NBC Berger Interview on Mideast Peace
MR. RUSSERT: But first, here with the very latest on the crisis in the
Middle East is the president's national security adviser, Sandy
Berger. Mr. Berger, welcome.
MR. BERGER: Good morning.
MR. RUSSERT: What can you tell us? Are we any closer to knowing who
blew up the U.S.S. Cole?
MR. BERGER: We have a very large team on the ground now -- F.B.I. and
Justice Department and other military people. They're now very
actively engaged in an investigation, forensic and otherwise. I think
it is quite clear that this was a terrorist act, but we, at this
point, have no conclusions about who's responsible.
MR. RUSSERT: What is concerning to many Americans is why this ship
refueled in Yemen. The State Department -- I'll show you here on our
screen -- last year put out advisories saying, "Lax and inefficient
enforcement of security procedures and the government's inability to
exercise authority over remote areas of Yemen continue to make the
country a safe haven for terrorist groups." Why would we refuel a U.S.
Navy ship in a country that the State Department says is a safe haven
for terrorists?
MR. BERGER: Well, first, there's a geography element here. As you take
ships from the Mediterranean to the Gulf, they have to refuel. There
are a limited number of places where they can refuel. This entire area
is a high threat area. The military has taken substantial steps in
this area. Twenty-five ships refueled here in the last 18 months
without incident. Obviously we'll have to find out what, if anything,
happened in this particular case. But this entire area is an area I
think would be described as a high threat, high risk area.
MR. RUSSERT: Will we continue to refuel in Yemen?
MR. BERGER: I think this will be part of the inquiry that the Defense
Department has -- has undertaken, and those judgments will have to be
made.
MR. RUSSERT: On Thursday, the chief of naval operations was speaking
and (was) asked why we did this in Yemen, and he gave an interesting
answer. I want to give you a chance to look at it and talk about it.
"I can just say this: We've been working to improve our relations with
Yemen for some time, and I'm sure that that was at the heart of the
motivation of the unifying commander as they were improving our
relations in that part of the world." Could someone say, is it worth
losing 17 American sailors to improve relations with Yemen?
MR. BERGER: It's not worth losing one sailor or soldier for anything,
so let's start off with that premise. Since 1998, there has been some
improvement in relations with Yemen. General Zinney (ph), who is the
unified commander, believed in that context that refueling in this
port should be resumed. As I said, it's been done frequently within
the last 18 months at a high state of alert. But the specific facts
here I think was we need to wait, do a very thorough review, and
determine whether anything more could have been done or should have
been done.
MR. RUSSERT: Now, the president of Yemen said this was not a
deliberate act, it was not terrorism, it was an accident.
MR. BERGER: No, he's now said that he believes that it likely is a
terrorist act. He said that yesterday. He has been cooperative with
us. You can imagine in a city of 100,000 in Aden suddenly flooding in
of literally hundreds, if not thousands, of relief, investigatory,
press, and others is a logistical challenge. He's providing good
support. I understand actually they've begun to arrest some people
generally; I don't know whether they are suspects or not, but he is
cooperating.
MR. RUSSERT: He also said if he -- his country bordered Israel, he'd
send his troops to fight Israel. Are we in bed with someone we
shouldn't be in bed with?
MR. BERGER: No, but -- of course not. That's an outrageous comment.
But, again, we have strong national interests in this region. We have
interests in Israel's security, we have an interest in peace, we have
an interest in oil, we have an interest in stopping Saddam Hussein. As
a result, for well over a decade, we've had a strong military presence
in this region. Now, if you're going to have a strong military
presence, that means you're going to have to be dealing with some
countries with whom we don't agree in all respects, and in this case,
as I say, our cooperation with this country has been limited, but the
commander in that area felt this was an appropriate place to refuel
and took measures, and we'll have to see whether or not anything more
could have been done, should have been done to prevent this.
MR. RUSSERT: The president heads to Egypt. You'll be with him for the
summit meeting tomorrow. What are your expectations?
MR. BERGER: Well, it's obviously a very tense and dangerous time in
the Middle East. I think the most important objective here is to try
to break the cycle of violence which has broken out over the last
two-plus weeks and to try to get the Israelis and the Palestinians to
agree to measures of security cooperation, disengagement, ultimately a
bit of a cooling-off period here that would defuse the tension.
MR. RUSSERT: Hillary Clinton, the first lady of the United States,
said that Mr. Arafat bears responsibility for the violence in the
Middle East. Do you agree?
MR. BERGER: Well, I don't think it's useful for me, as we head off to
this meeting in an effort to try to defuse the situation, to allocate
or ascribe responsibility. I think it's incumbent on Chairman Arafat
to do everything in his power to try to stop the violence. He doesn't
control everything, but I believe there's more he can do.
MR. RUSSERT: Is he responsible for the violence?
MR. BERGER: Again, I would say that there is more that he can do. He
does not control everything.
MR. RUSSERT: The United States abstained last week on a United Nations
Resolution which, in effect, condemned Israel. Will we continue to
abstain or will we start exercising our veto?
MR. BERGER: Well, we made a decision last week, and it was a difficult
decision, but we made a decision that, having been able to get a
number of the worst revisions of this resolution out, it was still
unacceptable. We couldn't support it, but to veto it at that point
would have been, in the judgment of people in the region, an explosive
thing to do. But the U.N. has now done what it's going to do. There is
no purpose whatsoever any further U.N. action, and we have made it
clear that we will veto any resolution in the United Nations, even if
we write it.
MR. RUSSERT: The Russians have said this morning they would like to
participate in the summit in Egypt. Will President Putin of Russia be
included?
MR. BERGER: Well, President Mubarak is convening the summit. It is his
invitation. I'm not aware that President Putin will be present. That
is not something we've been informed of.
MR. RUSSERT: Realistically, will it be possible to have a
comprehensive Mideast peace put in place anytime in the foreseeable
future?
MR. BERGER: Well, our first -- first objective here is to defuse the
situation, to stop the violence, to get a cooling-off period. Now, at
some point, whether it's a week or month or year, I believe that it's
important for the parties to find the negotiated solution. The
alternative to a negotiated solution is what we're seeing being played
out in the Middle East now. It is instability and conflict. So I think
it will be difficult to resume negotiations for a peace agreement. I
think quickly the most important thing here is to break this cycle of
violence, but ultimately I think the only alternative to a negotiated
resolution of how these two people live together in the region is
instability and conflict.
MR. RUSSERT: Are you optimistic you can break the cycle of violence at
this summit meeting?
MR. BERGER: I have no illusions, Tim. This is a very difficult
situation. The emotions and frustrations are very high on both sides.
I think it's encouraging that President Mubarak and King Abdullah of
Jordan and other moderate Arab countries have initiated this meeting,
and that we'll do our very best.
MR. RUSSERT: Another foreign policy matter that arose in recent days
was a New York "Times" article about an agreement between Vice
President Gore and former prime minister of Russia Chernomyrdin
regarding the transfer of Russian weapons to Iran. The Russians had
agreed to end that transfer by December of 1999. They continue to
transfer arms to Iran, including some helicopters that weren't even on
the original list that Gore and Chernomyrdin had agreed to. Why is the
United States tolerating the transfer of weapons from Russia to Iran?
MR. BERGER: Well, let's back up a step. What this agreement did in
1995 was to say that Russia would sign no new contracts beyond the
ones that they'd already signed for conventional arms for -- to Iran.
And the fact of the matter is as far as we know they've signed no new
contracts. So we were able, through that agreement, to limit future
sales to Iran. The fact that they've stretched this delivery pipeline
out longer than they agreed to is something obviously we're not happy
that they violated what they said they would do, but in a sense, it's
better for this to take longer than for those -- for it to take -- to
be done more quickly. I believe this has served America's national
interests.
MR. RUSSERT: But should we not apply sanctions against the Russians,
which is what the Gore-McCain legislation said we'd do?
MR. BERGER: Well, this does not -- the Gore-McCain legislation does
not apply in this situation for two reasons. Number one, these were
not the kind of advanced weapons that are covered by Gore-McCain, and,
number two, the contract here involved preceded the enactment of
Gore-McCain.
MR. RUSSERT: John McCain said the submarine that's transferred should
be classified as advanced.
MR. BERGER: Well, my -- that's not my understanding. All -- this list
was reviewed at the time by the Pentagon, which said that it would not
upset the balance of power or balance of forces in the region. What we
were able to do by this agreement is to prevent future -- further
contracts for conventional arms from Russia to Iran, and I think
that's a useful step.
MR. RUSSERT: Another issue that is playing out in the campaign in New
York is the spy Jonathan Pollard, the American who was convicted of
espionage for transferring secrets to Israel. As you know, Mr. Pollard
requested clemency in the past. He's requesting it again. This is what
the president said in 1996, and I'll put it on the screen: "After
carefully reviewing the matter, the president had denied the
application by Jonathan Pollard for executive clemency. The president
agreed with Attorney General Reno's judgment that the enormity of Mr.
Pollard's offenses, his lack of remorse, the damage done to our
national security, the need for general deterrence, and the continuing
threat to national security that he posed made the original life
sentence imposed by the court warranted." Has anything changed?
MR. BERGER: We've made no judgment that is contrary to that. I know
this is a controversial matter. People have different views, but I
believe that the judgment the president made in 1996 was the correct
one, and I believe it still is the correct one.
MR. RUSSERT: In the year 2000?
MR. BERGER: That's my judgment, yes.
MR. RUSSERT: Sandy Berger, we thank you, as always, for joining us
this morning.
MR. BERGER: Thank you.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
