Global Arab Network | Arab League: There are peace efforts, but not a process

Translate this article to your language:

GANPublications

e-Publications

Service Menu

Add Site to Favorites

Add Page to Favorites

Make Homepage

Share This Page

Arab League: There are peace efforts, but not a process

Arab Media Watch

Wednesday, 28 October 2009 18:23

Following is a transcript of a press conference with Arab League Secretary General Amre Moussa, organised by Arab Media Watch on 27 October 2009 in London:

Q. Can you tell us about your meeting with David Miliband, and what about the Middle East peace process?

There is nothing called the peace process, for the time being. There are peace efforts, but not a process. And a peace process must have a framework, must have a basis. There can be no peace process without a timeframe, without stopping settlements. You cannot negotiate while the territory is being settled. It is being changed; you will need a map every week in order to... how can you negotiate without stopping settlements? And it needs to be comprehensive. We are talking about the occupied territories, so all occupied territories must be the subject of the process, or the talks or negotiations, including in particular East Jerusalem. There is no exclusion, no question that East Jerusalem is part of the occupied territories, it is not an Israeli territory, and the fate of which has to be linked to the state of Palestine, and Jerusalem has to be the capital. That is not our position; it is what the EU, the Security Council resolutions are talking about. So this is my answer to your question: there is no peace process as yet to talk about.

Q. What about the attack in Jerusalem two days ago?

I was told yesterday by our delegation in New York, and by other Arab delegations, that they have been talking to the president of the General Assembly to put the report of Dr Goldstone and the question of Jerusalem in a special session to be held, I believe now they have agreed, on the 4th of November. This is a station on the way to the Security Council.

Q. What about Miliband?

David Miliband, as with anybody else in his right mind, does not accept such attacks, or such a policy anyway that foments tension or chaos. I am not quoting him, but this is my impression.

Q. Did you discuss the situation in Iran?

Iran and the Middle East are very much linked, so you cannot talk about the Middle East without approaching the subject of Iran.

Q. In the peace process, there has been some talk about incentives for Israel. What do you think?

Israel has rejected American intervention at the highest level to put a moratorium on building settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and since this is the case, how can you consider concessions, any steps on the Arab side? And why? In addition to that, it is our experience that you give a concession, and then another concession, and then Israel says 'that is not enough. These concessions are already in my pocket, give me more.' We learned that lesson. The book of political tricks in full has been played on us, on the Arab side, in the last 20 years or so. We have learned our lesson. There is no step without a counter-step, and the beginning of anything that would be reasonable to move the peace process is to stop the building of settlements in the occupied territories and East Jerusalem. This is the key; without this, anything else would be just... not serious, absolutely not serious.

Q. Are you confident that President Obama will prevail over Israeli policy in that regard?

What I am confident of is that we shall continue to support President Obama, and we consider President Obama a positive force for justice, purpose and peace. We are going to support him, and we are ready to accept whatever he wants, except further concessions to Israel.

Q. Are Arab countries united on this point?

I do not think that Arab countries are so divided on this point. I will tell you too that public opinion in the Arab world is angry and frustrated, and cannot cope with or accept or understand any further concession. So yes, the Arab world is divided and weak, but on this point, I believe there will be no free concessions given for nothing, just to please, or just to show that whoever is giving a concession is a gentleman etc. Public opinion in the Arab world resists this firmly. You have seen the reaction to the postponement of the Goldstone report. It was an angry reaction, unprecedented, and a decision has to be taken to reconsider the postponement. Any concessions to Israel will have a similar reaction by public opinion: anger, frustration, and perhaps... an intifada.

Q. Do you think the time has come to suspend or withdraw the Arab initiative?

Not necessarily. The Arab peace imitative is on the table, not only as an offer but as a stand, a line of policy. It is there, and at this juncture where President Obama is working, so we are not going to withdraw the initiative, although we have said that it will not be there for long. We are not saying forever, we are saying for long, and there is a difference.

Q. What do you think is the minimum that must happen to turn the peace efforts into a peace process?

I believe it is settlements in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem. Absolutely, this is a sine qua non. Otherwise, where would you establish a Palestinian state?

Q. Are you disappointed that after such a good start, such as the Cairo speech, President Obama has actually achieved nothing at all?

Up until now, I continue to support President Obama, and I hope he will succeed in offering any position that would meet the needs of the peace process. We understand that in the next few weeks, a position paper will be presented, and we hope things will be clear.

Q. What about attempts to reunite the Palestinian factions?

Cairo expects a delegation from Hamas to discuss with them the situation, bearing in mind that Fatah has already signed the document, which is a very positive step by Fatah. Many of us do not accept, we do not understand, we cannot tolerate this situation within the Palestinian ranks. We do not see any justification for accepting a different agenda than the Palestinian cause.

Q. Can I ask about Arab League efforts for other conflicts in the region, namely Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and Darfur?

The Arab League has been deeply involved in all those issues. In Iraq, we were there, to the point that we called a conference that brought everybody - which was the first time and last time - to the Arab League's headquarters in Cairo: Sunnis, Shia, Kurds, Christians, everybody from the Iraq cause came. I myself visited there [Iraq] in 2004 and 2005. For the first time they met. Many of those leaders never met before. We agreed on a certain platform. Had we been heard by all powers of concern in Iraq at that time, Iraq would have avoided a lot of the bloodshed and destruction that came after that. But it was clear that certain foreign fingers did not want to let the Arab side, the Arab community, reach a solution or help Iraq reach a solution. And until now, we are trying to help Iraq. But the key point, the key thing in order to achieve a new Iraq, is reconciliation. I always said that foreign armies will withdraw, if not today, tomorrow, if not tomorrow, next year, the year after. But reconciliation, relations between the people in Iraq on the basis of Sunni, Shia, Christian, Muslim or Arab, this is a destructive formula that should not be tolerated. We are living in the 21st century. It should not be tolerated, and a new Iraq cannot really be of value except based on this formula that I have outlined.

I was in Yemen only two weeks ago. I met with the president, and I received a lot of messages and papers coming from all over Yemen. We agreed there will be a national conciliation conference. All factions, all Yemeni political forces will be invited. This was the formula we have agreed on, and I hope it will be put into effect very soon. There are two considerations: the unity of Yemen should be preserved, and stability should be too. On those two bases, the conference can be held.

On Sudan, we are even more involved. We have been involved from the beginning of Darfur. Now I can see light at the end of the tunnel. Why? Because American policy has changed. It is not a direct accusation. We are trying to listen to them, to give advice, to suggest certain steps, and I believe this is the right policy to follow. I commend the American envoy General Gration very much for changing the practice, the way he is following, what he is doing in Sudan into something productive. They can produce results. On the political situation. We hope also that the Darfur thing will come to an end within the next few months, in order to allow the Sudanese to concentrate on the North-South situation. There are fixed dates for elections, parliamentary and presidential. The question of unity of Sudan is at stake. We have to help preserve that unity. There will be an economic conference under the aegis of the Arab League within the next three to four months, in southern Sudan. We are going to call the African Union, who will join us in order to discuss what should be done in the remaining months to make unity better.

Somalia is a hopeless case. It is hopeless because of the situation in Somalia itself. But we continue to try to bring together the different factions, especially the government and the [unclear] militia. There are a lot of foreign fingers there, and a lot of certain interests. But the Arab League is perhaps the only organisation that has an embassy, an office in Mogadishu, all the time until the moment we are talking now. We never withdrew; we stayed there, and that is why we are in constant dialogue with everybody. Our work to bring the factions together dates back four years, when we brought all those factions, in Addis Ababa and Khartoum, in several capitals. But we are not the only player, unfortunately. There are several players.

Q. What is your view on the UN uranium deal with Iran?

Why don't we give them a chance to negotiate the offer, and achieve a political settlement of the problem with Iran. We are of the view that any military action would be ill-advised, and would lead to chaos and catastrophe in the region. So the best way to act is to encourage the current negotiations, the current talks, and give time for the proposals on the table to get the proper answers and be the subject of serious negotiations with Britain and the six powers, and between Iran and the IAEA. We need a political process, a viable political process on Iran, not any military action. It will not solve, it will complicate things to the hilt.

Q. Do you see a Palestinian state in these four years of Obama?

We shall see a Palestinian state in place; but whether you or your son, I do not know.

Q. What about in the next 4 years?

Preferably in the next four years. But I would remind you that President Obama said that within the next two years, we would want to see a Palestinian state. I do not want to make a comparison between what President Bush said about 2008 and what President Obama has said. I believe, I want to believe President Obama.

Q. On President Obama’s first encounter with Israel on the settlements, if it was a game of football, you would have to say he lost. How can you not be discouraged by that?

My answer is that I do not want to be discouraged by that.

Q. Is the Arab League involved in efforts to secure a durable government in Lebanon?

Now it is up to the Cabinet. We are not involved in this.

Q. In the Arab world, nothing is working. Somalia... Yemen... nothing is working.

That is why we must continue to do everything we can. That is the point. That is why I was in Yemen, that is why I travelled to Iraq, Lebanon, Sudan. We must continue to do everything we can. But yes, what you say is the prevailing view - that nothing is working, and the regional situation can go from bad to worse just like that if the wrong steps, if any wrong steps are taken, but that is the way it is.

Q. Do you see any signs that Iran is supporting the rebels in Yemen?

I have heard accusations, but I do not have anything that could be considered signs of these accusations.

Q. Do you or the Arab League have any view on Tony Blair’s efforts as Middle East envoy, and his idea that the economy comes first as a building block towards a Palestinian state?

Blair has done a good job in the occupied territories, and has understood the intricacies of it, but to say that the economic peace will work, we have a different opinion. What kind of economic peace? You can build whatever you want to build, and the Arab countries have paid a lot of money to build the infrastructure, only to be destroyed at the first opportunity by the Israelis. So it is not right, there is nothing called economic peace.

Q. The British media has been pretty much unanimous in saying he has been a failure in the Middle East, so you disagree with that?

I am not in a position to comment on any conclusion reached, but to me, he has done a lot of things good things.

Q. Like what?

Trying to help in certain areas…Blair is not a potent force, he is not a negative force, but the Israelis are not permitting anybody to really do something that would be productive, or that leads to real peace or real stability. Otherwise, they would have removed the barriers. They never did so. There are 600 barriers that still exist, that make a poor little pupil go one hour to reach his school. Without barriers, it could have been 10 minutes or five minutes. So Blair also has difficulty to achieve this.

Q. Did you meet him on this visit?

No.

Q. Would you like to see him as President of the EU?

This is not up to me. I am not European, and we have enough problems.

Q. In terms of the Palestinian elections, Hamas said they will not take part. How will it affect the situation in Palestine?

It is too early. Let us see how things go after this delegation goes to Cairo.

Q. In the eyes of the Arab League, how significant was the visit of [Saudi] King Abdullah to Syria?

It was a very important visit. It was a good one. Anything that militates in favour of closing gaps, and having to sit together, and having differences of views that are out on the table, I really think this is the right thing to do.

Q. Do you think there will be any war next year?

Are you preparing problems for the future? War never fixed problems. You see what happened in Iraq. You see what is happening in Afghanistan. You want to see a third? Only destruction. Everybody wonders what to do. Nobody does what is necessary to put an end to what is happening, creating another battlefield is... if it comes, we will see.

Q. But Iran, you can prepare yourself...

I am optimistic as to the dialogue that is going on. The meeting on the 1st of October in Geneva, I thought it was on the positive side rather than the negative one. Now there is an offer from the IAEA. There is a lot of work to do, a lot of policy lines, what kind of results we are going to reach before talking about war and destruction.

Q. What about Western Sahara?

The parties to this conflict have decided to leave the matter in the hands of the UN, neither the African Union nor the Arab League, so let us respect their wish. When Ban Ki Moon comes to this city, you ask him this question, not me.

Q. What do you or the Arab League think the future is of the standoff between the President of Sudan and the International Criminal Court?

The situation in Sudan is entering a very interesting phase. The reports coming out of Sudan is that there is an effective way to deal with the problems in Darfur, that the UN and African Union forces' cooperation is going in a very positive way. The humanitarian situation in Darfur is better - not to our liking, but better than it has been. There is a low-intensity situation rather than high intensity in Darfur, there is a process of talks in Doha between the government and the armed groups, so there is a lot of activity. That is why I believe we have to give them a chance, encourage them.

Q. I get the impression the ICC is not going to go away...

No, I think that the best thing is to call the Security Council and put off this decision.

Global Arab Network