Calm. Sharp. Focused. A tough negotiator, one who weighs every word before he says it. These are the qualities honed over a nearly 50-year career in diplomacy. These are the qualities of Ahmed Maher, former Minister of Foreign Affairs.

It would seem that the 74-year old Maher, born September 14, 1935, was destined for his career: He is the grandson of Ahmed Maher Pasha, who served as prime minister from October 1944 to February 1945. Maher Pasha’s service to his country was cut short by a bullet when his grandson was just 10 years old: The prime minister was assassinated in Parliament as he was preparing to read King Farouk’s royal declaration of war against the Axis powers.

Maher graduated from Cairo University’s faculty of law in 1956 and immediately started his career in the foreign service the following year. His diplomatic star rose steadily. In 1972, Maher was appointed as President Anwar Sadat’s advisor on national security affairs and he joined the president as an active delegate in the 1978 Camp David negotiations which led to the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel in 1979. He was also involved in the 1987-88 negotiations for the return of Taba to Egypt.

Fluent in English, French, German and Portuguese, Maher served as Egypt’s ambassador to Portugal and Belgium in the early 1980s. He was ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1988 until shortly after the Cold War superpower collapsed in December 1991. He then took up residence in Washington DC for a five-year stint as ambassador to the United States, returning to Egypt in 1999. He reached the pinnacle of his foreign service career in 2001, when President Hosni Mubarak appointed him minister of foreign affairs, replacing Amr Moussa, who was tapped to be the current Secretary General of the Arab League. Maher’s term ended in 2004, and he was succeeded by the current Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit.

At his home in Zamalek, Maher continues to follow current affairs, gathering inspiration for his weekly column in the Arabic daily Al Shorouq. Other media outlets have a much harder time picking his brain, for he responds to only a few calls from top channels seeking comment on the day’s major events.

His retirement from the foreign service has not left him bored. He holds a number of positions in different institutions, including president of curators for the French University in Egypt and member of the Shura Council. He notes that after a career in diplomacy, politics is a whole new world, one that requires him to study many subjects that were once out of his normal scope of work. He jokes that he strives to “[sit in the parliamentary meetings] and try to look intelligent.”

Ryan Luikens

That reflects another of his qualities: gentle, self-effacing humor. The man who has counseled presidents is at ease with himself and his guests, exercising his quick wit with jokes about his few extra pounds and old age.

As the nation quietly marked the thirtieth anniversary of the peace treaty with Israel, Maher gave Egypt Today 90 minutes for an exclusive, refreshingly candid interview on the state of affairs locally and regionally. Edited excerpts:

The role of Egypt is not something that it chooses or doesn’t choose. It is not something that somebody bestows on Egypt or somebody takes away from Egypt. It is a role dictated by history, by geography and by the weight of Egypt [internationally and in the Arab world]. The role of Egypt also is not something exclusive, it does not exclude the role of other people, but it remains one of the most important and one of the most effective roles. Sometimes Egypt decides to step back and wait for the right moment to practice its role and sometimes Egypt goes ahead further with its role when needed, but the role is always present.

With regard to the Palestinian issue [] the most difficult problem that our part of the world is facing right now is the division between Palestinians. This is by far much more important than any other problem, because only if the Palestinians are united will there be a possibility of peace, even if this possibility has become weaker with the Netanyahu government and Lieberman and all these people. There is no way that you can solve the Palestinian problem on the basis of establishing a Palestinian state without a united Palestinian front, and this is what Egypt is now concentrating on. I think some progress has been achieved, but the issue still remains a difficult one to solve.

Abd Raouf In 2004, Maher (right) accompanied then-Prime Minister Atef Obeid (center) to Khartoum to review a peace agreement for Sudan with Sudanese First Vice President Ali Osman Taha.

If you look at what the role of Egypt is right now, the most important thing from the point of view of foreign policy is the reconciliation of Palestinians. It’s not an easy job, but it is an important, inevitable thing that has to be done.

We are watching a new American administration that has come after what I would call the eight worst years in the image of America in the world and in the relations between America and the rest of the world, not just the Arab world. It was a terrible time. Now we have a new president in America who will not solve all the problems, but who is an acceptable figure. He’s a man who has shown [understanding]. The first thing he said is that America doesn’t want to dictate its policy, [rather, it wants to] start a dialogue. So, this is a man who understands the world. He has passed through difficult times, suffered discrimination as an African American. He has lived in a Muslim environment, so he understands Muslims better than others. His speech in Turkey was truly a masterpiece in diplomacy and understanding people. He’s not an arrogant man, he’s a man who knows a lot but wants to learn more.

This is another field where Egypt can play an important role in restoring healthy relations between this part of the world, this country and the United States.

There are many other fields where Egypt’s role can be felt, but these are the two most important ones: restoring confidence in and healthy relations with the United States, because the US is important and influential, and also preparing the way for a Palestinian solution through the Palestinian reconciliation.

Karim Ezzeldin Maher’s efforts around the world were overshadowed in 2003 by the assault on him at Al-Aqsa mosque.

It is wrong to say, however, that Egypt is relinquishing its role or that Egypt’s role has become less. People say that because there are more people who have become involved now, more players, more countries in the Arab world that think that they deserve also to have bigger role than they had in the past. This doesn’t necessarily have to compete with Egypt’s role because I think the competition is difficult. But, because there are so many active players now, this raises a very important point, which is the coordination between the Arab countries.

The relations between the Arab countries is not very satisfactory, and I think it’s important for Egypt to bring them together. I don’t mean by bringing them together that they agree on anything but perhaps to agree when to disagree, [to] manage their disagreement in a way that is not harmful to the general interest. They should also coordinate the roles, because if many countries want to play an important role in solving a particular problem, they should not step on each other’s feet. They should agree on what role each one plays.

But, the fact remains that Egypt, because of its weight, will always have a very important leading role.

One of the arenas for regional influence is the annual Arab Summit, held to discuss regional matters, resolve political problems and focus on Arab development and progress. The twenty-first Arab Summit was held in Doha, Qatar in March 2009, amid tension caused by Israel’s invasion of Gaza, and the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant against Omar al-Bashir, president of Arab League member Sudan. Mubarak and nine other regional leaders did not attend the summit but sent delegates.

I had written before the meeting that I would hope that all Arab leaders would attend the Qatar meeting, and I had hoped that the proper conditions would have been created for all of them to attend. But, as you know, not enough has been done to restore an atmosphere that would be conducive to the presence of everyone. So, each leader decided whether he thought it has been appropriate for him to attend. Obviously President Mubarak concluded that there is no reason for him to go to a summit that had not been prepared well in the way of bringing the Arabs together. In the end, Egypt was present and delivered its message there, and played its role.

But, to tell you the truth, reading the resolutions of the summit of Doha, it does seem to be a repetition of many things that have been said before.

I hope that in the future they will find it important to have two sorts of sessions: a traditional one with resolutions, agenda, ministers, people etc., and then one real heart-to-heart discussion among the leaders. This will only be possible if they’re alone without agendas and they just tell each other, “My brother, I don’t like this, I think you should do this” without any sensitivities. Instead of being entrapped in texts and resolutions and advisors telling them what to do, they should get together first and then call back everyone else and say, “this is what we are determined to do, and we would like to translate the good will that we have shown to each other into resolutions.”

I think everybody was angry; The government was angry and the people were angry about what the Israelis have done. But the anger differs. People in the street can strike, can join demonstrations and object. Governments have a responsibility to translate this anger into some sort of positive action. This is not necessarily always popular and it is not always visible. People in the street would like to see sensational actions, which is sometimes justified.

I believe that the anger of the people is positive, but the anger of the government could be counterproductive. The government has to control its anger and act in a way that it believes will be more conducive to putting an end to a tragic situation. In the end, I think, what Egypt did through direct contacts, through mobilizing international public opinion, has contributed to ending the Israeli aggression.

Few people know the schism between public opinion and government policy better than Maher. In December 2003, while in Israel to trying to help restart peace talks between the Israeli and the Palestinian governments, Maher was attacked at the entrance of Al-Aqsa Mosque. In a gesture of heated disrespect, tens of Palestinians threw shoes at the Egyptian foreign minister. A small Islamist extremist group called the Liberation Party took credit for the attack, accusing Egypt and Maher of treason for negotiating with Israel. The visibly shaken Maher was not injured, but was hospitalized for observation after complaining of heart attack-like symptoms. The foreign minister quickly returned to his duties, and speaking with local and international media after the attack, he called the incident “just a foolish piece of behavior” and assured the world that Egypt’s role in resolving the Palestinian issue would remain as strong if not stronger.

It’s easy after the situation ended to criticize and say this should have been done or that should have been done. But during the game, you’re not a main player and can’t do what the real players do.

So, I think that people are entitled to their opinions, but the fact is that at the end, we have come to a situation where we need to end the aggression. The aggression is still there. Now with the new Israeli government [headed by Benjamin Netanyahu] the situation will grow even more complicated, so dealing with it must be done in a very careful way.

I personally believe that we have a better chance with such a government because this government cannot pretend that it is moderate, and as such, cannot automatically win the good will of the American administration — particularly this new American administration that is offering the world a nicer face of the US. So, maybe this makes our job easier. The ugly face of the ugly Israelis who are now in government will make it more difficult for countries like the United States or Europe to stand with Israel even if they sympathize with it. We can take advantage of this if, at the same time, we can bring the Palestinians together.

In Camp David we were prisoners actually. Nobody could get in, and we could not get in touch with people outside. They were very difficult days with difficult sessions with the Israelis. But here again, there was US President Jimmy Carter, a man who had managed to establish good relations with President Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. Throughout the very difficult negotiations, Carter personally did a lot of the drafting, which is very unusual for a president to do — he had his yellow pad and was writing in it during the negotiations time. It was an experiment that is not to be repeated.

In the end, the agreement reached was based on what I shall call a misunderstanding. Mr. Begin thought that he was giving Sadat Sinai in return for the disengagement of Egypt from the problems of the rest of the Arab world. President Sadat thought that the solution between Egypt and Israel would be the first step towards a comprehensive solution that restores the rights to all the Arabs. He believed that Egypt regaining its land set a precedent to be implemented with other countries; he also believed that Egypt had become stronger and more able to support the positions of the Arab countries. To the Egyptian side, it was not a unilateral agreement, but part of a full agreement. Of course, this did not work like that because [the Israelis] engaged us afterwards in the long controversy about Taba and this took a lot of energy.

The Arab world did not understand fully what Egypt was trying to do. They thought that Egypt had abandoned them, and maybe we didn’t do enough explaining at the time. Some people truly did not understand what was going on, and some people knew but took advantage of the situation to try to dethrone Egypt from its position in the Arab world; I mean Saddam Hussein in particular. He thought that this was a good opportunity for him to take the scepter from Egypt as the leader of the Arab world.

But truly, truly it was not Sadat’s intention to get away with his own prize and forget about the rest of the people.

Camp David’s negotiations were the first real negotiations with the Israelis, so the atmosphere was not good. We were not very happy to be with the Israelis in the same compound, eating in the same dining room. It’s difficult after so many years of wars and diplomatic actions and diplomatic battles. It’s very difficult. We spoke, but there was no warmth. Particularly in that first day of the negotiations, when Sadat presented his plan, it resulted in a clash with Begin where they shouted at each other. So Carter decided not to have them meet in person again. So the negotiations took place between us and the Americans, and between the Americans and the Israelis. The delegations from both sides also met with each other, but it was clear that Sadat and Begin would not get along until Carter decided that he would be the one to draft the agreement. There were no real Israeli-Egyptian meetings except at the level of Carter and the [two leaders].

It was very intense, but we did have our leisure time. I remember they had a movie house and I remember one day we had ordered a movie and we went to see it, only to find Begin had come first and chosen another movie. This was another crisis (laughter).

But, it was quite an experience, an intense experience. When it ended, there were a lot of worries about where [it would lead].

Camp David remains a very important step because it created the basis of very close relations with the United States that has been beneficial to Egypt and beneficial to the United States itself. It did not, perhaps, go deep enough in order to make the United States change its basic position of bias in favor of Israel.

Look, there is no normalization between Egypt and Israel. Egyptian people don’t trust the Israelis, don’t like the Israelis, they feel that Israel is not honest in trying to solve the problem. So there is no love lost.

You’ll find many Israeli ambassadors here complaining about their isolation [as the current ambassador told Reuters in March]. I personally never attended the national day of Israel, because we still believe that dislodging people from their land and bringing people from abroad on the basis of a two-thousand-year-old claim is something that is not moral. When they say, “You have to recognize the right of Israel to exist,” the existence of Israel is a fact. But, the creation of Israel has always been looked at by every Egyptian as something wrong. Even when the Europeans went to the Native Americans and took their land, they did not pretend that it was theirs, but that they came to conquer it.

It’s not true what the Israelis say, that Palestine was “a land without people and the Jews were people without a land.” This is not true. The land was inhabited by people and the Jews came and threw them out. So you will not find any Arab, or for that matter, any person who likes justice who would tell you that [Israel] had the right to come to this land and take it, grab it. It’s difficult to imagine that the Polish Jews and the Russian Jews are descendants of people who lived in Palestine.

That was one thing; the other thing now is their existence. Now we recognize it, we do not want to dislodge it or throw it back to the sea. Israel exists as a country, it’s a state and we recognize it. But as long as we see that this country that we recognize is not willing on its part to recognize that other people have rights too, then it will be very difficult to have a sound and normal relationship between Egyptians and Israelis on the popular level.

Sure, the governments have relations, but it’s very difficult to ask people to treat Israel as they treat France or Britain. Britain occupied us, but it never said, “We’ll occupy you and bring all people from the British Isles to take this land, and you go away.” They occupied us, but they never pretended to alienate our personality or our existence, so we have good relations with the British and the French, but Israel is different.

We are willing to live with Israel; we have a treaty, we respect this treaty and we will continue to do so, but we tell them that [they must] recognize the Palestinians who originated in this land.

No. Let me tell you first of all that what you just mentioned is a very positive thing. The freedom of expression that you find in the press is extraordinary; you can say it’s abused, but it is something that we should be proud of. We should be proud of the fact that we have around 21 or 22 newspapers, of which at least seven or eight violently attack the government. Even if you don’t agree with this, even if you think that they’re too violent, it is still creating an atmosphere of freedom of expression that we should be proud of.

The important thing is to have people to tell the story from the government point of view with the same efficiency. We should have a real dialogue, one that doesn’t necessarily have to be confrontational. There should be a dialogue between those who are for and those who are against, but it should not be held in an atmosphere of aggressiveness.

Right now, there is too much aggressiveness in the opposition, but getting used to this freedom I think will create a better atmosphere for a serious dialogue, a dialogue of reason that is based on the fact that everything has two faces and there are two sides to each story. Anger is not a good advisor, neither the anger of the people nor the governmental figures. I think the dialogue is needed and has to be respected. But, I’m proud of this atmosphere.

No, no. I’m proud of the fact that people want to express their opinions, but some of the strikes should not have taken place. Some of the strikes were based on situations that should have been resolved before things got to that level. We have seen cases where people have gone on strikes and the minister responsible says, “I’ll never give in. I’ll never give you what you want.” Then, after a few days, people obtain what they wanted, so it’s not a good lesson. I mean, it’s not a good example to show people that only if you go on strike can you get what you want.

This is why I say you have to have dialogue. Some people have complaints, there are other people who can solve these complaints or who can open a dialogue [with the right people] and explain what can be done. So, you don’t have to reach the point where people have to go on strike.

We have come a long way and there is still a long way to go. If for a long time I didn’t express my opinion, when I start I’m going to raise my voice. Then, I’ll discover that you’re listening, so I’ll understand that I don’t need to raise my voice. If you listen to me, we can speak like civilized people. But if you do not listen to me I’ll keep shouting, and shouting will not lead us anywhere. So both opposition and the government have to listen to one another. Eventually, things will get better. This country is a country that needs the ideas of everybody to develop.

What I would like to see is the political parties presenting their plans, playing their roles as political parties. I’d like to see them allowed to have more activities. Right now, people say, “Where are the parties?” and the parties say, “The government doesn’t allow us” and the government says, “You’re not organized.” So everybody is blaming the other. Let’s put an end to this. Let’s allow and help the political parties to have a role. They already exist, so let them play their role in such a way that every party participates in democracy.

I think Egypt is a country on its way to becoming democratic. It has made many steps toward democracy; it needs to take more steps. But this is not the responsibility of the government alone. It is mainly the responsibility of the government, but it’s also the responsibility of the parties to organize themselves better. We cannot ask the political parties to present a complete program of action, but they have to have a certain direction, to believe in what they’re doing and not fight about who will be the president of this party or who will be the chairman.

Sometimes I feel that people are fighting over an empty plate. What is important is that the parties have clear ideologies — a vision and a plan that they can work with if their group comes to power. I think now is the time for them to do that. Things change and everybody should be part of the change. You can’t just sit and offer nothing. You can’t keep fighting over who would be the president of this party, who cares? We want to know what this party would do if it came to power. I think that in the next two years before the elections, the government has a lot to do to prepare itself and the parties have a lot to prepare as well.

It’s never good to use Emergency Law. But, this country has faced many difficulties, wars and terrorism. I understand that in America after 9/11 that they implemented laws that are almost like the Emergency Law. But I think that it is always good to go back to normalcy and I think that as we are moving we will get there, and the use of Emergency Law will not become necessary.

I think we need to work harder. We must learn the respect of duty and work. We must teach our children to be creative, not to put them in a mold and keep them there. We should give them the opportunity to be creative. We must reform our educational system.

Our educational system is not based on letting the students think analytically or critically. If you look at any successful education system, you’ll find that it does not give them ‘ready-made hamburgers’ [information to memorize], rather it teaches people to think for themselves. Also, sometimes parents are possessive, and they want their children to eat and think the same way they do. But there should be more space and freedom left for children to be independent, to think on their own and implement their ideas through a good educational system.

So, hopefully there will be more talk among experts in the future about educational reform, about what needs to be done in the future to develop this country and to catch up with this world that is evolving very quickly.

I think it taught me something important, which is not to keep trying to reinvent the wheel. If we’re talking about reforming education for example, we should not start from the very beginning. We should study the past experiences of others; some are suitable and some are not suitable. I have traveled to several countries and I have seen different educational systems. So, don’t start from scratch every time: Learn from the other experiences, and then pick and choose what’s good for you and what you aim to achieve.

Hopefully, the former foreign minister heeds his own life lessons. After sharing that his limited leisure time of late has been taken up with controversial releases such as the new book Azazil and the film Wahed-Sefr, Maher admits with a smile that his weekly column in Al Shorouq “is due tomorrow and I still don’t know what I’ll write about.”  et