Americans have to ask themselves important questions like: who created Al-Qaeda? Al-Qaeda was created by the CIA and the Saudi intelligence service. America never faced reality during the Cold War. America was willing to partner with anybody who wanted to fight the Soviet Union.
In your opinion, what is American exceptionalism and how should this concept be understood today?
The way I look at American exceptionalism is from a legal perspective; I am a lawyer and a university professor. I see it as a direct breach of international law. What is the meaning of international law? What is the meaning of the UN when it has one member who bases decisions on what to do on its own sense of exceptionalism, whether it’s Syria or Iraq?
In that case, it’s better to simply do away with the whole concept of international law, it’s better to do away with the UN and make it very clear that the UN is a department of the American Embassy. The boss does what he wants. The phrase American exceptionalism is polluted. It describes a breach of law. Americans are breaching international law and ignoring the UN after founding it in 1945.
If we are going to have the Security Council in the UN, we had better use it. If we don’t use it, we might as well get rid of it. We cannot have the UN if actions are taken without UN approval. So, American exceptionalism means violating international law.
Is this the modern incarnation of the American national idea?
George Bush expressed it before. Kennedy wanted to strike Cuba more than 50 years ago, but he didn’t go through the UN. And when Bush invaded Iraq he didn’t go through the UN. I think America thinks this way because of its short history. They do not understand the concept of the legitimacy of international law. They want to say to us: We will only follow international law when it’s convenient. Otherwise we’ll go it alone.
I don’t think this comes from Obama’s thinking; it’s part of a system. The system doesn’t have respect for international law. Americans do not feel ashamed when they say, “What can we do if one or two members of the Security Council threaten to veto?”. It’s a very strange thing to say because they use their veto more than Russia. Nobody uses the veto as much as the US does.
Is there any reason to push for it now and what could be the justification for this?
I think it is part of the American mindset, it’s more than Obama. Obama is one of the players, but Bush did exactly the same thing and there is no accountability. They said they were invading Iraq because of weaponsof mass destruction, but they didn’t find any. Nobody has been held accountable. Some people should be held accountable. They should stand trial.
Half a million people were killed on all sides, and half a trillion dollars spent because somebody made a mistake. This is the issue. And again nobody has been held accountable.
Is it appropriate to use such rhetoric in today’s world? Do the American people need it and what for?
I don’t think that we should blame the American people. The American people are essentially naïve and innocent. They want to lead their lives and they want a government that serves their purposes. We blame their foreign policy makers. They have made one mistake after the other for ages. Nobody was held responsible for Vietnam or Somalia, or for the crimes in Afghanistan.
I don’t mean that it was a mistake to invade Afghanistan, because Karzai said recently that the Americans invaded because of the violence in the country. That was the purpose of invading. But I believe that we should blame foreign policy makers in the US who act in the interests of weapons manufacturers, oil companies, and the small group of people who want to see the war machine at work.
Is it possible that we’ll see in the near future a new type of American leadership based not on an artificial idea like exceptionalism, but on moral authority?
Unfortunately, I don’t think so. I believe that if all this evil can come from a president from the Democratic Party, we might see even worse from a Republican president. The Republicans are more eager for war. Look at John McCain! He was dying to see America strike Syria. But, fortunately for us, unfortunately for him, it didn’t work out that way.
Americans have to ask themselves important questions like: who created Al-Qaeda? Al-Qaeda was created by the CIA and the Saudi intelligence service. America never faced reality during the Cold War. America was willing to partner with anybody who wanted to fight the Soviet Union. If you were the enemy of the Soviet Union, you were by definition a friend of Americans. And Al-Qaeda was created by these two intelligence services to fight Soviet troops in Afghanistan. Americans never admitted their foreign policy mistakes. They need to. They need to change completely the philosophy underlying their foreign policy.
What could be a starting point in changing America's policy in the Middle East?
They can start by accepting that they had a role in establishing political Islam. They are one of the creators, one of the founders of political Islam. They experimented with it in many places. They wanted to have the Muslim Brothers ruling Egypt, but 33 million Egyptians went to the streets to say that they don’t want to be governed by theocratic government. Americans were very angry because they saw themselves as the teachers of democracy. It was not good that President Morsi reached power with the help of Americans who want to see Islamists ruling Arab countries.
But some Arab countries share America's views...
Why is, for instance, Qatar a partner of America? Because Qatar’s gas can replace Russian gas in Europe. And that’s why they want to change regime in Syria –to build an overland pipeline from Qatar to Syria for LPG and ship it to Europe in order to weaken the Russian economy.
Will the United States continue to support political Islam in Egypt after the overthrow of President Morsi?
In September 2001 Americans suffered a huge blow from political Islam. I know that America spent two years from 2001 to 2003 studying what happened and comparing two options. One option was to fight political Islam and eliminate it. The other option was to accommodate political Islam. I know for sure that in 2003 they decided to accommodate political Islam, to embrace it and partner with it. And in 2003 they started a dialogue with the Muslim Brothers. The Egyptian intermediary was Mr. Ibrahim from American University in Cairo. He did not deny that he was the one who was behind the dialogue between America and political Islam.
From 2003 until 2010, for 7 years, this dialogue continued and resulted in an agreement. The main features of the agreement are as follow: groups adhering to political Islam will be able to rule at home, but will stop all attacks on the US and main western cities like London and Madrid. In return America will help them rule their countries and the Muslim Brotherhood will be in control of Hamas in Gaza.
Six months after the Muslim Brotherhood’s victory in the 2011 elections, in July 2012, they took power. And then Israel and Hamas signed a ceasefire agreement and halted attacks. This agreement was guaranteed by top leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood.
When Egyptians took to the streets in June 2013, they were supported by the army. For America that was a big failure, because it contradicted the plan. The plan was to let the Muslim Brotherhood rule from Bangladesh to Morocco, to let them fight against Iran as part of the larger Sunni-Shia conflict, and to give them guarantees that Israel would be left in peace and would not suffer any terrorist attacks. This plan was scuttled by the Egyptian army together with the Egyptian people. They overthrew Morsi, who was not acting as the president of all Egyptians, but only Islamists.
You mean that Morsi attempted to make Egypt a radical Islamic state?
Morsi was very interested in radicalizing Egypt. If Egypt is radicalized, the entire Middle East will become radicalized.
What do you predict will happen in Egypt?
I think Egypt now is on the right track. Of course, security is not a hundred percent there. But Egypt is in a much better situation than on July 3, 2013. Egyptians are hopeful that the Islamic nightmare is over. The Muslim Brotherhood is the enemy of the Egyptian people. Don’t forget that almost 15% of Egypt’s population is Christian, Orthodox Christians, and for them the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood was like living under Nazi Germany. I believe Egypt will produce the right political leadership, but security will be a concern for a long while because Islamists are killers by definition.
What can Russia do for Egypt?
One of the biggest mistakes of Anwar Sadat, who was a president of Egypt from 1970 to 1981, is that he put Egypt completely on America’s shoulders.
I think Egypt now wants to build strong ties with more than one major power. Russia and China are on top of this list. And I think there is a lot to be done. Egypt needs to have a military relationship with Russia again. Egypt needs to stop relying on American military equipment. The country needs to establish good cooperation with Russia and China and to draw closer to both of them as well as other countries like India and Japan.
What do you think about the role Russia played in addressing the Syrian conflict?
I believe that everything Russia has been doing with regard to Syria is greatly appreciated by Egyptians. They understand that Assad is not necessarily a good choice, but the alternatives are much worse. It would be better to have something in between. Egyptians are very grateful to Russia for its role in Syria and also for the Russian position on Egypt. I told your president that if he went to Egypt today, he would be greeted like a hero.
What else could Russia do to help?
Russia has done a lot. Your president helped avert a US strike on Syria. Americans love to deploy their troops and drop bombs, like they did in Iraq and Afghanistan. America is a new country; they do not have a sense of history. America needs to mature. The US is rich, but wealth does not equal maturity.
I think Russia’s plan to get rid of Syria’s chemical weapons will work. I hope Russia will encourage Assad not to run for president again, as this would be a bad thing. Russia has helped prevent the destruction of the Syrian state and Islamist gangsters from taking over the country. I think if Assad leaves at the end of next year, somebody else will be able to take power without destroying the structure of the state. We need better leadership, but we don’t need destruction. I hope that Russia has a plan for the future, a political plan that allows a new leader to take over and allows the state to continue to exist.
