Nabil Fahmy - Foreign Minister of Egypt HARDtalk

stopped about a decade ago. Now on Little. The political standoff in

Egypt remains in the balance, with thousands of supporters of ousted

president Mohamed Morsi camped-out in Cairo. The interim government

wants them removed but more bloodshed could follow if the troops

move in. My guess today is Egypt's new Foreign Minister, Nabil Fahmy.

He is part of a government which many of his compatriots view as

illegitimate. So will they bring democracy to Egypt as promised or

will the streets of Cairo once again become a battlefield? Nabil Fahmy,

welcome to HARDtalk. Thank you. Thousands of pro- Morsi supporters

are on the streets, setting up barricades in defending their right

to stay there until the ousted president is reinstated. What you

plan to do about that? Before and that, let me correct something is at

the beginning. This government was not installed by the military. There

was an interim civilian president, the head of the court, who was

chosen as president consistent with our Constitution. He then nominated

Prime Minister who established a government. Secondly, anybody have

the right to demonstrate and even to have set ends. Any were in Egypt.

Provided that they do not obstruct traffic or the axis of people to

their homes and so on. And provided that it remains peaceful. We will

make every effort we can, we are doing that now, to reach a peaceful

resolution to this, consistent with the law, but to do it with the power

of persuasion rather than the use of force. At the end of the day, the

rule of law has to apply to everyone. There cannot be a

contradiction between providing, enabling members of our society to

demonstrate, and creating security for others around them. So you think

there could be a possibility of the army removing demonstrators

forcibly? Whatever happens will happen according to the law, by

court decision. The agency mandated to do this is the police force. They

will take the lead on this. There have -- is the head of the army is

said to want this sorted out by the year to holiday on August the 8th.

Yes, we are moving towards a religious holiday on Thursday. But

there has been a very recent attempt to use the offices of foreign

parties as well as local parties to try and find a way to resolve this

through the powers of persuasion. General Sese also says that a number

of protesters have used violence and terrorism. Is that what these people

are, terrorist? If you listen to their videos and watch the videos

broadcast on satellite television, from within at least one of the

squares, you will see some of the Muslim Brotherhood leaders openly

saying that the violence in the Sinai will subside immediately if

the situation in Cairo is resolved. That is a clear linkage between

violence that has nothing to do with these demonstrations and

demonstrations or set-ins in Cairo. Others are not accusing them of the

brotherhood of that, they are saying it openly. So in your view, there is

a direct link between people protesting against the ousting of

President Morsi and attacks in the Sinai? Again, they have admitted

this directly. It is not a matter of an opinion of somebody who disagrees

with them. It is broadcast on television, saying that openly. But

I would also add that there have been cases against police stations

far beyond whether demonstrators are. Things that have nothing to do

with demonstrations on the street. For example, a bomb exploding at the

police station in Montessori. That has nothing to do with the

demonstrations, it is an act of terror. -- Mansour. Who was

responsible for this, we don't know. But we need to create an

atmosphere where this can be resolved with the power of

persuasion. How urgent is this? How much time to they have to reach an

agreement before forces used by the police force? By definition, it is

very urgent. A majority of the Egyptians Pillai and want Egypt to

move on, they want a roadmap established by Egyptian society to

be implemented. They want the committee on the Constitution to

continue its work. They want the two elections to be held over the next

seven to nine months at the most. You cannot do that if you continue

to have an insecure society, and you cannot start up the economy if

production is not possible because of lack of security and goods and

services cannot flow freely, and tourists cannot come back to the

contrary. You talk about the good offices of outside supporters. Last

week, John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, urged Egypt to pull back

from the brink, as he said it. Is it the pressure exerted on Egypt by the

US and others that has prevented the use of force on demonstrators?

that is not the point. Egyptians on all sides, definitely on the side of

the government, want to resolve this peacefully. There is no desire to

peacefully. There is no desire to use force, even force according to

law, if it is possible to resolve using persuasion. Think when Mr

Carrey was referring to moving back from the brink, he was not talking

about Egypt as a whole, including the opposition. The other side has

to respond at the same time. They will be included in the political

process thereafter. Has the US giving you any guarantee that its

substantial military and development age that it gives to Egypt every

year will continue, despite the fact is not financially support

governments were democratically elected government has been

overthrown the military? First of military,

military, the people went out on the streets objecting to the President

and the government, calling for new elections. The military simply

responded to the call of the people and handed authority over

immediately to a civilian president and a civilian government. We have

not had discussions of the kind you mention with the Americans. What we

are focusing on now is resolving the crisis we have in Egypt and

hopefully we will be able to do that. In either case we will respect

the law. And you expect US aid to continue? We will do to do for

Egypt's national interest, and other countries and have two assessed that

situation properly and in context. Have we made the best effort to

achieve a peaceful solution? Having foreign parties here, the US and the

EU, and Arab countries, talking to both sides, with the blessing of the

government, is I think clear evidence that we are searching for a

peaceful resolution. That has to involve the other side responding as

well. There is a lot of fear around the world of what could happen in

the event that forces used. Human Rights Watch among others say that

any attempt to disperse the demonstrations forcibly will lead to

a bloodbath. Do you agree? I think the situation is very tense. I would

refer you to Amnesty International, which just two days ago issued a

statement saying that there were heavy weapons inside rubble where

the Muslim Brotherhood groups are. This could have consequences

worldwide. We are making the best effort to resolve it peacefully.

Despite fears of what could happen as a result of any attempt to use

force, you don't seem to be giving a guarantee that force will not be

used. That remains an option on the table. What we have said repeatedly,

and I repeat again today, every achieve this through the powers of

persuasion, including allowing for the offices of friendly countries,

which are ongoing now, any actions that will be taken after that will

be according to the law. Let me ask about the former, Mr Morsi. Any

long-term solution will have to embrace in some way, where is he?

Where is he being held? He is held in a safe and secure area. Formal

charges have been started to in the hands of the judge. Charges

of what? Charges related to cases in but again, I don't want to engage

with the formal charges, that has to be decided by the judge himself.

must surely know what the charges, because it is widely believed that

if he is being investigated for charges that include murder and

kidnapping. Is that true? I don't know what the charges. One has to be

careful when looking at legal cases. As the investigative judge looks at

this, he will determine what the charge may or may not be. Whether

there is evidence not. And consequently, whether they should be

a prosecution or not. This process has started but is not yet clearly

defined. It is now a formal legal process. Can you see what people

around the world view this as an old-fashioned military coup? I think

because people are looking at it only in terms of the picture,

snapshot of what is happening in Egypt, without the context. We have

had to revo?I ? had to revos. In 2011, the people spoke out, the

military intervened, and the military continued to govern for a

year and a half. Nobody around the world thought that was a coup. Into

thousands are tiny, the people spoke out, the military intervened to

prevent a bloodbath, and then handed over. But the difference is, that in

this case the military removed a democratically elected government.

That was not trying to 11. That is your opinion. People who will

support in the past would argue that he was elected as well. -- supported

Mubarak. 20 to 30 million people are on the street. If you had that

number going out towards Downing Street, any British government would

resign. Many are worrying about the return of the Mubarak era. A

prominent human rights activist has said that this is Mubarak without

Mubarak. I don't think so. One should not underestimate the

that came out twice in two and a half years in tens of millions. They

came out expressing a desire for change, desire to participate in the

future. They will not accept authoritarian rule again. We housed

the steps in the Constitution, we started on reconciliation. We have

two elections for Parliament and President within seven months.

Maximum of nine months. Let me just ask you about the way in which the

military intervened a few weeks ago. Leading up to the removal of

President Morsi, according to the Wall Street Journal, there was a

series of meetings between Egypt's top generals and leaders of the

opposition. The army spokesman himself admitted that there was a

process of getting to know people that previously the military had

little dealings with. According to the newspaper, they often met in the

naval officers on the Nile. If that is true, it starts to look like much

less like an emergency response by the army and more like something

the military and the opposition. Doesn't it? Again, it is an issue of

looking at the snapshot over the context. In both of these

revolutions, 2011 and 2013, the Egyptian people announced the date

of the revolution and where they were going to demonstrate and why.

These were not people hidden behind closed doors. It was a public

announcement, four months before, that they were collecting ten or 20

million signature is, and would submit their figures before the

30th, and then demonstrate on the 30th. Anybody in Egypt could have

contacted all of these stakeholders. These were not hidden advocates.

Another development that many human rights observers find very sinister

is the reconstitution of the state security investigation service, part

of the police force that was notorious under the Hosni Mubarak

regime, and which was disbanded under the 2011 revolution, but now

it is back. People see the return of the old Establishment coming back on

the coattails of this remarkable popular uprising that you mentioned

several times. We have many, many issues to discuss among ourselves as

Egyptians in trying to determine our political identity in the 21st

century. Part of the discussion on the Constitution, and then the

nature of the state itself, will involve the rights of civilians

versus the government, the rights of the world and the ruler, and the

rights of the security services, the military, religion in society. This

will be subject to debate in the activist says these are treat --

these units committed the most atrocious human rights violations.

Even the killing of Islamist during the 1990s. Now they are back. Many

people who want to change a regime in Egypt see something -- see that

as something sinister. With a president who comes from the high

scored in the land, a civilian of course, a civilian prime minister,

who has -- who is a world renowned economist, and a number of ministers

who are highly professional, they have committed themselves to

civilian rule, to transparency, to human rights and democracy. Let's

get started and bring this thing together properly. You have had and

boys for the United States and the UK -- the EU involved. -- envoys.

Eva is a sense of what is going on. Whatever it mergers at the end of

this progress, it has to include and embrace the Islamists in some form,

hasn't it? I am not sure that they met with the former president,

Mohamed Morsi. I know they met other leaders. That being said, yes. This

process has two and up including all walks of life in Egypt, Islamists

and non- Islamists, and hopefully also the Muslim Brotherhood members.

That is something that we are quite straightforward about. The immediate

issue is how do you reduce the potential for violence, how do you

enter the incitement of violence, and allow for things to come down,

so that we had -- we can have a true reconciliation process, which will

be open to all members of society. Is there a question mark over your

own legitimacy to Govan? You were a loyal supporter of the Mubarak

government. Your career has been spent in serving that government.

Many people will see you as part of the old Establishment returning.

Again, you are looking at eight shot rather than the contacts. The

Egyptian diplomatic service is a civil service. We do not have a

system where a party wins and therefore puts a high level employee

into the Hyatt portfolio places. Our diplomats start at 21 to 23, and

they continue for 30 years, irrespective of who is president and

who is not. They act professionally. I left government in 2008, two .5

years before the revolution. have a timetable now for a new

constitution, new elections and then a presidential election. Is that

timetable gone to be met, within nine months? We are trying to do

that, and the quicker that we started moving on the roadmap, the

more definitely we will give out the dates. We can actually finish in

seven months, but the upper limit is nine months. As a further indication

of transparency, we have announced that we would be happy to have the

EU as other international organisations observing and

monitoring the elections. There are reports emerging that the government

is negotiated a secret face-saving deal with Mr Moore Sime, in which he

will be released from detention in agreement for him to announce his

resignation and the formal transfer of power? Is that is what is being

discussed? Again, I deal with the foreign ministers portfolio. I am

not a negotiating player in the Constitution that are occurring with

Woolston Brotherhood leaders. I do not know the actual details. --

Muslim Brotherhood. But it is a bit far-fetched. It sounds like a number

of suggestions that I have heard from non- officials, but I do not

circles. But any long-term settlement will have to involve the

release of Mr Moore C, surely. -- Mr Morsi. I think it will include the

Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists. But it should include

that the law in place to everyone. If there is no evidence, those who

are detained issue to be released. If there is evidence, then the law

should apply to them, fairly, without discrimination or

dangerous signal to the rest of the region, the signal being too

Islamists elsewhere, that there is simply no point in taking part in

elections, that if you win, if you get your hands anywhere near the

levers of power, the old Establishment will find a way to get

rid of you. That is an invitation to Islamists elsewhere to get other

ways to hold power. I think you are missing the whole point of a

democracy. It is not about holding an election, it is about providing

power to the people and responding to the concerns of the people. If 20

or 30 million people demonstrated towards Downing house, you would not

have a silent response from the Prime Minister. He would respond

politically. I take you back to general debauch in France, in the

60s, he called for a rapper random, he said if he does not get a certain

percentage of support from the people, he would resign, and he

did. Over 20 million people went out to demonstrate on the streets of

Egypt, twice, in 2.5 years, publicly, on the date certain, and

they deserve a political response. Had the former president responded

to them, and called for new elections, he would not have been

removed from power. But the fly in the ointment, tens of millions of

box and cast their votes in favour of President Morsi. He had a

democratic legitimacy, that your government lacks. The answer is very

simple. I can give you examples in Europe as well. You can be elected

democratically and then be a tyrant, and I do not think you want

me to mention names in terms of Europe. The issue is whether he was

elected democratically, the issue is the key Govan inclusively, for all

Egyptians, and he was governing after revolutions, so the need to

respond to all the people, is something that needs to be taken

into account. He still would have been in power, had he called for

free elections. And yet he is lot of support on the streets, and

if you stick to your timetable and hold those elections within a year,

within nine months, there is a reasonable chance that he may win an

election again. That will be determined by the ballot box. But

that is an instant -- excellent question. The mistake that we did

the first time, is that we do not determine our Constitution first,

therefore when you elected President Morsi, he could have succeeded all

he could have failed, but without a constitution, it allows for

exclusive governance. If you have a constitution, if you elect a good

president or not, it is bound by the rules of the game. That is why this

time around, we are leading down a Constitution first. When we do that,

whoever wins a majority in Parliament and the election, be that