to hold an annual Arab summit was taken by Arab leaders in Cairo in 2000 in response to an initiative by President Hosni Mubarak.
At that time, sceptics suggested that an annual summit would not actually be held. We were in Amman last year. We came to Beirut this year. And next year we will go to Bahrain.
Second, this week I saw serious and constructive discussions -- that sometimes included disagreements -- being conducted on all manner of political, economic and social issues in a healthy atmosphere. This orientation towards discussion indicates that approaches are evolving and that they are realistic, which is precisely what we want.
We need to work in such a manner, now more than ever. The international political climate is not working for us; I could actually say it is working against us and this is why we need to consult and coordinate more closely.
Moreover, the decisions taken by the Arab summit, whether political, economic or social, are all important. They address serious issues at a very crucial time.
Let me clarify something. You are saying that the meetings were conducted in a healthy atmosphere, but some delegates have been leaking news to the press corps here in Beirut suggesting that there have been serious disagreements on a number of issues including the Saudi initiative for peace and on relations between Iraq and Kuwait.
Conducting constructive discussions and having disagreements are not mutually exclusive. It is normal for countries to disagree. The question is how they deal with their differences.
Again, what I have seen this week are constructive discussions that reduced the room for disagreements and increased that for consensus.
It seems unlikely that the resolutions adopted by the summit will change the situation on the ground in relation to the two key issues, the Arab-Israeli conflict and relations between Iraq and Kuwait.
This is absolutely untrue. As I mentioned earlier, this summit will be instrumental in clarifying the Arab position towards peace in the Middle East. The next step will have to be made by the Israeli government. It needs to respond to what we decide to offer it. Israel needs to prove that it is willing to work to achieve a just and comprehensive peace.
As for the situation regarding the state of affairs between Iraq and Kuwait, you should not forget the many sensitivities involved. However, I can say that some progress has been made on this front. Moreover, the Beirut meetings are happening in the wake of the resumption of dialogue between Iraq and the United Nations, which is welcomed by the Arabs and which the Arab League worked hard to facilitate.
There was a meeting in New York between UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and the Iraqi foreign minister on 7 March. They are planning to have another round of talks around 18 April. I have taken up this issue on several occasions with Annan who, as you know, is addressing the Arab summit. So, I believe that we are on the right track. We just have to continue working hard.
Are you planning to pursue diplomatic efforts on this front?
I initiated this effort a few months ago after intensive consultations with a number of Arab leaders and senior officials as well as the UN secretary-general and other involved parties. As a result, Iraq and the UN are now engaged in dialogue. And, as you know, both Annan and Nagi Sabri [Iraq's foreign minister] described their first round of talks as constructive. There is a general consensus that this was an important development. Senior Kuwaiti officials said publicly that they agree that the talks are an important development.
As secretary-general of the Arab League, I intend to pursue this matter that is so integral to furthering Arab solidarity.
Are you not concerned about facing a wave of criticism from the Kuwaiti press similar to that immediately following your visit to Baghdad in January?
When I visited Baghdad and Kuwait to sound out both capitals on this issue, I was not expecting a walk in the park. I was well aware of the sensitivities and even sense of bitterness that surrounds this issue and I was, and still am, prepared to work to deal with this aspect.
Why do you think that your visit to Baghdad, which is after all an Arab capital, met with such a barrage of criticism from the Kuwaiti press?
As you said, Baghdad is an Arab capital and as secretary-general of the Arab League for me to have ignored it would have been a mistake.
As for the criticism in the Kuwaiti press that appeared in the wake of this visit, I must say, that it was partially due to the fact that I decided not to offer the media any information about the details of my talks in either Baghdad or Kuwait. Because relations between the two countries are a very serious matter, they must be approached with maximum caution. So I opted for what you could call "quiet diplomacy." As a result there was a great deal of misinformation floating around, and it seems to me that most of the criticism made at the time was based on inaccurate information.
This said, I can appreciate some of what I read since it expresses the personal concerns of some Kuwaiti writers. I do understand their concerns.
You have been secretary-general of the Arab league for more than 10 months. How do you like your new job?
They have been a very interesting and eventful 10 months -- a lot of work. It has been hectic, I must say. The other day a journalist asked me to compare the nature of my participation in the Arab summit as secretary-general compared to that when I was Egypt's foreign minister, and I had to admit that being secretary-general is much more work.
But I also have to say that I am enjoying it.
Recommend this page
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
Send a letter to the Editor