Notícias
“Egypt is the key to the Middle East and its role is crucial in drawing a new world political map” ( “Al Aharam”, Egypt, 4/10/2005)
BRAZIL’S FOREIGN MINISTER INTERVIEWED BY IBRAHIM NAFEI
The Contribution of the Arabs to Contemporary Civilizations Entitles Them to a Permanent Seat on the Security Council.
CelsoAmorim, Minister of Foreign Relations of Brazil emphasized that Egypt is the key to the Middle East and its role is crucial in drawing a new world political map to achieve international equilibrium.
Amorim said – in an interview in his office at the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Relations with Ibrahim Nafei, Chairman and Editor-in-Chief ofAlAhram –it is important that theArab world obtains a permanent seat in the Security Council.TheArab contribution in shaping the contemporary civilizations entitles them to it.
The Brazilian Minister emphasized the necessity of establishing peace in the Middle East. He said: There will be no peace in the world if peace is not achieved in the Middle East.
He assured that the South American countries do not hesitate in endorsing the establishment of an independent Palestine state on the basis of the pre 1967 borders. He pointed out to the necessity of expending efforts to ensure the participation of all classes of the Iraqi people in the governing institutions, with the support of the United Nations and the Arab countries.
Interview in Brasília by Ibrahim Nafei
Celso Amorim, Brazil’s Foreign Minister assured that because Egypt is the key to the Middle East, it has an important crucial role in drawing a new world political map able to accomplish international equilibrium. If peace is not achieved in the Middle East, then there will be no peace in the world. He emphasized that the Arab world has a role in shaping contemporary cultures and civilizations. He added that it is imperative that the Arab world obtains a permanent seat in the Security Council.
He pointed out that the infrastructure of the United Nations took its shape from the realities following the 2nd World War in 1945. The situation requires reform. Amorim vehemently denied the existence of any Arab disagreement with South American countries in relation to the issues laid down in the final declaration expected to be issued by the Summit of the two groups of countries scheduled in Brasília on the 1oth and 11th of next May. He said that the Ministerial Meeting in Marrakech on the 24th and 25th of last March had witnessed an understanding on a lot of issues. Amorim pointed out that what is left are slight divergences regarding the ideal wording for the presented issues, in addition to one point which is yet to be settled. This concerns the establishment of a follow-up mechanism of the Summit’s outcome. He emphasized that the Summit is the beginning of a constant operation to consecrate interests and cooperation between the two regions. It is a launching pad not just an arrival station. He further stressed that there is no hesitation on the part of the South American Countries in supporting the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the basis of the pre 1967 borders.
Regarding Iraq, he stressed the necessity to expend efforts to ensure the participation of all classes of the Iraqi people in the governing institutions. He called for a bigger participation on the part of the U.N. and the Arab countries in these efforts. Following is the text of the interview:
Nafei: During the Marrakech preparatory meetings for the Arab-South American Summit there have been differences in the suggested drafts presented by the Arab and South American sides regarding the text of the final declaration. Two issues had emerged: while both drafts confirmed the right of the Palestinian people to an independent state, the Arab draft, alone, stressed that Jerusalem is that state’s capital? Also the paragraph related to condemnation of terrorism, the Arab draft differentiates between terrorism and legitimate resistance to foreign occupation. This was missing in the South American draft. Have these differences been settled or will they be referred to the Summit to reach an understanding?
Amorim: Understanding has been achieved on all these matters in Marrakech. These were not disagreements really, just disparities as to the most suitable wording and the extent of detail involved. The only point which remains open relates to a follow- up mechanism for the Summit’s outcome. There had been two suggestions but, frankly, none of them was suitable. It turned out that the matter had not been given much thought prior to Marrakech. This had been among the issues I discussed with Arab League’s Secretary General, Amre Moussa during his visit to Brasília last week in preparation for the Ministerial meeting which will immediately precede the Summit next May. Otherwise all other matters have been settled. There are no problems in this regard.
I wish to say that the final declaration is not the Summit’s goal. The great importance of the Summit lies in the continuous operation that will be launched, it has, in fact, been already launched. It is in the consecrating the interest of both regions in each other. He Summit is a launching pad not just a final destination. It is understood that the participants will each hold to a language they have previously used in the U.N. and other for a. But these important disparities are the issue. This, in my opinion, is much more important than particular signals here and there. I think the meeting in Marrakech was very beneficial it was characterized with a high degree of openness and mutual understanding.
Nafei: Brazil like several world countries including Egypt has strongly objected to aggression on Iraq. However, this has gone through and consequently Iraq was occupied. What is your evaluation of the situation in Iraq today and what should be done to help the Iraqi people to attain their aspirations in democracy, independence and peace? Amorim: You are completely right. Brazil objected vehemently to the war on Iraq. We believed that other solutions could be reverted to. I met with the Arab Ambassadors in Brasília prior to the incursion. President Lula da Silva wrote to the U.N. Secretary General, Kofi Anan suggesting several ideas to reach a peaceful solution to the crisis. Of course we were not lenient regarding the behaviour of Saddam Hussein’s government but we believed that the matter could be solved in a different way based on respect to the Security Council and by peaceful means. After the war President Lula da Silva wrote to the late Pope (Jean Paul II) who had a lot of ideas on achieving conciliation after the war including some kind of international summit.
None of these succeeded and matters went the way we all know how. Today we cannot claim that we possess a magic formula to solve Iraq’s predicament. We know it is a very difficult matter with deep historical roots. Thus, we are for reaching a solution that safeguards the safety and unity of Iraq based on the highest degree of democratic participation for all classes of the Iraqi people. We believe that the elections represented a positive step but we also believe that more efforts should be expended to ensure the participation of all the people’s classes in the governing institutions. Nevertheless, I emphasize that we do not possess a magic formula. I believe that what we can offer Iraq, while it is stepping forward, is a greater participation by the United Nations and the regional countries. Of course there are different views and approaches but we believe that it is extremely important for the regional countries to have a bigger role. They possess a better understanding of the situation in Iraq.
Nafie: Let us go back, once more, to the Palestinian issue. Most world countries, including South American countries support the right of the Palestinian people for self determination and an independent state. Nevertheless, the actions of Sharon’s government such as settlements enlargement and continuing the construction of the apartheid wall, is creating new realities on the ground which may make the goal of an independent state impossible to be achieved. How do you explain the hesitance of some South American countries in explicitly condemning such actions?
Amorim: I am unable to elaborate on this matter in relation to final declaration of the forthcoming summit. Theoretically, at least, it will not be announced except after being presented to the leaders and meeting with their final approval. I may, however, say that of course it includes an explicit and conclusive support for the right of the Palestinian people to independence. There is no hesitation whatsoever in supporting a Palestinian state established on basis of the pre 1967 borders.
I wish to emphasize that this is a declaration issued by a highly important summit. I imagine that our thoughts in this regard are for the long run. Therefore, I do not believe that it is among the Summit’s tasks to comment on detailed realities unless a significant event occurs beforehand and imposes itself on it. I may recall, in this regard, my speech in front of the Arab Summit in Algeria and I am thankful for theAlgerian government’s invitation. I clearly said that we support an economically viable independent Palestinian state, consequently not partitioned in segregated zones and it should be a country where human dignity is respected.
When we speak about human dignity, it is meaningful. I went to Palestine, for the first time, during my last visit to the region. I know what it means to maintain human dignity. What a difference when you read about something and when you see it with your own eyes. On the other hand, we also support the existence and security of all other countries in the region. Therefore, there is no doubt about our support for a viable Palestinian state. We have also, in fact, condemned the expansion of settlements.
Nafei: The quadripartite summit of Puerto Ordaz in Venezuela (with the participation of Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia and Spain) called for a new geopolitical map of the world based on multi parties and multi pivots. Emphasizing a commitment to international law and striving to democratize the world order, especially the United Nations. How do you view the current structure of the international political system, and how do you think you can implement the alternative vision laid down in Puerto Ordaz?
Amorim: The answer to your question requires complete minutes about the United Nations. What you raised presents considerably complicated issues. However, I believe that now, especially after the Secretary-General’s report and the high level committee’s report, we are contemplating a propitious opportunity to effect some changes. It won’t be a revolution (in the U.N. system), but there must be reform of the United Nations whose basic structure reflected therealitiesfollowingWorldWarIIin1945;amongwhich, of course, the security Council and the necessity of admitting new permanent members especially from the developing countries. Brazil, as you are aware, is a probable candidate to permanent membership of an enlarged Council, as well as other countries.
I believe that it would be more than logical for the Arab world to obtain a permanent seat in the Security Council. The question we must strive o answer relates to the existence of some kind of resistance with regard to the total number of an enlarged council. I, however, believe, it is possible. There is no big difference if the Council is composed of 24 or 25 members, but 30 members, for example, is a different matter. I think we can reach a formula that ensures a good representation for Africa and other developing countries in general, in South America, Asia and also the Arab world.
However, we should not restrict the reform of the U.N. just to the enlargement of the Security Council. There should be more mandatory power for the General Assembly. This, in my view, rests upon the political will of the member countries and not just structural reforms. However, there is a need for structural reforms in particular domains. We have proceeded to move in this direction, through the joint meetings between the Security Council and the UN Economic and Social Council, for example. When you face a situation related to reconstruction you are confronted with a vacuum from the angle of the UN agencies able to deal with it. It is not, strictly speaking, a matter for the Security Council. Also the Economic and Social Council is not qualified to handle it on the other hand. This point, in our view, is extremely important to ensure a multilateral approach to the subject.
For example the issue may gather special importance for Palestine in the future. It is definitely also important in our region in a case such as Haiti. Let me tell that when the Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez called for a new geopolitical map of the world he mentioned that he is quoting from the speech I delivered during the preparatory meeting for the Arab-South American Summit, in Marrakech.
Nafei: What is your view on the role of the Arab world in general and Egypt in particular in drawing such a new map for the international order? Amorim: I believe that the Arab world is an integral part of this new geopolitical map. This view has led President Lula to call for the Arab-South American Summit. Some say why don’t we make it a Summit for Africa and Latin America. O.K. this may also be done. But we viewed the necessity for the meeting to have a practical effectiveness. We want to start a real cooperation between the Arab and South American regions. To gather Africa and Latin America including the Caribbean, then we are speaking about 80 countries or something similar to the non-aligned movement for example. This is a good thing but is totally different from what we require from a meeting between Arab and SouthAmerican countries.
Therefore, our call for this meeting with Arab countries stresses the importance we lay upon it. I believe we are, in reality, talking about a bridge between east and west, which is a matter of crucial importance. On the other hand, historically the Arab world has played a vital role in shaping the contemporary cultures and civilizations.Athird reality is that without peace in the Middle East there will be no peace in the world. Thus, I believe that all these elements confirm the vital role of the Arab world in drawing this new geopolitical map of the world. Egypt, no doubt, is the key to this region and has an extremely vital role.
Nafei: What are your expectations as to the role that can be played by the Arab League to consolidate Arab-South American relations?
Amorim: In Marrakech, we were extremely pleased to find out that the Arab League is also seriously thinking of reforming and strengthening itself. We are doing the same thing in South America. We strive to form an agglomeration of South American countries. There are also other ideas being discussed in this organizational frame. Maybe we can benefit, in this regard, from the ideas laid down in relation to the Arab League.
On the whole, we might well know that President Lula was the first South American President to visit the Arab League, and I believe I was the first non Arab official invited to attend an Arab summit. I wish to emphasize the extremely important role played by the Arab League in all phases of preparation for the anticipated summit. I personally went three times to the Arab League, notwithstanding the last time dedicated to the Arab-South American Summit; Amre Moussa has also, personally, played an extremely important role in helping us to clarify the objectives and goals underlying our call for the summit.
What incites attention is that, today, no one asks why this summit. The question now is why wasn’t it convened before?
Nafei: The World Social Forum of Porto Alegre has indeed played a role in building some bridges between the civic community in both the Arab world and South America. Is it expected that the Arab-SouthAmerican Summit will play a role in laying down more bridges at the civic communities’ level in both regions?
Amorim: I don’t recall now if there was a direct signal to the civic community in the proposed final declaration of the summit. But I believe that there are elements in the summit’s objectives which include bridge building between the civic communities in both regions. We are keen, for example, on cooperation in science and technology, and in the cultural field. An Arab cinema festival, the first of its kind in South America, will be held parallel to the summit. This inclination to deeply know each other opens wide avenues for encounters between the civic communities in both regions.
Businessmen are also part of the civic community. However, let me lay down a few figures to clarify what I mean by saying that the summit has already succeeded before being convened. Last year, alone, Brazil’s trade with the Arab world has increased 50%. We are not speaking about a limited volume of trade, but about a volume of trade of about US$ 8.5 billion between Brazil and theArab countries. In some cases there was no trade exchange of consequence, such as with Syria and Jordan. Here the rate of increase was 180%. Even with our traditional partners, there was a considerable increase in trade exchange. The rate of increase in our imports fromArab countries was higher than our exports. The former increased by 54% while the latter grew by about 46%. Generally speaking there is a kind of equilibrium in our trade balance with the Arab countries taken as a whole. It might differ with regard to particular countries. For example, we have a large surplus with Egypt and a large deficit with Algeria. I believe the civic society has an important role to play in this operation. However, we have no right in directing the civic society. It is up to them to decide what they should do. No doubt, however, the meeting of leaderships will incite the interest of public opinion and media on both sides. This should induce a change in ideas and knowledge of each other. This change is already occurring.
Nafei: A large number of Brazilian citizens estimated at 10 million are from Arab descent. The same, more or less, applies to most South American countries. Do you view a special role for them in laying down bridges between their current nation and the original ones?
Amorim: Mr. Amre Moussa has met with the group of Arab descendants in the Brazilian Congress. He also visited the Arab communities in São Paulo. This, in my opinion, is an indication of the interest among the communities of Arab descent in Brazil and South America to participate in this operation. I trust that they will play an active role in the businessmen forum concurrent to the Summit. It was necessary that initiative comes from the President but I imagine that, in future, these communities will demand from us more and far reaching steps.
Some are speaking about a civilization dialogue and others are speaking about a coalition of civilizations. Personally I do not like these expressions. I do not believe that we belong to different civilizations, but to one civilization. This is especially true in the case of theArab world and South America. If you look, for instance, at the Portuguese or Spanish languages you will find a lot of Arab words and expressions. Notwithstanding the deep influence of Arab philosophical thought on the western philosophy. All this is known, but in any case whether we are one civilization or different ones, whatever is said about dialogue and coalition is already tangibly happening between us.
Of course we all know that religion constitutes an important element in every civilization or cultural structure but we did not wish to center the dialogue on religion or language or any such thing. We preferred to start with having a dialogue with the Arab world and not all the Islamic world for instance.
Nafei: Relations between Egypt and Brazil are relatively old. The first visit of a Brazilian leader to Egypt was in 1867 by Emperor Pedro II. More than one and a half century elapsed before the visit of Brazilian leader tom Egypt. The second visit was the one, recently, done by President Lula. Should we expect that this last visit be the precursor for stronger, more vital and recurrent relations?
Amorim: Let me first say that a century and half will not have elapsed before several other visits to Egypt by Brazilian leaders. As you know, however, President Lula visited five Arab countries as well as the Arab League. I am confident that he wishes to visit other Arab countries in the future. As for myself I am almost competing with Bin Batista. I visited most Arab countries more than once. There are maybe five or six Arab countries I have not yet visited. N one trip I visited ten Arab countries. I had not visited Algeria before but within three weeks time I visited it twice. Also Amre Mousa’s visit is the first for an Arab League Secretary General to Brazil.
I believe that we are confronting a continuous and developing operation. We are rediscovering each other. I am hearing that a second Arab-South American Summit is being thought of, although I am unable to confirm this now.