الأخضر الابراهيمي في حوار خاص لـوأج

[Music] A seasoned diplomat, he took on more than one complex international file, succeeding where others failed. But the Syrian file proved intractable, so he chose to withdraw. Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi is the leader of Algerian diplomacy between the years '91, '92, '92. Today, he is a guest of the Algerian News Agency, and we interview him on several matters. Welcome, Your Excellency, and thank you for granting us a moment of your time. Welcome, welcome. Your Excellency, you met President Abdelaziz Bouteflika on several occasions during your previous visits. Were these meetings an opportunity to discuss specific files? My meetings with President Bouteflika were always special, personal visits. I have no responsibility, neither in recent years nor abroad. Of course, when I had the Syrian file, we would talk about Syria, for example. Before that, we also talked about other files. But now, these are personal, special visits. We talk without an agenda. There are many concerns. First, personal concerns, then we talk about the affairs of the country, and the affairs of the region. And most importantly, he is a listener, as a result of my visits and travels, we meet and inform him about what is happening in the world. Your Excellency, in the context of what became known as the Arab Spring, five years after what became known as the Arab revolutions in the Arab world, do you believe that what some Arab countries that experienced those revolutions have reached was expected? I don't know if it was expected or not. I think what was expected was that the situation in many Arab countries was difficult, and people wanted change. This was clear, not something new. It's not something that people said was revolutions, uprisings, just a surge of anger. It was also said that they were conspiracies, simulations from abroad, meaning, in other words, foreign hands moving them. Yes, all of that was said. I believe that everywhere there was at least spontaneous events that people initiated. No one came from abroad and gave them money or pushed them for this matter. What happened is that they were not prepared, and therefore they evolved in different ways. In some cases, interventions occurred afterward. The interventions that were 100% clear were in Libya. In Libya, there was a spontaneous popular surge, but soon countries intervened, starting with France, then joined by Britain and America. Other Arab countries also intervened, and the result of these external interventions, wherever they occurred, in Libya perhaps more than others, but wherever they occurred, they were not in the interest of the people. Your Excellency, there are factors that were exploited within these countries that witnessed the Arab Spring revolutions, such as sectarianism, such as confessionalism. Before, look, first, one must go back to Iraq. The invasion there was an invasion. There was no uprising, no revolution, or anything else. It was a foreign military invasion with thousands of planes and hundreds of thousands of soldiers. It was a foreign invasion that destroyed Iraq. And, in truth, it created the division between Sunnis and Shiites. The division between Sunnis, the question existed, but people were living together with differences, but they were marrying, they were living together. Very small minorities came, mostly Shiites, who ignited this sectarian strife. This sectarian strife that occurred in Iraq due to the invasion spread to other places. And now we have a big problem, no doubt. Your Excellency, don't you think that these factors exploited by countries are targeting Algeria today? We are fortunate that we don't have many things. But there is no doubt that, look, there might be regionalism, there are tribes, there are Arabs, there are Berbers. If we are not careful, one cannot say that we are immune. No country is immune, but thank God, I think there is awareness among the people. But officials must also be vigilant and alert. They should not allow people, whether from within or from outside, to play with these matters. And if it happens, it must be addressed quickly so that it does not... Good, good. Let us turn, Your Excellency, to the Syrian file. You were the UN and Arab special envoy to Syria. Do you see that the influence of external international and regional parties has contributed and continues to contribute to prolonging the war in this country? Here too, in truth, in Syria, there are those who said and say now, perhaps more than yesterday, that the crisis in Syria is entirely fabricated. That's not true. It's not fabricated. There is popular discontent. The children who wrote on the wall, I think, wrote words, they didn't even say "down with the regime," as far as I recall. They said "freedom and dignity." These people didn't take money from Americans, or from Israel, or from Russia, or from anyone, or from the Saudis. It was a local surge. [Music] And it came from discontent for objective reasons, not fabricated. But later, because the regime did not deal with this issue with the required wisdom at its beginning, there is no doubt that there were interventions, both regional and from outside the region. And these interventions were not in the interest of the Syrian people in the end. Your Excellency, do you believe that Mr. Bashar, President Bashar al-Assad, is an obstacle or part of the solution to the Syrian crisis? He could be an obstacle and part of the solution at the same time. It's not... Look, the words that one says... Syria cannot remain as it is now, nor can it return to what it was. Any regime, let's call it a family regime for over 40 years, must undergo fundamental change. How is this done? One hopes that the Syrian people, including the President and those with him, all contribute and cooperate to achieve this change that satisfies the Syrian people. Preserving Syria's unity is a fundamental matter. And building a new Syria. It's not possible. 300,000 people died. Half the Syrian population is displaced. It's not possible to say now, let's go back to what we were. No, there must be something new. Change is necessary. Change is necessary. Change cannot be evaded, rejected, or its need denied. There is a real need. And we hope that the countries that intervened in favor of one party or another will also realize that there is no solution. This is what we have been repeating day and night: there is no military solution. There must be a political solution that satisfies the Syrian people, and this solution requires change. No doubt. In the same context, is the military victory in Aleppo the beginning of the end of the crisis in Syria, in your opinion? It has been said more than once that a victory in something would mean the end. No, not the victory in Aleppo. Let's call things by their names. It strengthens the hand of the regime and those with the regime, no doubt. But does this end the crisis in itself? [Music] Syrians must sit together, and those who claim to love them and support them and have spent billions for that must help them reconcile and build a new Syria together. So you are saying that the countries that say they have an interest in Syria are not thinking of the Syrian people's interest? Very, very much so. No, I'm not saying that. The interest of the Syrian people is not their priority. It's not at the top of their priorities, in the best of circumstances, for all of them. It comes second, and this is a mistake. This Syrian crisis concerns the Syrian people. And I say that these people who say they have interests, if they help the Syrian people solve their problems, they will achieve their interests as a result. While pursuing their own interests, regardless of the Syrian interest, is what is prolonging the crisis. It has cost them dearly. The brothers in Iran say that 1,000 of them have died now. A loss. Why? If Iran and other countries, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, who are helping, and Russia and America, who are intervening, if they said, let's see what are the things that enable the Syrian people to solve their problems and cooperate on them, that would be better for them too. Your Excellency, do you believe that the countries that contributed, or do you see that the countries that contributed to the destruction of Syria should be held accountable one day? International law, but also ethics in the current era, say that those who have committed wrongdoing, whoever they may be, must be held accountable. But when and how? Who was held accountable for what happened in Iraq? Who? Who? Who was held accountable? Known individuals and countries, and so on. What happened. In Syria, I think the first, utmost, urgent priority is that the war stops, and that Syrians are helped to preserve their country's unity, reconcile among themselves, and rebuild their country. Good. As a UN envoy to Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries, do you believe that multilateral solutions supported by international organizations are the most effective for state-building, or do solutions always follow internal environments only? There is no conflict or choice. One must choose one of these. It is absolutely certain that the solution must suit the people of the country. It's not for the UN, the Arab League, the European Union, the United States, Algeria, China, or anyone else. The primary interest is that of the people. Therefore, any project, any crisis resolution at the level of these crises you mentioned, whether Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria now, must be based on what is required, what is possible in the country, and what is in the interest of the people. Is the contribution of international and regional organizations important? Yes, very important. It can be extremely important, but it is itself based on the interest of the people, the will of the people, and the capabilities of the people, not on the whims of the negotiator, the mediator, the UN Secretary-General, or the President of the United States. Your Excellency, let us turn to our Greater Maghreb. What is your reading of the political situation in Libya? Of course, the political and security situation. Libya is a disaster in every sense of the word. A tragedy. Extreme injustice has been inflicted on the people, and they are innocent. And here, in truth, foreign intervention was blatant. If in other places there were mistakes in assessing people's needs, in Libya, one feels that foreign intervention did not consider or ask about the interests of the Libyan people. Extreme injustice. Now, Libyans are trying. The UN is working. A country like Algeria is striving with all its might to help Libyans solve their problem. But in the end, Libyans are the ones who must solve their problem. This is their country, and they have seen that the outside has given them nothing. Help can be a catalyst, it can be a helper, but it cannot be a substitute for national effort. So the situation for the Maghreb is a great burden, a great danger. A crisis of the magnitude of the Libyan or Syrian crisis cannot be contained indefinitely within borders. It must spill over to Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, the Sahel countries. Their interest is in resolving the Libyan crisis in a way that satisfies the Libyan people and as quickly as possible. These countries are now all complaining about weapons going in, people coming in, refugees, a million things. Europeans are now seeing that refugees, whether from North Africa or Africa, are coming through Libya. The road is open. There is no state in Libya. Suffering from major crises like these does not stop, does not remain for a long time or forever within the borders of one country. Mr. Brahimi, mentioning the neighboring countries of Libya, you were the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Algeria in '91-'92. In your opinion, what are the pillars of strength that Algeria possesses to play its role and consolidate its regional and international position? Algeria, like others, has its own experience, its own capabilities, and its own interests. Algeria's experience is well-known. Algeria has contributed to helping brothers in many places solve their problems. And I think Algeria has proven that it first hesitates a lot before intervening. And if it intervenes, it is always very careful that its intervention is not tainted by the idea that it is working for itself, that it is taking advantage, taking money or privileges for itself. Of course, in the neighborhood, national security requires that Algeria monitor what is happening around it, and that if there is a need for assistance, it is the first to provide that assistance, along with others, if there is a necessity for that. Algeria has experience, it has expertise, and it is very careful, sometimes perhaps more than necessary, not to rush into intervention. Yes. Antonio Guterres taking over the UN Secretary-Generalship at the beginning of next year. Will he break the stalemate that has characterized the Western Sahara issue in recent years, in your opinion? He has a very good reputation. He has great experience. He knows the UN from the inside. He was the High Commissioner for Refugees for ten years. He also has a good reputation as Prime Minister of Portugal before that and as Secretary-General of the Socialist Party. Reaching this position means he is perhaps more prepared than others before him or others. And there is no doubt that everyone says he was among the best candidates. The Western Sahara issue is on the UN's agenda. Of course, I cannot say now how he will deal with it and when. But there is a framework from which neither he nor anyone else can deviate. He is known for his seriousness. In files, he is known as a man with extensive experience, dynamic, active. Let's wait two weeks and see how... Your Excellency, the withdrawal of three African countries from the International Criminal Court, Kenya, South Africa, and Gambia. In your opinion, is withdrawal the solution, or is demanding reform of the Rome Statute, the founding document of the International Criminal Court, also a solution? Look, some people rejected this court from the beginning. The United States, Russia, and China rejected the principle of the court. This in itself created a problem because justice must be universal if we call it international. It's not possible that tomorrow, God willing, the court asks for an American in France and tells it, no, this is an American, don't hand him over to us. But if someone from Chile comes, it says, please, take him. That's not possible to be a law that doesn't apply to everyone. The Rome Statute is good. Its application is now where we are. What is happening is that the Africans are completely dissatisfied. Before these countries, first one country withdrew, two are thinking of withdrawing. Before we reach this point, the Africans contacted the court, contacted the Security Council, and contacted the major powers, saying that things are not as they should be. They were not heard. There was no response. As a member of this Elders Committee formed by Mandela, we discussed it at length in January. The conclusion we reached was that we acknowledge that the court is not as it should be, and the opinion is that countries should try to reform it from within. Personally, and even as a member of this committee, what I told the brothers there, I have doubts that this is possible. The experience, or I fear that the experience has failed. It has already failed. Is it possible to reform it from within? Or let's say, okay, this experience has failed. Let's now see if we can start anew. Something like that. In any case, this is an issue that is now on the table. I wish it were possible to reform it from within. In the same context, Your Excellency, the African Union is demanding reform of the United Nations and for the African Union to obtain a permanent seat in the United Nations. 70% of the issues dealt with by the United Nations concern the African continent. Is the current international context conducive to this reform? There is a consensus on the need for reform. There is a global consensus. You won't find a country, writer, thinker, or politician who argues against it. The issue is how. A permanent seat for Africa? No, two seats. And Africa is demanding a third seat. Two will be given easily if reform is achieved. They are demanding three seats. Why not? Not seats. There are two main problems. The first problem is that nothing in the UN can be changed, according to the example, unless all five permanent members agree. If one opposes, everything stops. This is a problem. They gave themselves the veto power when the institution was formed, and that's how things work. The second thing is, unfortunately, the countries of the Third World are different from each other. Africans are different among themselves. Asians are different among themselves. Latin America is different among themselves. These are big obstacles. What do you say about the Arab League? Reforming the Arab League and its role in the Arab world? Algeria has often called for a reconsideration of the Arab League's structure from within. I chaired a committee in 2010, and we submitted, in the name of this committee, proposals for reforms. Before that, other committees also submitted proposals. The Arab League suffers from the fact that most of its member states, frankly, do not believe in the League at all. They no longer believe in the umbrella of the League. This is the main problem. Cooperation in the Arab region is at its lowest level in the world. The 54 Africans work together. They try. They are not overwhelmingly successful, but their efforts are serious, and they meet regularly. In Asia, there is ASEAN, a good group. In Latin America, there are groups. The European Union, with great problems, but it's moving. Arab joint action is now at its lowest level. It does not believe in blocs, it does not believe in action. Cooperation in the Arab League is now at its lowest level since its establishment 70 years ago or more. The fault is not with the League, its charter, or its General Secretariat. The fault is that the political will and the desire for cooperation among Arab countries are limited, if not nonexistent. [Music] Good. Your Excellency, your diplomatic career is very rich. Can we know the personality that captured your attention throughout this diplomatic journey? In recent years, not throughout the entire period. There is no doubt that Nelson Mandela's personality was very prominent. I was fortunate that I was responsible for the UN missions that supervised, contributed to, or monitored the elections that led to Mandela's election as president, and I saw him several times. A giant personality, truly. His morals are very high, and his history, his struggle, is very great. I tell young people that one of the most beautiful speeches one can read is the speech he gave at his trial in '64. And after all the words he said, all the meetings he had with people, big and small, he is a distinguished personality. The work he did for reconciliation between whites and blacks is truly unique. You are a person from the 21st century, truly. All the principles and morals one wishes for in a leader were present in him. Unfortunately, he was president for only five years, and South Africa needed him for a much longer period. Good. A final word, Your Excellency. Thank you for hosting me in this discussion, and our wishes for you in your work, our wishes for our people in Algeria, for our people in the Greater Maghreb, for our people in the Arab world, for our people in Africa. Very big challenges face people, but there are also many opportunities. Despite all the difficulties, problems, and fears, optimism remains a legitimate pursuit. Thank you, Your Excellency. You're welcome. Thank you. With us was His Excellency, the seasoned diplomat, Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi. We thank you for your openness in answering our questions. We look forward to other interviews. Goodbye. Thank you very much. Thank you. [Music]