Q: I’m worried, I have a feeling that I’ll be the one speaking in English and you’ll be translating into Arabic. Okay, I don’t think that this is the first time for you to hear the opinion of the people on the street. Do you feel that the Arab citizen feels enmity toward U.S. policy?
A: Of course, I’ve heard a point of view just like the one we heard now; I think that the basis of our relations is very good. We have solid, good and strategic relations. I think we should establish more contacts and better understanding between the people, because we should set aside political affairs and establish direct and more beneficial and deep relations between us.
Q: But it’s clear that you’re talking about strong official, political relations with some Arab countries that are limited to the governments. In other words, the citizen in the street does not feel this; on the contrary, he rejects most U.S. policies.
A: I think, at the popular level, these kinds of relations exist. There’s direct contact between the U.S. citizen and the Egyptian citizen. I’ve experienced very good personal relations throughout my career. There are times when we have different ideas, but in many issues we have interdependent ideas.
Q: You like going out into the streets and sitting with Egyptians in cafés. You like going to the Mawlid of Sayyed al-Badawi and al-Zikr (remembrance of God) sessions, and so on. Why?
A: I like direct contact with the people, especially here in Egypt. The Egyptians are known to be friendly to foreigners, especially Americans, at least in my experience. In this regard, they’re like Americans, we also like making contact, the exchange of ideas and we like the cultural aspect of the Mawalid, in particular.
Q: Yes, especially the Mawalid.
A: Yes, I had a special experience when I was young. I’m of Italian origin. Even in Boston in the U.S., many Italian immigrants hold such popular celebrations in their shops.
Q: The Italians, in general, are very close to Egyptians.
A: They have the exact same characteristics.
Q: But the Mawalid are something else.
A: Yes, but from a different perspective. For instance, in a country where there is a Mawlid for a saint, do you say ‘saint’?
Q: A saint?
A: Yes, there are the same celebrations involving special music and spiritual, religious and cultural elements. I enjoy this experience.
Q: But when you go out into the Egyptian street, do you feel that this improves the image of U.S. policy, which is opposed by most Egyptians? I mean, does it bring it closer to the Egyptian citizen?
A: No, on the contrary. I believe that direct personal contact is the prerequisite for an effective and realistic policy. The U.S. citizen must understand the ideas of the Egyptian citizen, despite the differences, because we can still differ in a cordial way.
Q: I’ll now differ with you in a cordial way: what is the truth about the pressure you are putting on the Egyptian government about political reform and human rights?
A: I don’t think there’s any kind of pressure. There’s an exchange of ideas and advice between friends within an atmosphere of constant dialogue, so I don’t think there’s any kind of pressure. For example, there’s an exchange of opinions about several political issues. The internal affairs in Egypt concern the whole world, because Egypt is important. Egypt is a leading country, and we, as Americans, trust and believe in you; therefore, there’s a lot of interest in you. We believe that Egypt is a leading country that is pivotal in the region. So Egypt must succeed in democratic and economic development. Therefore, there is great interest in you.
Q: You say it’s an honest relationship?
A: Yes, it has always been an honest relationship based on respect.
Q: Does that mean that there’s no room for the word ‘must’ in U.S.-Egyptian relations? I mean, when you meet with the Egyptian government, you don’t use words like ‘you must do this’ or ‘you must do that’? What about the human rights files with regard to Ayman Nour, Saad Eddin Ibrahim and others? It’s a long story, rigging the elections; a lot of big files.
A: No, we don’t say ‘you must’. We cannot and we do not want to say this.
Q: You don’t have the ability or you don’t have the desire?
A: We have neither the ability nor the desire to impose a U.S.-made democracy on you. There’s absolutely no way. We respect the Egyptian traditions and laws, and we know that Egypt has political ideas suitable for itself. For example, these days, you have heated arguments inside and outside the People's Assembly and the Shura Council. Every evening, there are intense, aggressive and important discussions about the democratic development in the country. Certainly, within a month or two, there will be a voting in the People's Assembly to be followed by a plebiscite. In the end, amendments to the Egyptian Constitution will be approved, and I think that even after the referendum, the discussions will be resumed on whether the amendments are suitable or not, and whether they’re enough or not.
Q: Speaking of the Egyptian Constitutional amendments, Mr. Ambassador, what do you think of them?
A: I’m following up on the Egyptian views in this respect, because they are more important.
Q: But you, as an ambassador, must have a different opinion to convey to the U.S. administration.
A: Of course, we have ideas and concerns, but the Egyptian opinions are more important to us. As I said before, we cannot impose a U.S.-made democracy on you.
Q: But as friends, do you advise the Egyptian administration, for example, about Article 77, regarding the president's terms in office? Do you advise them to make the Egyptian model similar to the American one?
A: We can exchange views in this regard, but always on the basis of respect. We know there will be a purely Egyptian solution, and the amendments that come out of these discussions will be suitable for you, but they’re probably not suitable for us.
Q: Do you mean they will be suitable for the Egyptians, but not for the Americans?
A: Yes, because you have a different system.
Q: Is this going to cause friction or a state of unhappiness?
A: No, on the contrary. Such differences are so interesting and this can be a basis of friendship and mutual interest. In other words, the internal affairs in an important country, like Egypt, or France, or Russia, or the U.S. or Italy, such as elections, arouse interest in the whole world, these days. In the modern world, there’s no issue that is purely internal. Even the Egyptian internal affairs arouse interest in Europe and the U.S., and especially in the Arab World as a whole.
Q: If it’s true that you don’t interfere as a superpower, (U.S. Secretary of State) Condoleezza Rice was in Congress a few days ago, and she spoke about Ayman Nour's case. She demanded that the Egyptian government release him. You don’t see this as interference in Egyptian policy?
A: No, it’s not interference in my opinion. You asked my opinion, and I’ll tell you.
Q: Yes, please.
A: We, as Americans, feel human compassion.
Q: Only human compassion?
A: Compassion due to his health condition. He’s been in prison for one year while he’s been sick; therefore, we feel compassion for him. At the same time, we deeply respect the Egyptian laws and judiciary, and we know that it’s an internal affair. But, as I’ve said, if it weren’t for Egypt's importance as an important and influential country in this particular part of the world, we wouldn’t have shown interest. Egypt is very important. Europe and the U.S. are interested in Egypt.
Q: Is there a retraction of the U.S. administration’s interest in the democracy file? In other words, I remember that when Condoleezza Rice lectured at the American University on democracy in the region, Egypt was the central issue of that speech. But now when the U.S. Secretary of State comes to meet with the Egyptian leadership, we don’t feel like democracy is on top of the agenda anymore. Why?
A: No, we’re still committed to our priorities in foreign policy. Democracy is still topping the list of U.S. interests in the whole world. If there’s a slight change, it’s in the handling of the issue. We have a mutual experience now. We respect the Egyptian system and we respect your traditions and, at the same time, we are committed to our political and, particularly, democratic principles.
Q: Is this retraction of interest because of the Iraqi situation? Is it because you need Egypt's support in Iran's case? Does this mean that other issues have taken priority over the democracy file?
A: You used the word ‘retraction, I told you that there’s no retraction. We’re committed to principles and encouraging democracy in this part of the world because we believe in you. We trust in all the institutions and foundations in Egypt which are necessary for democratic and economic progress. We have confidence in you. I expect there will be progress here in Egypt. You will not fail.
Q: I hope to God.
A: No, this is true. We, as your friends, have confidence in you. I think if we may have changed the methods of dealing with you, it’s out of our respect for you. We want to convince you that you should have more confidence in yourselves. You have a far-reaching capability and a deeply-rooted civilization. You could have more ambition with regard to democracy. What is important for us is to encourage you and support the democratic progress in the country.
Q: Do you think this reform is going well? How would you evaluate it?
A: With regard to progress in freedom of expression, for example, I was here in the 1970s as a tourist, and I was appointed in Egypt for the first time in the 1980s. Egypt today is very different from Egypt during the 1980s, both economically and politically. There is more freedom and there are more intense, aggressive discussions. I’m optimistic.
Q: But you have comments on the condition of human rights in Egypt. I mean, when I went onto the website for the 2005 Human Rights Report, it says that human rights in Egypt are somewhat weak.
A: There are some infringements and violations; however, what is important is that there should be means of protecting human rights. There’s no doubt that the necessary means, like the judiciary and commitment to the opinion of the common Egyptian citizen, have helped the law in the country. In other words, I think there’s a deeply-rooted and strong civil society here. I’m optimistic despite all the shortcomings and problems. Some problems have taken place in the U.S., but what’s important is that everyday we seek to improve ourselves.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, it’s clear that the language of diplomacy is prevailing in this dialogue. We’ll take a break and then we’ll come back to the U.S. Ambassador in Cairo to ask him about the Muslim Brotherhood and the Copts.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, what’s your relation with the Muslim Brotherhood?
A: We don’t have relations with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Q: You don’t have relations with the Muslim Brotherhood; are you confirming that?
A: This is certain. We are guests in your country. We respect the laws of this country, but, at the same time, we’re ready to establish relations and hold meetings with all the legal political elements in the country.
Q: The legal?
A: The legal.
Q: Does that mean that you don’t meet with the Muslim Brotherhood because it’s an illegitimate group?
A: Regardless of the Brotherhood, we’re ready for meetings with all individuals that respect Egyptian law. For example, we’re ready to meet all the members of the People's Assembly and the Shura Council, including the members of the government or the opposition, the independents and al-Tagammu Party, in their capacity as members of Parliament.
Q: But there’s a general feeling that the U.S. is trying to give the Muslim Brotherhood a legal status. Is this true?
A: No, this is an Egyptian issue. There’s a heated debate about this. We’re following up on the discussions relating to the Constitutional amendments, for example, regarding the articles on the establishment of political parties. It’s an Egyptian affair, and you decide the best thing for yourselves. Our system is different than yours, because the Constitution is different with regard to the role of religion in political life. We respect that. It’s up to you to decide the role of religion in political life. It’s also up to you to decide the role of the Muslim Brotherhood and the role of the political parties. At the same time, we’re following up on these discussions with great interest, as friends.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, you’ve repeated the words ‘friends’ and ‘great interest’ many times; does that mean that all the reports on your pressure on the Egyptian government aren’t true?
A: It seems that you’re the one who wants me to use the word, "pressure".
Q: I don’t want to pressure you; I only want you not to pressure the Egyptian government.
A: No, if you consider the exchange of ideas, the expression of opinion, or the attempt to convince, and all the means of dialogue, as a kind of pressure, then I’m guilty of putting pressure on the Egyptians. I believe that, as a friend, we can all benefit from dialogue through the exchange of political and economic ideas, on the condition that there is the basis of mutual respect.
Q: The U.S. Congress’ Commission on International Religious Freedom always speaks about the oppression of minorities in Egypt, such as the rights of Baha’is and the rights of homosexuals, and many other things, including what they call the oppression of the Copts. Do you think that the Copts are persecuted in Egypt?
A: Of course, we’re committed to the freedom of religion, because in the U.S., we have many different religions, and we’re interested in democracy and human rights in the world, especially the freedom of religion, in all countries of the world, particularly our friends. With regard to the Copts, it’s natural in every country, like here in Egypt, or in the U.S., for the minorities to feel that there’s mistreatment or discrimination. This feeling exists in the U.S. It’s important to have the means to protect the human rights or the rights of the minorities, because democracy means the rule of the majority, but, at the same time, it must be within the legal framework to safeguard the rights of the minorities.
Q: But Mr. Ambassador, I travel very often to the U.S., and every time I go to Congress and meet with representatives, they talk about Al- Kosheh, the incidents in that Church, the story of that Saint, or the stories about the girl who was raped or the other girl that married a Muslim. They talk about stories that I don’t even know. Don’t you consider this as interference in Egypt’s internal affairs?
A: No, that’s our system. We are greatly interested and we hold discussions. We have the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Q: Yes.
A: Just like here, there are committees in the Shura Council and the People's Assembly, and there are heated discussions and strong criticism of the U.S. all the time.
Q: Yes, the U.S. That’s the U.S. House of Representatives, not the Egyptian House of Representatives.
A: Yes.
Q: Then what do you have to do with the Egyptian Copts here?
A: There’s the same phenomenon here. In other words, there’s a lot of interest in U.S. internal affairs and U.S. policy toward other countries. It’s the same case in the U.S.; is that considered interference? This is interest.
Q: No, I consider it interference, you consider it interest. You’re a diplomat, but I’m not.
A: But we can’t impose any solutions on you.
Q: You don’t impose, but you always threaten to cut aid by using these issues.
A: No, you’re wrong. I disagree with you on this point. U.S. aid is not a political trump card. There’s popular and governmental cooperation between us on popular, civilian issues in various fields. This is our objective and it’s in our mutual interest, because we want prosperity and sustainable economic development for Egypt. We have projects in different areas related to USAID.
Q: Like your visit to Sohag tomorrow, for example?
A: Yes, for example. First, let’s begin with the infrastructure: during the past 30 years, we’ve helped you build about 30% of the country’s electricity stations from USAID. This also includes potable water stations, sewage plants, roads and telephone communications.
Q: That’s true.
A: Many things.
Q: About $57 billion, that’s true.
A: All of them.
Q: They include economic and military aid.
A: Yes, including military aid.
Q: Do you think that this money has made the Egyptian people a friend of America?
A: Sustainable development in Egypt is important, because we want our friends to have prosperity and a strong national defense. It’s in our mutual interest to have the Egyptians enjoy this prosperity; therefore, we have projects in all fields.
Q: Again, I’ll go back to the aid trump card. You’re saying that it’s not a political trump card, but I was in Washington when legislator Lantos tried to cut back on the military aid to Egypt, or something like that. Some days ago, there was a vote to cut aid to Egypt. There’s always a general feeling that the U.S. is brandishing the aid trump card at the Egyptians: if you don’t do this we will cut aid, despite the fact that it’s not a large figure.
A: No, because according to our laws, Congress has no executive power over the U.S. administration. They always discuss the aid for various reasons and from their point of view; they are the U.S. Congress. But we, the U.S. administration, know that Egypt has a crucial role in the region. We have very important strategic interests; therefore, it’s important to have economic and democratic development in the country. That’s why the aid contributes to different projects.
Q: Yes.
A: In the infrastructure, there’s health, education and microfinance.
Q: Microfinance?
A: Yes, we want to create more job opportunities for people with low incomes in Egypt.
Q: What’s the fate of this economic aid, I mean after the year 2008?
A: I’m sure it will continue, because we always have common interests. Egypt is still our friend. There is profound and beneficial cooperation between both parties, and I’m sure it will continue.
Q: I’ll explain “why 2008?”, because ten years ago, the U.S. decided to cut the economic aid by 50%, which ends in 2008. I think it decreases by 5-10% every year.
A: That’s true; there was more than $800-815 million in 1998.
Q: Yes.
A: This year, or next year, it will be reduced to $415 million in economic aid. And the military aid–
Q: –Will stay the same?
A: Yes, $1.3 billion in military aid.
Q: But there’s a difference of opinion between the U.S. and Egypt. The Egyptians are asking for the economic aid to be paid in cash, and invest it wherever they choose, because $400 million is not a large figure, Mr. Ambassador. Whereas you see that it’s your right to direct it at the projects that you believe will contribute to the protection of human rights, such as, for example, NGOs. Do you disagree?
A: We’re paying a great part of the U.S. aid in cash. For example, about $300 million was recently transferred. About $275 million was for economic reform.
Q: The economic and financial reforms?
A: Yes.
Q: This happened after the privatization of the Alexandria Bank.
A: There are other reforms in the banking system and the financial operations, as well.
Q: Was it additional assistance or part of the annual aid?
A: It was within the aid program, agreed on by the two parties, because the U.S. aid supports the priorities of the Egyptian government, namely, all the economic or policy reforms are among the priorities of the Egyptian government program.
Q: So you’re promoting…. But you’re still not answering the question. You’re saying that part of the aid is paid in cash?
A: Yes, exactly.
Q: So you’re promoting, or President Bush is promoting, a free trade zone in the Middle East by 2013. How could this zone be established without a major country like Egypt?
A: It cannot.
Q: But the free trade agreement with Egypt is experiencing difficulties?
A: No, we want to hold negotiations about the free trade agreement when the political atmosphere in the U.S. Congress is suitable for taking such a step, because there should be deliberations on this issue.
Q: You mean discussions?
A: Long discussions about free trade agreements with all the countries of the world. Many U.S. citizens are opposed to the globalization idea.
Q: Globalization?
A: Yes.
Q: Because they’re losing their jobs.
A: There are fears of losing jobs.
Q: Yes.
A: In the U.S., there were plenty of job opportunities in some factories and some economic fields. These opportunities have been moved abroad, so there should be long discussions about the appropriate conditions.
Q: But you’ve already signed free trade agreements with many countries smaller than Egypt.
A: Exactly.
Q: So what’s wrong with the Egyptian citizen, who you say is your friend, strategic ally, and so on? Why, when it comes to Egypt, is there always a problem? Isn’t that strange?
A: Because Egypt is an important country.
Q: Important? Is that why it’s always out of the game?
A: No, the free trade agreements with small countries are not important for the U.S. economy, but with regard to an important country like Egypt, even if the estimations are not important economically, it will affect the agreements with other countries. We want the agreement with Egypt to be an example.
Q: An example?
A: Yes, an example.
Q: ‘Example’ is a very good word. It’s difficult to come up with; I wouldn’t have been able to.
A: I’m optimistic. In the coming years, I expect we’ll see how the relations between the Bush administration and the Congress, under the control of the Democratic Party, will proceed, especially with regard to the administration’s authority to hold new negotiations on free trade agreements.
Q: Were there political conditions for this agreement?
A: No, there are no political conditions, but there is a political atmosphere in the U.S. Congress.
Q: I’m talking about political conditions on Egypt.
A: On Egypt?
Q: Were there any political conditions on Egypt?
A: No.
Q: In return for making this agreement and so it didn’t succeed?
A: No, but it must be made in an appropriate political atmosphere in the U.S. and in Egypt, as well, because I think the Egyptian government must refer such agreements to the Peoples' Assembly for voting–
Q: Yes, yes–
A: --In the case of agreements of this kind.
Q: Egyptian Foreign Trade Minister Rashid Mohammed Rashid said that this agreement is not a gift and must be concluded by the consent of both parties. Did the U.S. send detainees to be tortured in Egypt?
A: That never happened.
Q: It never happened?
A: No one has been sent from the U.S., or any other country, to be tortured in a third country.
Q: I’m talking about Egypt. I have nothing to do with the other countries.
A: No, no one has been extradited to Egypt from our country for torture, quite the contrary.
Q: Did you help kidnap the Egyptian, Abu Omar, from Italy to Egypt?
A: I have no comment on this individual case. I have no new information on this particular case.
Q: Well, there’s a case in Italy–
A: I know.
Q: Twenty-five CIA agents, some of them from the U.S. Air Force, are accused of involvement in the abduction of Abu Omar to Egypt.
A: I read the same report, but I can’t comment on the case of the Egyptian man verses the Egyptian government, or the Italian government, or my government, because it’s inappropriate to comment on a case that may still be in court.
We’ll take a break, and then we’ll ask the U.S. Ambassador to Cairo whether he watched the hanging of Saddam Hussein.
Q: Now we’re going to talk about what cannot be defended: four years into the occupation of Iraq, or the invasion of Iraq, you can call it whatever you like. Do you believe you’ve succeeded in establishing democracy in Iraq? Do you believe you’ve succeeded in creating a new Iraq that is spreading the principles of peace, or that what really happened was that you’ve only spilled pools of blood, caused sectarian conflict, a fragmented country and a complete collapse?
A: I think we’ve succeeded, to an extent, to achieve some of our goals. However, we should admit that we haven’t succeeded in achieving all of our goals.
Q: What have you achieved, Mr. Ambassador? Nothing at all!
A: We’ve succeeded in helping the Iraqi people lay the foundations for a new Iraq. They suffered horribly under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. The greater majority of the Iraqis are satisfied that Saddam Hussein was toppled and his regime was changed. This is a fact and we should admit it. At the same time, we should admit that until now, there’s been no stability. We want stability there, and we want to help the Iraqi people establish a government that controls the whole country. We want a strong and stable country that exists, with its citizens, for the first time, with the end of a dictatorship, in peace with its neighbors. I think the Iraqi people have made impressive strides to this end.
Q: But according to the figures, the number of Iraqis killed under the U.S. occupation could match, or may be greater, than the number of Iraqis killed under Saddam Hussein.
A: I can’t compare between the two. But I went to Iraq and I saw the mass graves. I had, and I still have, a lot of Iraqi friends who suffered under the dictatorship there. Where was the Arab voice when the Iraqis were suffering from the injustice of Saddam Hussein? There wasn’t one. We sympathize with the Iraqi people, and we will continue to help and support them until stability is brought to the country. We’re trying, but there’s no guarantee. But we’re committed to bringing about a good result for them.
Q: How could you watch the hanging of Saddam Hussein?
A: Personally, I’m against execution in principle. My personal reaction is that it is abominable.
Q: But the U.S. official reaction was supportive?
A: No, I disagree with you. The U.S. position was different from the decision, which was an Iraqi decision from an Iraqi court, with regard to both the execution and its timing. Many Iraqis wanted the continuation of the trials, because Saddam Hussein committed crimes against the Kurds and all the Iraqis.
Q: Do you believe that the scene of Saddam’s execution has contributed to increasing the Arab citizen’s hatred of U.S. policy? You’re saying that it wasn’t a U.S. decision, but the Iraqi government doesn’t take any decisions without consulting with the U.S. administration.
A: Yes, there is consultation. All governments in the world are doing the same thing.
Q: No, the Iraqi government, in particular.
A: No, there’s consultation with all the governments of the world and with all of our friends. There’s continuous consultation between us and them, but the Iraqi government is independent, and it’s doing whatever it likes, especially with regard to the trials of Saddam Hussein, Barzan al-Tikriti, Tariq Hussein Ramadan and all the other defendants.
Q: How will the Bush administration implement its strategy by increasing the number of U.S. troops in light of the strong opposition from Congress?
A: This is our system, which is divided into three authorities. But President Bush still has the power and the responsibility of the troops and the war in Iraq. He’s still the Commander-in-Chief.
Q: The Commander-in-Chief of the military forces.
A: Congress has the power of discussion and financing and, until now, Congress has not cut funding for the U.S. forces with regard to these operations.
Q: But it rejected President Bush's plan.
A: They didn’t cut the funding.
Q: Funding?
A: This is important. They’re only debating the issue, but until now, they haven’t suspended the funding.
Q: But Mr. Ambassador, although it’s a non-binding resolution, it expresses popular disapproval of this policy. The opinion polls underline that there’s a popular rejection of this policy. However, the U.S. administration is still staying the course by remaining in the inescapable Iraqi quagmire.
A: Our system is open to the whole world. We had elections last November, and the will of the people was known to the whole world through the debates in the U.S. Congress. However, President Bush is still committed to our objective in Iraq. We believe it’s very important to continue to assist the Iraqi military forces to control the situation.
Q: Even though your allies have decided to withdraw many of their troops? Denmark announced the withdrawal of its troops and, Britain, your key ally, announced it would pull out one quarter of its troops.
A: Fortunately, the situation in the south is better than that in central Iraq. Most of the British military forces, more than 4000, will stay in the south, and only 1500 soldiers will withdraw.
Q: In spite of that you’re increasing your troops. What a contradiction!
A: In the center, where there’s a need for strong troops to provide assistance to the Iraqi military forces.
Q: Do you believe that what happened in the Abu Ghraib prison is a stigma attached to the so-called U.S. freedom and democracy and the human rights for which the U.S. is campaigning for in the region?
A: Of course, the Abu Ghraib case was a blatant violation of our laws. As I said earlier, it’s natural to have some failures or violations in any system.
Q: Yes, but these aren’t violations; rather this is the Great America teaching us lessons in human rights.
A: It was a grave and terrible violation. Even President Bush strongly condemned this case. A defendant was sentenced to 100 years of imprisonment, and another to 90 years. This means that we have investigations and courts. When such terrible violations happen, we immediately correct them. We have rules, and our laws against torture have not changed.
Q: Vice President Dick Cheney said yesterday that all options are open with regard to the Iranian file. Will you move from the Iraqi quagmire, which you’re still in, to another one in Iran?
A: As the Vice President and President Bush said: we are not ruling out any options in this situation. However, we are committed to a diplomatic solution. We want a diplomatic solution with Iran.
Q: Neighboring countries did not have such dialogue, and you have ignored this report. How can you talk about a diplomatic solution while you keep moving U.S. warships and aircraft carriers into this region? Everything indicates there will be a war soon.
A: You mean with Iran?
Q: with Iran.
A: I do not think so. May be there will be good results, like in the case of North Korea, through the joint U.S. diplomatic work with friends in the region. Friends neighboring North Korea, I mean. There have been good results and I think that we could have good diplomatic outcomes through negotiations and cooperation with the countries that have more influence over Iran. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in May last year, I think, that we were ready for negotiations with Iran on the condition that it suspends, not completely stops, uranium enrichment.
Q: Halting uranium enrichment.
A: Temporarily at least.
Q: But how do you think that the nuclear standoff with Iran could be resolved without settling the same issue with Israel? This is the kind of double standards the Arab citizen rejects.
A: Not double standards. I think there are two problems that overlap at some point. On the one hand, Iran is a member of a treaty that bans nuclear weapons.
Q: The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
A: The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Q: So it is Iran's fault?
A: No. We have different solutions for Iran and for Israel. Iran is a member of the treaty, and so they have to meet their obligations to this treaty. This is a diplomatic problem; and we are trying to put pressure at times and we want all Iran's neighbors and friends to put pressure on Iran to stop its uranium enrichment.
Q: Do you ask for the same pressure from the Arab countries? From Saudi Arabia and Egypt?
A: From all countries that are UN members.
Q: But you do not put the same pressure on Israel, even to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to begin with.
A: On Israel? Yes. We agree with Egypt's policy with regard to creating a region free of nuclear weapons, and so we want Israel to join this treaty. This is the first step.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, are you expecting Israel to join the treaty with no pressure? There must be some U.S. pressure.
A: So long as there are threats by some neighboring states, such as Iran for example, and their possessing nuclear weapons or programs to develop nuclear weapons, Do you think it is very reasonable that Israel would join this treaty? So long as there are countries like Iran near the borders of Israel?
Q:Mr. Ambassador, Israel had not joined the agreement years before the creation of the Iranian nuclear program. If Iran dismantles its nuclear program, will you put pressure on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? Or will Israel remain the wild horse in the region while our hands remain tied behind our backs?
A: I am not justifying Israel's stance. In fact, our policy for the last 30 year has been that Israel must join this treaty. We believe it very possible to create peace. Sure we can pressure Israel to join the agreement, but peace is necessary to encourage Israel to take this step. But I cannot speak about Israel's nuclear policy, or any other policy… I am not the Israeli ambassador!
Q: But you are a member of the administration, you are the U.S. ambassador and represent the U.S. administration in Cairo… I am talking about the policy.
A: There is an Israeli ambassador in Cairo.
Q: Maybe we should ask the Israeli ambassador then. A short commercial break and we will return to our heated interview with the U.S. Ambassador in Cairo, Francis Ricciardone, to ask him about the state of peace or non-peace. Of course we welcome your calls during this break. We will also ask him about the U.S. visa and why the Egyptians suffer so much in the process to get a visa to the heaven of America.
Q: Now we ask U.S. Ambassador in Cairo Ricciardone about the most important dossier in the region, the Arab-Israeli conflict. Rice has met with Olmert and Abu Mazen a few days ago and still nothing has happened. One of the commentators said that Rice rides a plane and disembarks, shakes hands and takes photos here and there with this president and that, returns home and that is all. Why is there a feeling that you are not taking this conflict seriously?
A: Seriously?
Q: Yes, seriously.
A: In my opinion, the meeting itself is a good, important and positive step; especially under the current internal political situation in Israel and in Palestine among the Palestinian parties. The current situation is very difficult, but we are strongly committed to reviving the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. The same is the stance of the Egyptian government and all other Arab governments at this point. This is very important.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, you talk a lot about democracy in the region. When Hamas came to power through fair democratic elections, you put it under a stifling economic blockade that almost sparked a civil war in Palestine. Is this reasonable? Are these the consequences of democracy? Or is this the U.S. approach to democracy?
A: No, no. We admitted last year that Hamas won the election. It won a 44% minority a year ago. This is very good and we are ready for dialogue with them on the condition that they accept the three famous principles accepted by the whole world – I mean by the Quartet committee which is made up of the U.N., which represents the entire world, Russia, us and the EU. These three principles are very reasonable and the first of them is recognizing the existence of Israel and establishing bilateral relations.
Q: I will suppose that the Likud Party is in power in Israel and refuses the establishment of a Palestinian state, will you impose the same kind of sanctions on it? Will you put it under siege? Or would there be double standards?
A: No, there are no double standards. The Israeli government is ready to start negotiations with the Palestinians, with the Palestinian side, as was expressed a week or two ago in the meeting with Secretary Rice. I think there is a big difference between these two situations. We want the government, the Palestinian national unity government, to accept in a clear way the three reasonable principles, which all the Arab and international governments have accepted, in order to launch peace talks. We are committed to good and tangible outcomes.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, why does the U.S. use the veto in support of Israel all the time whatever the case is? Massacres at refugee camps – the U.S. veto, disasters – the U.S. veto. The U.S. veto is always in favor of Israel, why?
A: There is, no doubt, a deep friendship between Israel and us for different historical reasons. First, there are direct contacts between the peoples of the U.S. and Israel. Tourism between the two states is a big and important sector. There are many Israeli students who travel to the U.S. every year. More than 7,000 Israeli students traveled to the U.S. last year alone. Do you know how many Egyptians went there in comparison?
Q: How many?
A: Around 1,500, although Egypt's population is ten times Israel's. There is direct contact, either through tourists, students, professors or press figures.
Q: Does this mean that you would like us more than you like Israel if we sent out more students? Or what?
A: If there are more contacts. More students, professors, traders, and businessmen.
Q: So we should send more students and the next U.S. veto may come in the favor of the Arabs.
A:The relations and understanding between the peoples are the basis for official relations. Speaking as a U.S. diplomat who has been in the region for 30 years, I say that unfortunately there is not the same level of direct contact.
Q: Yes. Because the Arab citizen feels double standards in the U.S. policy. There is a feeling of complete bias for Israel. There is a feeling we are being treated as terrorists.
A: There is a vicious circle. We have to establish contacts and understanding between the people at a deep level. There must be friendship between Americans and Egyptians. There are many things that must be done. Therefore, we have many projects that encourage the Americans to come to the Arab world, particularly Egypt, in order to study foreign languages, especially Arabic, and Islam. There must be more understanding.
Q: Is Syria going to meet the same fate as Iraq?
A: Syria?
Q: Yes, Syria. Will it meet the same fate as Iraq? Is there an intention to hit Syria?
A: Of course not! We want Syria to become part of the international community. We want it to play a positive role with all neighbors and hope it will enter peace negotiations with Israel like Egypt did 30 years ago and Jordan 20 years ago, and the Palestinians themselves.
Q: By the way, what do you think of President Bashar al-Assad?
A: Unfortunately,…
Q: What do you personally think of him?
A: I do not know him personally, of course. But he has not succeeded so far in building the economy of his country or adopting an open-door policy. This is a pity because Syria, like Egypt, is known to have a long history and an ancient, beautiful and important civilization. As someone who loves the Arabs and who has some experience in the Arab affairs, I see it as a painful thing. I have visited Syria more than once.
Q: I think you have already addressed the pro-Israeli U.S. policy.
A: Yes, we talked about that. We can re-visit the issue if you want to.
Q: No. I just wanted you to hear the opinions of the people. Do you really interfere in some countries to create internal unrest and troubles?
A: Of course not! We want stability in Egypt and every other nation, especially in the Middle East. Stability is very important, and we think that stability and democracy strengthen each the other. This is why we encourage democracy's advancement and development.
Q: But you do not encourage unrest? You do not allow minorities to…
A: No, no, on the contrary. You mean the issue of sectarianism?
Q: Yes, for example.
A: Actually we cannot understand this issue of sectarianism in the U.S.
Q: You do not understand what sectarianism is?
A: No. We do not understand why should there be sectarianism. We have full freedom for all religions. We believe that democracy and freedom in particular are prerequisites for stability in the region. We believe that Egypt in particular is able to make progress towards stability. You are a stable nation anyway.
Q: Thank God!
A: Thank God! And we are very optimistic about this country's stability.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, another question before our time runs out, had the billions of dollars spent in Iraq been spent on the poor nations, would this not have been better than losing 3,000 troops or more in Iraq?
A: Definitely! In fact no one doubts that the price paid for the war in Iraq was much more than what had been expected.
Q: But you do not think that you made a mistake. After all this, do you not see that entering Iraq was a mistake?
A: No. We believed it was necessary at the time. It was in our interest in order to defend our national security. We were under the impression that there was a program… actually there had been a program to develop nuclear weapons that was….
Q: But you entered Iraq and did not find any such thing!
A: This is true. But before entering Iraq, everything, all intelligence, information from Iraq and from the UN, indicated that Saddam Hussein was still developing nuclear weapons. He had barred the international inspectors who might have proved the opposite.
Q: You mean that your information was wrong, Mr. Ambassador?
A: In fact, our information was not correct, or rather not complete. But there had been a program. We just did not find nuclear weapons, but there were still very dangerous chemical weapons. There were many chemical weapons and they are being found in Iraq these days.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, five years on, when will the U.S. shut down the detention camp in Guantanamo?
A: As President Bush has said, we, too, want to shut it down as soon as possible. But till now, there must be a place to imprison terrorists who have killed or committed attacks against U.S troops around the world, in Afghanistan for example.
Q: I will not be able to discuss this point in detail with you as the program's time is running. But about the U.S visa; it is easier to get a visa to enter heaven! Honestly speaking, it has become very hard for an Arab, Muslim citizen to get a visa to the U.S.
A: It is not like most people think. Actually it has become a kind of myth. Around 70% or more of those who apply for a visa actually get the visa to enter the U.S.
Q: Seventy percent?!
A: Even more than that, especially here in Egypt. Of course the ratio is different from one country to another, but, particularly in Egypt, the ratio is increasing. Last year or the year before it about two-thirds of applicants got the visa. About 75% got it this year.
Q: But when they actually travel to the U.S., if their names are Ahmed, Mahmoud, Mustafa, Abdullah or Abdel Rahman, they suffer at the airport.
A: Not at all. This is applicable to us, too. I, personally, and my wife are searched at the airport.
Q: Believe me, especially those whose names are Ahmed and Mahmoud.
A: I have to take off my shoes. My wife sometimes goes crazy at the security measures taken by many airports in the U.S. Unfortunately, tight security measures have been adapted since 9/11. We hope these measures are applied to every one in a fair way. We hope this, but anyway getting a visa is not as difficult as many people may think.
Q: Should we put a banner on the screen bearing the e-mail of the visa section in U.S. Consulate as you have requested?
A: Yes, sure. Thank you.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, why are all streets surrounding the U.S. Embassy in Cairo closed? As a citizen, I am very upset. I cannot enter any of these streets nor can I park my car. This area has become a restricted area with high walls, security guards, fortifications and horrible things. Are you so scared of us?
A: No. In fact, all these measures are very appropriate, according to the Egyptian government. We are cooperative.
Q: Do you mean that this is the request of the Egyptian government? Or is it done at your request?
A: Both. This is agreed upon with the Egyptian government. We are grateful for the Minister of Interior for such measures and we always talk with him about the necessary measures to protect us and other embassies, too.
Q: Yes, but security around the other embassies is at the normal level not like the security around the U.S. Embassy. When your procession passes, streets are closed and giant black vehicles wander around the streets. This is horrible. This is against everything you have been saying about mutual communication, friendship and respect between the two peoples.
A: Actually, I like to get out of the embassy often. I believe that the security measures may be reduced in the future. But still we are very strict about this.
Q: But one enters the U.S. Embassy through metal doors and after being tested by the dogs and such things.
A: Actually, we welcome the visitors of the U.S. Embassy.
Q: But I do not like that dogs' part.
A: I do not want these dogs. I do not like dogs either. But dogs are there to check vehicles not people.
Q: No, for the equipment too. When I am there to shoot, all equipment…
A: We welcome the visitors of the embassy. Whenever possible, we try to create the proper atmosphere and maintain the security measures. We feel that Egypt is really a safe country; and this is why I can go walk around the streets as much as I want. If I have an appointment at the Ministry of Interior, for example, I walk to the ministry. It is so near.
Q: Yes, it is. But do you walk alone?
A: Sure.
Q: What about the guards?
A: They walk at a distance.
Q: Sure, there are body guards.
A: Yes. But they walk at a distance. I like to walk around the streets of Cairo.
Q: Last question, where did you learn to speak Arabic so fluently?
A: Okay, where?
Q: Where did you learn to speak Arabic so fluently? How did you come to speak Arabic so perfectly?
A: I learned it in the U.S Foreign Service Institute before I came to Egypt for the first time, before I was appointed here. In the 1980s, I studied for 9 months or so, and then I came here as Political Attaché. I had contacts with many Egyptians. I used to converse with the taxi drivers everyday.
Q: Excellent!
A: Also with people in the streets and at coffee shops.
Q: Do you listen to Shaaban Abdel Rahim? I Hate Israel?
A: Yes. I also watched his latest movie on a web site.
Q: I have not seen it. Can you imagine?
A: Really?
Q: Yes.
A: It is sort of interesting. I enjoyed it.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, Francis Ricciardone, I thank you very much for this interview. I know it may have been somehow troublesome for you to speak so long in Arabic, but I am sure your fluent Arabic will bring you closer to the Egyptian people and may help you accomplish your mission as U.S. ambassador.
A: Thank you. I thank you for this nice and useful opportunity.
Q: Thanks.
The Arabs do not hate the U.S., but they oppose U.S. policy. Arab and Egyptian citizens only want justice. Justice from the U.S. and from their rulers. Justice is the only thing we dream of in this country.
This is Lamis El-Hadidi.
Embassy
Main Page
