Close encounter with a US diplomat (Egyptians interview Amb. Welch......and he fisks them)

US Ambassador in Egypt, David Welch, is a diplomat who does not mince his words. But then, neither do Al-Ahram Weekly journalists -- which made for a lively encounter at Al-Ahram's offices on Monday. Below are extracts from a two-hour round table discussion between Welch and a number of Weekly staff members

Hani Shukrallah: We've wanted to conduct this round table for some time now and it happens to come at a very significant moment. We've got so many things going on at the same time, and of course the big thing is Saddam's capture yesterday. We've also got an anti- globalisation/anti-war conference going on at the same time in Cairo. And of course we have Ambassador Welch, who has been a very newsworthy diplomat -- someone very much in the news, who has had very intense encounters with the media. So I think there is a lot to talk about. We will begin by asking the ambassador to speak to us for 10 minutes, and then we will open the floor for discussion.

Ambassador David Welch: Thank you for having me here this morning. I don't propose to say very much. Instead, I think this would be a more valuable session if we speak to each other. And of course I will try to answer your questions.

I read Al-Ahram Weekly all the time, I also log on to your Web site, and I believe that a fair number of people in the US do too. I don't know how much feedback you get on that, but I know that it attracts attention.

I think you made a remark that we are gathered here this morning on a significant day, so perhaps we should speak a little bit about what is significant about these days. With respect to Iraq, the events of the last two days do, of course, represent an important development. But the measure of progress is not the capture of a criminal on any given day; the measure of progress in Iraq is the return of the sovereignty of this country to its people in a situation more stable than they enjoyed before. With the capture of Saddam Hussein, I believe there is an important evolution forward in the progress towards restoring this country to its rightful owners, the Iraqi people.

We have a plan to do that and we can discuss that. This is not going to be an easy process, and I don't believe that we should expect, in the days ahead, everything to be flowers and sweets. It won't be. The president of the US gave the American people an appropriate caution yesterday, when he said the violence has not ended, and it may still continue. We fully expected that would be the case, but again, as we look to the future, there will be two other things happening along with controlling the security situation. One is to provide a better economic future for the Iraqi people, and we now have a substantial appropriation from the American congress [to do that]. There is also a very sizable contribution from the international community, and there are the resources of Iraq itself, and the three things put together offer a lot of means to address the economic situation in Iraq.

There is also a political horizon that will be unfolding in the months ahead, as you've probably seen. The Iraqi Governing Council has been stepping forward more and more to play a political role. There are now active Iraqi ministries; indeed, those ministries themselves are signing licences and contracts with foreign firms. This political process that has been unfolding is also critically important for stabilising the country and getting it in good shape.

The combination of these three things -- controlling the security environment, building the economy of Iraq, and providing a better political future for its people -- should begin to pay off in terms of us seeing a better situation inside the country, and there is a timetable for the political process in particular.

If I may, I will briefly turn to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Here too I think there is -- I always want to be an optimist on these things -- a moment of opportunity. The violence has not ended, but it is clearly at a lower level than it has been for sometime. And in this period, there was a lot of work underway to try and start down the roadmap, first by establishing a security environment that is stable for both Israelis and Palestinians, second by offering some immediate relief to the Palestinian people, and third by an active diplomatic engagement to begin a process that would lead to negotiations. This is what was laid out in the roadmap. The president of the US put out a vision for two states living side by side in peace, the first American president to do so in such priority and detail, and we are still aiming at that point.

There are other ideas now coming forward from both Israelis and Palestinians about final status issues, which is a question to be negotiated towards the end of the roadmap. They don't exclude complimentary efforts.

The government of Egypt is playing a very important, maybe even critical, role now in trying to energise this process, first by starting on security, but moving beyond security to negotiations. We are appreciative of that role and grateful for this support from Egypt and other regional partners.

Our bilateral relationship is good. Like all such relationships, we are constantly trying to make it better. We are dedicated to doing so, and we hope in the year ahead to see progress on a number of fronts, particularly developing the economy, increasing its openness, and providing for freer trade between Egypt and other countries, but also especially between Egypt and the US. We are also looking to partner with the government of Egypt, explore new ways to bolster the development of human resources, and in particular education. I know from time to time that this is an element of political controversy here, in terms of the US role. I hope you ask me some questions about that because I would really like to get our views on this issue out on the table.

We would also like to see the expansion of political participation, civil society, governance and accountability, and this is an area where, with the help of the government and civil society, we try and look at new ways to support people in Egypt as they try and modernise their political systems, and their society.

Finally, we are also keenly interested in the empowerment of women. Girls who are educated tend to make smarter choices in life and when they do, they are better able to provide for themselves and their families. That is an established fact in development economics and we want to look for ways to make this work better in this society. I will pause there, and we can go into any of those areas or into other area you would like to speak about.

Shukrallah: Thank you Mr Ambassador. Ambassador Welch has given us a very concise presentation, which at the same time is very general, and we want to tackle him on specific issues. Let me make one initial comment just to open the door for discussion, specifically regarding democratisation in the region. I think you get two reactions to the American -- especially the current administration's -- rhetoric on this issue. One is that America is out to impose a model upon us that is alien to our political process, tradition, and culture.

Another reaction, which I subscribe to, is that we don't believe the American administration, particularly this one, is interested in genuine democratisation in the region. If we believe that the American administration really wants democracy in the Middle East; that means we have to disregard a lot of things like Guantanamo, the Patriot Act, etc. But even if we believe it, there is a very easy way to do it, and my point is: begin with Israel. Democratise Israel and then you will have a domino effect like you cannot believe. The region will almost immediately democratise.

We are speaking about an occupation that has lasted now for over 30 years. All this talk of peace processes has meanwhile lost the US an enormous amount of credibility. There is no Arab who does not believe the Americans could get Israel out of the Palestinian territories if they want to. I don't think anybody now seriously believes that if America tells Israel to go back to the June 1967 borders and allow the building of the Palestinian state, that it will not do so.

The whole violence argument does not make sense. It is so transparently false because everybody knows that if Israel ends the occupation, the reason for violence will have been removed. People will not go to Tel Aviv if they are able to live in Ramallah the way they want to.

US policy in the region has lost an enormous amount of credibility, even among a lot of the traditional friends of the US.

Nevine Khalil: And what if there is democracy in the region and the people decide to elect governments that are not friendly to the US? What would you do about that?

Welch: You mean like France? This is a good opening. Forgive me because I am not a very good diplomat and I tend to say what's on my mind and I say it straight. It may at times bother you a little bit, but I don't mean any offense. I just believe in honesty. So I am going to be very honest.

So you are telling me that if there were peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and a withdrawal to the 1967 borders tomorrow, we'd have thriving democracies throughout this part of the world?

Welch: Let's get serious. What I find completely illogical about this position is that you cannot believe the reverse -- that democracy throughout the region might help you in achieving peace.

Dina Ezzat: One very obvious pretext for the dictators in this region is the Middle East conflict; they say you cannot do this [democratise], because we are in a state of war.

Welch: If you would excuse me for saying so, one pretext for you journalists is that you don't look at all the options.

Welch: We see the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict as an essential part of the search for peace and stability in this area. To do that you need certain conditions in place, one of which is an atmosphere in which negotiations can proceed -- and we are trying to have a negotiation that reaches a settlement.

I don't discard your option that it would help the furtherance of democracy in the area to reach a solution in this conflict. Obviously there is a connection for you, but look at the reverse too -- it is quite possible that democratic governments throughout this area would help in the resolution of these conflicts.

Ezzat: But isn't the first proposition more logical because if you want to follow international law -- which you very often like to talk about -- it would be logical to end the occupation.

Welch: UN Resolution 242, the basis of a just solution to the Arab-Israeli problem, was passed in 1967. It took until 1978 for one Arab country to recognise it and implement it. It took another 10 years for the remainder of the Arab countries to catch up to that fact.

Shukrallah: That is a very special reading of the history of the region. I think it took Israel a very long time to accept it. It needed a war, the October war, for Israel to accept it.

But let me get back to the democratisation issue and then move to other questions. The point I was trying to make when I said that Israel is an obstacle to democratisation in the Middle East is that we have a heritage of national humiliation that is extremely profound in the Arab world.

We've had a colonial period that was finishing as Israel was being established, and we've had wars, the tripartite aggression, very hostile American policies in the region biased to Israel, and so on.

So we have that very powerful heritage of profound feelings of national degradation and humiliation that is not limited to the Palestinians, but has spread throughout the Arab world. I am sure you must have noticed how dramatically the mood on the Egyptian street has been changing in the past two or three years. Americans are always asking about anti- Americanism and where it came from? This is a very fundamental problem, the sense of national humiliation that has been added to by the Gulf war, the sanctions against Iraq, the invasion of Iraq, and the total bias of America towards Israel.

You cannot convince an Arab that a suicide operation is much worse than Israeli helicopters and tanks shooting down, bombing and bringing down whole buildings. No way will you convince us that this is better for us, or this is more legal or more moral than the other option.

What I am trying to say is that this sense of national humiliation is an obstacle to democracy. It's what gets you the likes of Saddam Hussein. I was personally happy that Saddam Hussein was captured, but many people were sad. People on the street have no love for Saddam Hussein. Arabs do not like tyrants because they have suffered from tyranny, but there is a sense that Saddam Hussein tried to defy the West, tried to defy the people who have been trying to humiliate and degrade us, and now he's broken down in the most humiliating way.

Welch: Let me stay on the subject and try to be diplomatic. I don't know whether you all know this or not, but I have lived outside of the US most of my life. I've spent the minority of my life inside the US, so I am very familiar with living in other cultures. I am not ignorant about how people feel about us and about themselves.

First, you used the word rhetoric about democracy. It is not rhetoric. We are not describing a situation any differently than anyone else, including yourselves. The majority of countries in the world today are trending towards political participation within a democratic context. The singular exception is the Arab Middle East. This is recognised in your own evaluations, so it is not rhetoric, nor is it rhetoric in the sense of trying to communicate what America values.

America does not covet territories, it does not covet resources, and it does not covet your decision. America does covet ideas, and we believe -- to quote Winston Churchill -- "ideas are the empire of the future". This is where we, the US, have traditionally made a difference. So with all due respect, it is not rhetoric, nor can it be imposed. There are so many different forms of democratic achievement in the world -- parliamentary democracy, American style Republican democracies, constitutional monarchies. Most of democratic Western Europe has a monarchical tradition, and this is their decision to make. It works better when it is their decision. And obviously we would like to encourage your decisions and I do not believe that we will succeed in imposing our own.

Can we be credible on this? I agree with you about the way that our words and actions are greeted. I don't know if I can erase all the theories and speculation about what it is that we would like to do. You could ask me -- Why should you care? But when we face a threat in the US, we don't like to stay idle, and we perceive a threat from an atmosphere that generates the kind of hatred and anger against us, as we have seen in recent years. It is our duty as public servants and my business to try and address that. We don't pretend we have a magic formula, by the way. This is an effort in which we need help, and we hope to get it from the people and the countries in this area.

I happen to believe that despite this sense of humiliation that you talk about, that people are coming around to look at these issues more carefully and are debating them more. Perhaps you don't like it if the debate started with the words that we say, but if you could set that aside for a second, and ask, you know, yourselves, what you want, and how would your future be better, that would help.

With respect to the display of Saddam Hussein, can I be honest with you here? I am stunned that you would say this. I did not see any problem with his treatment whatsoever. What is wrong with a medical examination?

Welch: Give me a break, folks -- this guy is an unbelievable war criminal. He did not deserve dignified treatment; he did not give any of his victims dignified treatment.

Welch: He was not tortured. He is receiving medical examinations. Look at the facts. That was a DNA test. Had he not been put on TV, it would have been said that we did not have him... There was a prominent Al-Jazeera journalist who was on TV yesterday saying it was not Saddam Hussein.

Shukrallah: Still, this does not prove anything. The object seemed to be to just humiliate him.

Khalil: Then why were the Americans up in arms when the Iraqis showed US POWs on TV? You said POWs should not be treated this way. Why are you doing that now -- isn't he a POW?

Welch: Yes, there is a difference. Look at Saddam Hussein. I cannot believe you guys are defending this guy.

Shukrallah: We don't accept it, and if you've been reading the Weekly carefully, you'd have found out that we never found it justifiable that someone who is arrested for the most heinous terrorist acts in this country should be mistreated or tortured. And if you've read the Weekly you would have seen how much the Weekly has exposed and given coverage to a whole range of mistreatment and abuse.

Human rights conventions are very clear on this. The criminality of a criminal does not justify his abuse and mistreatment by a state, or this would mean that we would say goodbye to all human rights and all due process of law. Americans should hear themselves talking -- you are flaunting the very principles on which the American Revolution was based.

Welch: There is a basic difference in the facts. Implicitly, your position is that we are abusing this person, and I say we are not. So we have a difference of views. You interpret videoing while he's getting his teeth checked as abuse, and I don't.

Nyier Abdou: Whether or not you want to call it abuse, there certainly is a distinction between showing somebody in this manner and showing them in a more dignified way. I think what makes people angry is that the US fails to see how this kind of imagery will inflame people, and that they do it anyway, and that's what really makes people angry. It is a misunderstanding of what is going to convince people.

Welch: I think your moral compass has gone crazy. I think you should be looking at the Iraqi people and their reaction to this. Your reaction puzzles me to be honest. Can we move on because this is boring...

Continues here.

My favorite exchange:

Nevine Khalil: And what if there is democracy in the region and the people decide to elect governments that are not friendly to the US? What would you do about that?

Welch: You mean like France?

You gotta love someone who tells it like it is. Kudos to Amb. Welch.

As they say, read it all.

The "abuse" of Saddam is beyond comment.

I find this interview interesting but maddening because they sound completely devoid of the ability to look at themselves.

If it is a good idea and the US has it,disregard it.The conversation about democracy was absolutely amazing.

Nothing can be solved until the Palestinian problem is solved.What a great way to avoid responsibility.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.