 | Middle East Forum | |||
| MEF Home Research & Writings Middle East Quarterly | ||||
Related Gamal | ||||
 Send |  RSS |
Gamal Mubarak, son of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak,
was educated at the American University in Cairo and worked as an
investment banker in Cairo and London for Bank of America before founding a
private equity fund, MedInvest Associates, Ltd. In 1998, he created the
Future Generation Foundation, a nongovernmental organization to train
young entrepreneurs in Egypt. His political career began in 2000, when his
father appointed him to the General Secretariat of the National Democratic
Party. Two years later, he became head of the new Policy Secretariat. In
2003, he introduced and passed legislation to abolish Egypt's state
security courts, remove the penal code's labor penalty, and create a
National Council for Human Rights. Both Egyptian and outside observers
believe 80-year-old Hosni Mubarak to be positioning Gamal to succeed him
as president.[1]
This interview, conducted by Brigitte Adès and Pascal
Drouhaud, was first published in Politique Internationale, on July
10, 2008. It was translated from French by Sophie Fernandez de
Bellemanière, a Politique Internationale correspondent in the
United States and a former intern at Le Figaro and The Weekly
Standard. — The Editors
Growing Up Mubarak
 Gamal |
Politique Internationale/Middle East Quarterly: In
what state of mind did you grow up?
Gamal Mubarak: Just like many of my compatriots, I
became aware very early, as a child, of what it meant to be the son of a
member of the military. My father was an Egyptian army officer. I learned
what "honor" means and, today, I understand it more than ever. I would
like to add that my generation is made of thousands of Egyptians on whom
war has left its mark: Our fathers, uncles, and brothers participated in
the different conflicts that took place in the recent history of Egypt,
during the 1960s and the 1970s. This experience helps us appreciate peace
for its true worth.
MEQ: Was it hard to make a name for yourself while
having such an eminent father?
Mubarak: In reality, this type of consideration is
secondary. What really matters to me is to work and follow up with the
reforms that we have launched. It remains with the Egyptian people and the
members of the National Democratic Party to answer that question: Did I
succeed because my father is the president or thanks to my competences?
When I went into politics, seven years ago, I wanted to prove that I was
able to participate in the reform process.
MEQ: What political leaders, current or past, do you
consider your models?
Mubarak: The models that I am thinking about are all
related to a particular time in history: Winston Churchill, who resisted
Nazi Germany at a time when everyone was surrendering to its brutal force;
and Margaret Thatcher, who radically transformed Great Britain. I was
living in London during these years, and I was able to witness the
incredible metamorphosis of this country. But both are the products of
certain circumstances, and I am not sure that policies that proved to be
right in the 1970s and 1980s can be transposed today.
Today, as well, we need audacious leaders who are able to
prepare their country for the future and implement some reforms even when
they are unpopular. Such a leader must be brave enough to remain faithful
to his convictions, despite all opposition. He must not let public opinion
or those who favor shortsighted opinions dictate his choices. Finally, he
must take the time to explain what he is doing and have good persuasion
skills.
In politics as in many other fields, it is always easier to
yield to pressure and accept failure. It is obviously more difficult to
draw lessons from mistakes, never lose faith, and do everything you can to
reach your objectives—but so much more motivating.
Reform in Egypt
MEQ: How does your government deal with the
increasing influence of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood?
Mubarak: This is a problem that we take seriously.
Religion is, as you know, one of the most important components of our
society and our culture. And yet, some groups try to instrumentalize it,
in order to promote their subversive ideas.
Facing this threat, Egypt always had a clear policy, which
never changed since the 1952 revolution: The constitution formally
prohibits confessional political parties and the use of religion in
political discourse. But this is not enough. During the last months, these
groups have been trying to take advantage of the difficulties our country
is going through. By multiplying anti-Western references, they are
building barriers between the different cultures. They are destroying the
bridges between the Eastern and Western worlds that the past generations
had so much trouble building. That is the worst thing that could
happen.
MEQ: As the law is not sufficient, what else can you
do?
Mubarak: Without any doubt, we should encourage our
people to get more involved in politics. In Egypt, we have some moderate
forces who believe in the modernization of society and some parties which
understand the role that our country must play region-wide and worldwide.
We considered that it was wiser to integrate them into the democratic
institutions, rather than leaving them aside. But what about the others?
How can we prevent the negative forces from diving into the breaches of
the system and destroying it from inside? We cannot at the same time favor
widening of the political spectrum and hush up all forms of expression.
That's the dilemma many countries are confronting today.
MEQ: What are the other factors of
destabilization?
Mubarak: Poverty, obviously. It is one of the best
grounds for radicals from all sides to prosper. Our purpose is to improve
Egyptians' living standards. We have a three-pronged plan to achieve this:
favoring Egypt's insertion into the global economy, reducing the state's
role in the economy, and giving the private sector greater freedom.
We have launched some fiscal, trade, and customs reforms. I
must also mention that we extended social protections. And these efforts
have borne fruit: Our exports have doubled in the last four years, and we
have created more than 800,000 jobs per year. Foreign investment is
pouring in. All our economic indicators have turned up, and our growth
rate is about 7.5 percent per year. But there is still a long way to go.
The greatest challenges we now face are rising energy and food costs.
President Mubarak is personally involved in solving these problems as he
showed when participating in the FAO [Food and Agriculture Organization]
summit in Rome last June [2008].
MEQ: Was this reform process launched correctly? Will
it be sufficient? Are you satisfied?
Mubarak: Three years ago, my party was elected on an
ambitious reform program. We know that in two years, we will have to give
our voters an account of these reforms. Will Egyptians' lives have
improved? Will we be able to implement all the reforms we promised we
would? If so, we will feel emboldened to keep on that path. If not, we
will have to be honest both with ourselves and public opinion and
acknowledge that we failed. I am perfectly aware of what the consequences
of such a failure could be, and I am doing my best. I know that our action
will later be examined scrupulously. This is what we call a
"result-oriented culture."
MEQ: As the process has reached its midterm, are you
optimistic?
Mubarak: Bringing change is always a harsh task. You
must sometimes accept unpopularity. But if you are really convinced that
you are making the right decision, you must stick to it. Modernization is
worth this price.
There is one aspect that we did not mention, yet, which
seems paramount to me: The reforms that we have launched intimately depend
on the regional context. That's the reason why our government has been
trying hard, for the last few months, to put the peace process back on
track. The region, including Egypt, will never get better before the
Palestinian question is solved. Here I am not trying to find an excuse: It
is a fact that having this 60-year-old conflict at our doorstep handicaps
us.
Rough Neighborhood
MEQ: What are the other issues overshadowing the
future of the Arab-Muslim world?
Mubarak: Since the invasion of Iraq, it is obvious
that Iran is trying to increase its influence in the region. It is not
just a matter of disagreement on the nuclear issue. In fact, the problem
is much deeper: Ever since the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime, Tehran
has been trying to convert Iraq into its exclusive domain. I consider the
invasion of Iraq to be the greatest strategic mistake made by the United
States.
Iran benefits from this situation to extend its hegemony
over Hezbollah in Lebanon, destabilize Gaza, which is from now on in the
hands of Hamas. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which are the two greatest
countries in the region, are trying to build up an opposing force. But
unfortunately, Iran and its allies disapprove of our policy of the balance
of power and even accuse us of supporting the Americans in Iraq, which, of
course, is not true. We and the Saudis are just defending the interests of
our own countries.
MEQ: Are Hezbollah and Hamas credible interlocutors
for Egypt?
Mubarak: You cannot talk about Lebanon's problem
without mentioning Hezbollah. The Egyptian government's stance on this
point is clear: The Lebanese factions must reach an agreement and
compromise. Lebanon will only be able to survive as a nation if all the
parties reconcile. Hezbollah is one of these factions, but not the only
one.
Unlike some of our neighbors, we have never changed our
strategy regarding Lebanon. We have always tried to gather the Lebanese,
in total impartiality, which does not prevent us from denouncing
Hezbollah's violence. Although this is the policy that the Arab League
decided to follow last May, in Cairo, it asked all the troops to withdraw
from Lebanon and all the Lebanese factions to meet again for a round-table
in order to reach an agreement.
MEQ: How did Egypt react to Hamas taking control of
the Gaza Strip?
Mubarak: We condemned Hamas's military takeover and
supported Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] as a legitimate representative for the
Palestinian people. But we also are active mediators, and we are working
in favor of a cease-fire. Why? Because we want both to stop the
humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and to appease the on-the-ground
situation so that the peace process can restart. Until this problem is
solved, we won't be able to aspire to stability. The more complicated it
gets, the bigger the temptation will grow for some people to interfere in
the process and disrupt it.
MEQ: To whom are you referring?
Mubarak: I meant that if we could find a solution,
many extremists would just lose their reason to exist. They would no
longer be able to use the suffering of the Palestinians to enroll new
recruits and to pursue their political objectives, which often have
nothing to do with this conflict. In such a context of peace, not only
would the Palestinian people enjoy their rights within a state, and not
only would the Israeli people enjoy security, but this endless fight would
also stop favoring the emergence of extremism—extremism which, by the way,
exists everywhere, and not only among the Muslims.
MEQ: What do you do with Iran and Syria? Both
countries continually undermine efforts for peace.
Mubarak: That's right. The only solution is to pull
the rug out from under their feet. On the day when the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict ends, these movements will no longer have any influence.
Let's have a look backward for a second: During the 1990s,
[Yitzhak] Rabin and [Yasser] Arafat surprisingly reached an agreement in
Oslo, overcoming all the differences. At this time, the extremist forces,
that the perpetuation of war feeds, were as powerful as they are today. It
is these leaders' determination, vision, and courage that made the Oslo
peace agreement possible. Unfortunately, it did not bear fruit. The
situation is much worse now. But it is not a reason to give up.
You don't need to be a genius to guess what the final peace
agreement will look like. Everyone knows that both sides will have to make
some concessions.
Egypt's Relations with Israel
MEQ: In retrospect, do the Egyptians approve the
peace that [Anwar] Sadat signed with Israel in 1979?
Mubarak: No doubt Sadat made the right decision. He
was right not to yield to the pressure from other Arab countries, which
during the 1980s, were not even willing to talk about peace. Most
Egyptians agree on this point. But, on the other hand, just like them, I
can remember the speech that the late President Sadat made at the Knesset.
He warned that no solution would be achieved until the problem was treated
globally. Even though we regained some territories, we are still suffering
from this failure. This disenchantment is still perceptible within
Egyptian public opinion. If you go to Cairo today and meet with some
pundits, you will hear some hefty words on the relations between Egypt and
Israel. But it is true that what really matters is neither what you hear
at the cafés nor what you read in the newspapers: It is the Egyptian
government policies. And I am still convinced that, if we keep on
explaining to Egyptians all the benefits they got from the peace and all
that they could have lost if Egypt were still at war, none would be ready
to renounce this opportunity.
MEQ: Could the government be tempted, under pressure
from public opinion, to change its attitude towards Israel?
Mubarak: As I told you before, Egypt chose its side
about thirty years ago—the side of peace—and has no intention of changing.
That said, whether we like it or not, our relationship with Israel suffers
from the situation in the region and especially from the endless
Palestinian conflict. That's why Egypt is, with others, trying to find a
sustainable solution.
MEQ: Who is the American president who best
understood the Israeli-Palestinian question?
Mubarak: The Egyptians naturally remember the role
played by President Carter; he is the one who helped Sadat and the
Israelis prepare the Camp David agreements. I remind you that these
agreements consisted of two parts: one Egyptian part that reached a
successful peace agreement, returning the Sinai to us, and another part
aimed at the Arab countries and the Palestinians that remains
ineffective.
The last American president who really got involved in this
issue is Bill Clinton. He did not hesitate to put his prestige at stake;
he took great risks to try to reach an agreement. We got very close to a
solution. His efforts were not in vain. President Clinton built a
framework that remains valuable and can be used whenever there will be
sufficient political will to reengage in negotiations.
MEQ: What would be your advice to the Israeli
government and the Palestinian Authority?
Mubarak: President Bush promised that he would reach
an outline agreement before the end of his term. Now we only have a few
months left and, on a number of issues, both sides' positions remain
irreconcilable. We must nevertheless acknowledge that time is not in our
favor. Many occasions were missed during the last years. Will one more
chance pass by?
MEQ: Do you believe that, deep in their hearts, the
majority of the Arab world leaders accept the legitimacy of the Jewish
State?
Mubarak: Yes, I believe so. The Arab peace initiative
that Saudi Arabia and some other Arab countries launched in 2002 was
reengaged last March, during the last Riyadh summit, and it was a major
advance. As you know, when Anwar el Sadat visited Jerusalem in 1977, the
whole Arab world condemned the process. The voices against it were strong.
In 2002, during the Arab League summit in Beirut, these countries opened a
door: For the first time, they admitted the Jewish state's right to exist,
based on a return to the boundaries of 1967 and the creation of a
Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as a capital.
MEQ: Is Arab public opinion ready to accept such
recognition from their leaders?
Mubarak: The Arabs are very sensitive to the daily
violence the Palestinians suffer. But their leaders are the ones who are
able to make the decision [to recognize Israel] if only they were brave
enough to do so. It will be the Arab leaders' job, then, to convince their
public opinions that their policy is right.
Finally, in order to solve the Palestinian question, what we
need the most is leadership: The United States must get more involved; the
European Union must come back into the game; and both Israelis and
Palestinians must get past decades-long accumulated hatred. They must do
that for their people, for their security, and for the stability of the
region.
Relations with the United States
MEQ: A new U.S. administration will take office in
January 2009. Who would be the best to take the torch of peace in the
Middle East, Barack Obama or John McCain?
Mubarak: Honestly, I'd better not advance an opinion.
I only wish that the Bush administration will commit to explaining to its
successors what mistakes it made and will give them useful advice so that
U.S. policy towards the Arab world changes.
The most important message—which Egypt has been repeating
for years—consists in recalling that the essential cause of trouble is the
deterioration of the Palestinian problem. The longer we wait, the worse
the situation will get and the more difficult will it be to find a
solution. The United States understands that. Maybe a little late, but
still, they got it. I hope that the next administration will start working
quickly. That administration will only have to retake the framework as the
Bush administration will leave it, in order to save as much time as it
can.
MEQ: What is your judgment on the legacy of George W.
Bush?
Mubarak: It is banal to underline the impact of 9-11
on American foreign policy. Nevertheless, all American officials
immediately saw the world through a very different perspective. I think
that the decisions they took right after the attack, and especially the
war in Iraq, diverted them from their real priorities. Did they have to
overthrow the Baghdad regime? I leave this question to historians. What
I'll remember from this war is its cost and its negative outcome. Its
negative consequences are much greater than the benefits that the Bush
administration could expect.
MEQ: Egypt is the second biggest recipient of
American aid in the region after Israel. Does this contribution put your
country into a submissive relationship to the United States?
Mubarak: Not at all. Our good relationship with the
United States has helped us develop our economy a lot along the last
twenty years. Moreover, the nature of our relationship has evolved much.
It has ripened. There are many issues on which we are in total harmony,
but when we do not agree, we do not hesitate to say so. Our ties are
strong and old enough to survive criticism. We are no longer trying to
downplay our differences, and this is new. For instance, we have never
hidden our opposition to the war in Iraq. We thought that it was a
mistake, that the United State was heading the wrong way. The central
question—I do not hesitate to repeat it—remains the Palestinian question.
President Mubarak expressed his views very clearly on this issue.
MEQ: Does the United States show the same sincerity
to Egypt?
Mubarak: Absolutely. When the United States dislikes
some of our actions, they let us know straight out, including on domestic
matters. The United States, of course, expressed some reservations about
our position on Iraq. I like it like this.
Going Nuclear
MEQ: Do you believe that the Iranian nuclear program
represents a threat?
Mubarak: No country should be encouraged to acquire
such weapons. I am not referring to Iran in particular; this rule applies
to all.
MEQ: You affirmed your will to see Egypt continue its
civil nuclear research program. Doesn't this program inherently bear some
proliferation risks?
Mubarak: The Egyptian stance on this issue is
unambiguous. I ask all the countries in the region, with no exception, to
not seek nuclear weapons, or to get rid of them if they already have them.
Weapons have nothing to do with civilian nuclear energy. The
nonproliferation treaty clearly affirms the right of each state to develop
a nuclear research program with peaceful designs. When President Mubarak
talks about the entry of Egypt into the nuclear area, he, of course,
refers to its civil use. Actually, in the next fifteen years, we want to
dramatically increase the share of nuclear electricity in our global
production.
[1] Daniel Sobelman, "Gamal Mubarak, President of
Egypt?" Middle East Quarterly, Spring 2001; The Washington
Post, Oct. 11, 2007.
Related Topics: Egypt Winter 2009
MEQ
To receive the full, printed version of the Middle
East Quarterly, please see details about an affordable subscription.
To subscribe to the MEF mailing lists, go to http://www.meforum.org/list_subscribe.php
You may freely post or forward this text, but on condition
that you send it as an integral whole, along with complete information
about its author, date, publication, and original URL.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment