[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 87 (Friday, June 20, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6020-S6021]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EGYPT AND THE MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, the Republic of Egypt has been an
outstanding leader in the Arab world in bringing an historic
reconciliation between the state of Israel and its neighbors, including
the Palestinians. Egyptian leaders, including President Sadat as well
as the present leader, President Mubarak, have dedicated substantial
energy toward such a reconciliation. There has been constant, difficult
opposition to this process in the region. President Sadat's tireless
and courageous dedication to peace in the Middle East cost him his
life. He paid the supreme sacrifice at the hands of an assassin. And he
left a lasting legacy in fashioning the Camp David Accords together
with Prime Minister Begin of Israel, through the good offices of
President Jimmy Carter.
In the Middle East it has always taken three to tango. Advancing the
process of making peace has required the dedication of the leaders of
all three countries, Israel, Egypt and the United States. What is so
dangerous about the current period is the apparent flagging of this
dedication on the part of the government of Prime Minister Netanyahu,
which has promoted the construction of new, and entirely unnecessary
Jewish settlements in Arab portions of Jerusalem, a development sure to
engender violence and the disruption of the peace process. Indeed, as I
have said before on this floor, it was just when there appeared to be
hopeful momentum toward resolving the outstanding issues between Israel
and her neighbors that the right wing in Israeli politics initiated
settlement construction activities and pulled the rug out from under
this momentum. Unfortunately, attempts by President Clinton to revive
this process were less than successful, in part, because of deep
inconsistencies in the approach of the United States which appeared
only half-heartedly--only halfheartedly--to protest the settlement
construction activity on the part of the Netanyahu government.
Unfortunately, the United States vetoed United Nations Security Council
Resolutions protesting the settlement construction, which has, in
effect, taken the United States out of the strong intermediary role
that it needs to play for lasting progress to be made.
It was precisely at this point--with the Israeli right acting to put
the brakes on the peace process, and only a perfunctory attempt, only a
half-hearted attempt by the United States Administration to revive the
peace process--that Egypt has stepped in again to use its influence to
infuse new energy into the complicated dance steps of the Middle East
peace process. President Mubarak arranged for meetings last month at
Sharm el-Shiek between Palestinian and Israeli leaders and has shown
himself to be in the Egyptian tradition in exercising courage and
creativity to bring the parties together again. Indeed, President
Mubarak has assigned a key aide to act as a troubleshooter and
intermediary between the Israelis and Palestinians, and has sponsored
an ongoing dialogue which has been praised by U.S. and Israeli
officials alike. This Egyptian initiative, in fact, appears to be the
only game in town at this time.
So I think it is very unfortunate that just at the time when Egypt is
playing this central and responsible role, the Foreign Operations
Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee has chosen to take the
extraordinarily unfair and puzzling step of removing the earmark of
funds in the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for Egypt, while at
the same time preserving the earmark for Israel. As my colleagues are
aware, those earmarks have been the practice ever since the Camp David
Accords, the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, were signed in
1979.
I was at the signing, and I had had the pleasure and the privilege of
talking with President Sadat, the President of Egypt, in 1978, in
Egypt. A courageous man, President Sadat, was leader in breaking the
ice, and thus giving peace a chance, a chance in the Middle East.
So, the subcommittee action, now, sends precisely the wrong signal to
the Egyptians, whose assassinated leader was the pioneer in this peace
process, who gave his life that there might be peace in the Middle
East.
Egypt should be commended for its diplomatic actions vis-a-vis the
Palestinians and Israelis, not seemingly punished for her courage. Is
Israel to be symbolically rewarded for the unnecessary and provocative
action it has taken in building entirely unnecessary housing
settlements in sensitive Arab lands? To add insult to this injury, the
subcommittee has also taken the controversial step of approving $250
million for Jordan out of what is understood to be Egypt's account in
the bill. While I certainly do not take issue with rewarding Jordan and
King Hussein for signing the 1994 peace treaty with Israel and for
helping on the matter of Israeli partial withdrawal from the West Bank
city of Hebron earlier this year, it is far preferable and much more
fair that the money for Jordan come equally from both Egypt's and
Israeli's earmarks.
Madam President, I do not agree with the concept of earmarks of the
very large magnitude that we have been making for both Israel and
Egypt.
In my view, too much money goes to both nations--too much money. For
years, this has been considered as something that was due them.
I think such a foreign entitlement program should eventually be
phased out and eliminated. But if we are going to give such earmarks as
a tool of American diplomacy and foreign policy, at the very least they
must fairly reflect this Nation's goals.
These earmarks have been looked upon virtually as entitlements by
both nations, Egypt and Israel. And while we in this Chamber struggle
annually over the budget deficits in attempts to get them under
control, while we cut discretionary spending for America, for the
American people, while both the administration and the Republican
regime on Capitol Hill continue to reduce discretionary spending,
discretionary caps, and to ratchet down the spending for programs and
projects beneficial to the American people, the taxpayers of this
country, and help to build infrastructure in this country, all kinds of
questions are asked and the game of one-upmanship is played as to who
can cut the most.
I am an admirer and supporter of Israel. But are there any questions
asked when it comes to funding programs in Israel? Are there any
questions asked when it comes to this being looked upon as an
entitlement figure for Israel and Egypt? No questions asked.
Are the American taxpayers fully aware that Congress and the
Administration, every year, without any questions asked--no questions
asked--provide $3 billion to Israel and $2 billion to Egypt, no
questions asked, while we cut funding for water projects, sewage
projects, highways, harbors, bridges, education, health, law
enforcement, and Indian programs? We cut those programs. But no
questions are asked when it comes to this entitlement of $3 billion
annually for Israel and $2 billion annually for Egypt.
I am against those earmarks, but if we are going to have them, at
least they must fairly reflect the Nation's goals.
[[Page S6021]]
What has been done as of yesterday on this matter by the subcommittee
is flagrantly unfair and does a disservice to Egypt, to the United
States, as well, and to our national interests in the basic process of
making peace in the Middle East. I strongly oppose this action, and I
hope that it can be corrected when the bill gets to the full
Appropriations Committee next week, and if it isn't corrected there,
then the attempt will be made at least to correct it on this floor. The
action has not gone unnoticed.
The Ambassador from Egypt and I have discussed this matter. He came
to my office a couple of days ago, and then we have been in discussions
since on the telephone. I received a thoughtful letter from him which I
may wish to share with my colleagues. The Ambassador is disappointed
and perplexed by the subcommittee action, as am I, and as true friends
should be, true friends of Israel and Egypt should be. I hope it can be
corrected before even more damage is done.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter to me, this
date, from the Honorable Ahmed Maher El Sayed, the Egyptian Ambassador,
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Embassy of the
Arab Republic of Egypt,
June 20, 1997.
Hon. Robert Byrd,
U.S. Senate, Senate Hart Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Byrd: It was, as usual, an intellectual
delight to talk to you last Wednesday to share with you the
lessons of wisdom from the Bible and ancient Greece, and
their meaning in the present circumstances. I particularly
appreciate your giving me so much time, in a very busy
schedule, so that I may appreciate again your sense of
objectivity and fairness, as well as your deep insight of
things.
Unfortunately, action was taken by the Foreign Operations
Subcommittee to strike the earmark for assistance to Egypt,
while keeping it for Israel.
While I know your general position regarding the aid
program to Egypt and Israel, I also know that your sense of
fairness would not support treating Egypt in such a
discriminatory manner.
I would also like to set the record straight concerning
Egypt's position in response to certain allegations which
were made:
1. The non-attendance by President Mubarak, of the summit
held in Washington last September was based on his assessment
that Prime Minister Netanyahu was not ready, at this meeting,
to take steps conducive to the advancement of the cause of
peace. President Clinton clearly understood the motives of
President Mubarak, and King Hussein of Jordan was quoted,
after the meeting, as saying that in, hindsight, President
Mubarak was justified in not attending.
2. The role of Egypt in reaching an agreement on Hebron was
crucial. It was an Egyptian proposal which constituted the
basis of the agreement. The Jordanian officials have
recognized publicly that their proposal which led to the
agreement is built on an Egyptian suggestion of a
compromise. The American Peace Team recognized the
Egyptian vital contribution to the solution.
3. Egypt did not lead an effort to reimpose the boycott on
Israel. What happened is that at a regular meeting of the
Arab League at its seat in Cairo, a unanimous decision was
taken to revise steps taken toward normalization with Israel
if it persisted in policies clearly contradicting its
obligations. The resolution did not include countries bound
by Treaties with Israel, i.e. Egypt and Jordan.
4. Relations between Egypt and Israel are normal, which
does require neither subscribing by one party to the policies
of the other, nor mandatory trade and travel. There exists on
our part no restriction on trade and travel to Isreal, and
far from stagnating, the two fields have seen in the last
years, significant progress. A warm relation is one that is
built through the years given the right circumstances; what
is required, and in existence, are normal relations. It is
not an unusual state of affairs that relations between
countries fluctuate with the acuity of political problems.
Egypt and Israel are bound by 16 agreements and protocols
which have been implemented or being normally implemented.
5. I would like to remind you that Egypt out of its deep
commitment to peace in the region, has embarked on a major
effort to create conditions to bring the Palestinians and the
Israelis back to the negotiating table. President Mubarak is
personally involved in this effort. He has met with Prime
Minister Netanyahu in Sharm El Sheikh, and since then
contacts have been maintained both with the Israelis and
Palestinians.
6. Our ties with Libya are normal relations between
neighbors in the context of the respect of UN Resolutions.
Our influence has been a moderating one.
All these points have been clearly explained by President
Mubarak to distinguished members of Congress he met on
various occasions, and thereofre, I do not believe that there
is any justification in raising from the dead arguments and
misrepresentations that had been laid to rest by the reality
as recognized by most Egypt has been and continues to be a
pioneer of peace, an anchor of stability in the Middle East,
and a fierce defendant of the rule of law and legitimacy for
which we fought side by side. Without its contribution and
its courageous stands, as well as its cooperation with the
US, it would not be envisageable to move towards achieving
our common goals of peace and prosperity, and overcome the
hurdles which Egypt is working very hard to overcome.
Best and warm regards,
Sincerely,
Ahmed Maher El Saved.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I yield the floor.
Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
____________________