Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Sunday Morning
Interview With Mamoun Fandy
Aired April 20, 2003 - 08:14 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: Eight Gulf region foreign ministers had met to discuss the future of the Middle East. One of the biggest issues on the agenda this weekend was ending what they called the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
Joining us to talk about the issues at hand in Iraq is syndicated columnist and Middle East scholar Mamoun Fandy.
Thank you for joining us today.
MAMOUN FANDY, MIDDLE EAST SCHOLAR: Thank you, Daryn.
KAGAN: Tell me about this meeting in Saudi Arabia and what came out of it.
FANDY: Really, it was the main issue on the agenda was basically to talk to their own Arab people, in many ways, as well as address Syria's concerns. Actually it was the main idea was that to argue to end the occupation, the American occupation, of Iraq.
And also to back the Syrian proposal to have the whole Middle East as WMD free zones or a zone free from weapons of mass destruction. The language in Arabic, actually just satisfied the Arab world, but also the language, when you translate it, it turns out to be really giving a cover, also for the United States, providing the United States with the first political cover in the region.
KAGAN: What do you mean by giving it political cover, saying that it's OK for having gone in and kicked out Saddam Hussein?
FANDY: I think sort of pushing the United States for really to move on the road map, the peace process and everything else, as a way of diffusing the feelings in the region.
So in many ways, the language was not as strong as many expected them to be. It was really middle ground kind of language.
KAGAN: OK. I want to look at some of the -- a list of the countries that were at this meeting: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, Jordan, Turkey and Iran. If that is seven or eight countries, I can tell you there's eight different versions of what should be happening in Iraq.
And I'm going to pick country that I just spent a lot of time in, in Kuwait. They had a very different version during the war of what should be happening just with the war and what should be the future of Iraq.
FANDY: Well, many of them have different agendas, but I think the basic idea that came out of this meeting is that, you know, all these states, the Arab states plus the two non-Arab states, that's Turkey and Iran, they want the territorial integrity of Iraq.
And it's a way of really telling people to stop any attempts for a land grab, whether it is from Turkey in the north or from Syria or from Iran, and also to warn against Iran's meddling in Iraqi affairs by using their influence on the Shia population in the south.
KAGAN: So it's a way of saying to the U.S. to get out, to the neighbors to say hands-of. But in terms of the next step who should rule Iraq, what is the opinion of those that were at this meeting. Should this be people who have stayed in Iraq or should this be some of these outsiders that are coming back, trying to get their chance?
FANDY: I think the general consensus was that Iraq is to be ruled by Iraqis and the decision is an Iraqi decision.
But also in the meeting, Daryn, everybody also was angling to also have a say in what kind of government should happen in Iraq. Saudi Arabia has a lot at stake in Iraq. So all of them really trying to really build a consensus as what kind of government that will come out that they can live with.
KAGAN: Well, in terms of what they can live with, there has to be concerns because it's not just Iraq. As Iraq goes there's a potential so will go many of these countries, whether it's a chance for democracy to build in their country, women's rights in Kuwait. Women aren't allowed to vote yet alone participate in government and yet we've talked to some women who have gone into Iraq to participate in the government-building process so far.
So there must be some concern about how thing go there; it's going affect their own country.
FANDY: There are major concerns, especially about the idea of a fully democratic Iraq. That will be a huge breach in the whole political system in the Middle East and it will have a huge ripple effect.
There is a general atmosphere of nervousness and ambivalence about what will come and what is the ripple effect on them. There is a general, also, consensus that there is a dominant effect in terms of democratization as well as also in terms of who's next in terms of the U.S. agenda and U.S. attacks on the region and the Syrians in particular.
KAGAN: And just as we wrap this up. Time frame. Everyone, especially Americans, want to know how long, how long will U.S. forces be there? How long until Iraq can be governing itself and standing on its own? What's your prediction?
FANDY: I think at least at a minimum it takes two years to really have a secure country that's basically law and order issues and then conferences about all these groupings. I mean, you're looking at really a minimum of two years.
KAGAN: Mamoun Fandy, thanks for your insight today, sir, and getting up with us on this Sunday, on Easter morning. We appreciate your time.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired April 20, 2003 - 08:14 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: Eight Gulf region foreign ministers had met to discuss the future of the Middle East. One of the biggest issues on the agenda this weekend was ending what they called the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
Joining us to talk about the issues at hand in Iraq is syndicated columnist and Middle East scholar Mamoun Fandy.
Thank you for joining us today.
MAMOUN FANDY, MIDDLE EAST SCHOLAR: Thank you, Daryn.
KAGAN: Tell me about this meeting in Saudi Arabia and what came out of it.
FANDY: Really, it was the main issue on the agenda was basically to talk to their own Arab people, in many ways, as well as address Syria's concerns. Actually it was the main idea was that to argue to end the occupation, the American occupation, of Iraq.
And also to back the Syrian proposal to have the whole Middle East as WMD free zones or a zone free from weapons of mass destruction. The language in Arabic, actually just satisfied the Arab world, but also the language, when you translate it, it turns out to be really giving a cover, also for the United States, providing the United States with the first political cover in the region.
KAGAN: What do you mean by giving it political cover, saying that it's OK for having gone in and kicked out Saddam Hussein?
FANDY: I think sort of pushing the United States for really to move on the road map, the peace process and everything else, as a way of diffusing the feelings in the region.
So in many ways, the language was not as strong as many expected them to be. It was really middle ground kind of language.
KAGAN: OK. I want to look at some of the -- a list of the countries that were at this meeting: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, Jordan, Turkey and Iran. If that is seven or eight countries, I can tell you there's eight different versions of what should be happening in Iraq.
And I'm going to pick country that I just spent a lot of time in, in Kuwait. They had a very different version during the war of what should be happening just with the war and what should be the future of Iraq.
FANDY: Well, many of them have different agendas, but I think the basic idea that came out of this meeting is that, you know, all these states, the Arab states plus the two non-Arab states, that's Turkey and Iran, they want the territorial integrity of Iraq.
And it's a way of really telling people to stop any attempts for a land grab, whether it is from Turkey in the north or from Syria or from Iran, and also to warn against Iran's meddling in Iraqi affairs by using their influence on the Shia population in the south.
KAGAN: So it's a way of saying to the U.S. to get out, to the neighbors to say hands-of. But in terms of the next step who should rule Iraq, what is the opinion of those that were at this meeting. Should this be people who have stayed in Iraq or should this be some of these outsiders that are coming back, trying to get their chance?
FANDY: I think the general consensus was that Iraq is to be ruled by Iraqis and the decision is an Iraqi decision.
But also in the meeting, Daryn, everybody also was angling to also have a say in what kind of government should happen in Iraq. Saudi Arabia has a lot at stake in Iraq. So all of them really trying to really build a consensus as what kind of government that will come out that they can live with.
KAGAN: Well, in terms of what they can live with, there has to be concerns because it's not just Iraq. As Iraq goes there's a potential so will go many of these countries, whether it's a chance for democracy to build in their country, women's rights in Kuwait. Women aren't allowed to vote yet alone participate in government and yet we've talked to some women who have gone into Iraq to participate in the government-building process so far.
So there must be some concern about how thing go there; it's going affect their own country.
FANDY: There are major concerns, especially about the idea of a fully democratic Iraq. That will be a huge breach in the whole political system in the Middle East and it will have a huge ripple effect.
There is a general atmosphere of nervousness and ambivalence about what will come and what is the ripple effect on them. There is a general, also, consensus that there is a dominant effect in terms of democratization as well as also in terms of who's next in terms of the U.S. agenda and U.S. attacks on the region and the Syrians in particular.
KAGAN: And just as we wrap this up. Time frame. Everyone, especially Americans, want to know how long, how long will U.S. forces be there? How long until Iraq can be governing itself and standing on its own? What's your prediction?
FANDY: I think at least at a minimum it takes two years to really have a secure country that's basically law and order issues and then conferences about all these groupings. I mean, you're looking at really a minimum of two years.
KAGAN: Mamoun Fandy, thanks for your insight today, sir, and getting up with us on this Sunday, on Easter morning. We appreciate your time.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
