24 June 2002
Transcript: White House Sees Chance for Rapid Improvement in Mideast
(June 24 background briefing by senior administration official) (4370)
The White House sees a chance that progress towards peace in the
Middle East can come "fairly quickly" if the Palestinians move with
"resoluteness" to reform political and economic institutions and act
against terrorism, as outlined in President Bush's speech on Middle
East policy June 24, said a senior administration official.
The official, briefing at the White House following Bush's speech,
said the Israelis also must act by allowing greater freedom of
movement by Palestinians, permitting them to return to work, and
pulling forces back from Palestinian areas. In his speech, Bush called
on the Palestinians to elect new leaders and to build a "practicing
democracy."
Following is a transcript of the briefing by the senior official:
(begin transcript)
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
June 24, 2002
PRESS BACKGROUND BRIEFING ON THE MIDDLE EAST BY SENIOR ADMINISTRATION
OFFICIALS
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
4:35 P.M. EDT
MR. McCORMACK: Good afternoon, everyone. The briefing that follows
will be on background, with attribution as a senior administration
official, or officials.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Hello, everybody. I'm here to take
your questions. I'm not going to make any statement, we can talk about
the President's speech, or if anyone has some questions about
Kananaskis, I'd be happy to do that, too.
Q: Seriously, on the timing, why now? Why, after some delays, did the
President feel this was the time?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, the President, as you know, has
been working on these issues pretty intensively for a couple of months
-- a lot of consultations, meetings with heads of state. He has been
working with the principals, decide how to lay out a way ahead.
And, frankly, conditions last week, on Friday or so, just made it
difficult because you had just had a suicide bombing. But the
President ultimately believed that it was time to lay this out because
the situation in the Middle East is untenable as it exists now. And
things are not going to get better, he believes, unless people begin
to act on their responsibilities against terror, begin to act on their
responsibilities for reform and begin to move forward. And so he
thought that this was the time for the United States -- for him, as
President of the United States, to go out and lay out this way
forward, because things are not going to get better in the Middle
East.
Q: One follow up, which is the big wild card out here is what happens
between now and the time that Arafat is replaced, as the President
would like to see it? Who deals with groups like Hamas and others, who
the President identified today, who are responsible for terror?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, what the President was asking
today is that a process be set in place. That's what he is talking
about. A process by which reforms can take place. You know that we
have, for instance, been in security discussions with the Palestinians
and also with other regional states about how to improve the security
situation. Frankly, the regional parties are going to have to play a
large role in denouncing Hamas and Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic
Jihad and denying them the means to carry out terror.
There are a number of responsible parties that need to work between
now and the establishment of a Palestinian state to make certain that
the security situation works. There are a number of parties that need
to do that.
Q: Can I ask you follow up on security, please? There was a reference
in the speech to external or outside. So, like a two-part question.
Could you be a little more explicit how outsiders can improve the
security. And, specifically, the notion of peacekeepers was sort of
floated by Gephardt the other day, and some others. Is there any
suggestion that the U.S. might send in peacekeepers?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, I do not think the issue of
peacekeepers was implied here. What was implied here was that security
arrangements in the region -- as you know, George Tenet was out there,
he talked to a number of the regional parties about the security
situation, he talked to the Palestinians about the security situation.
The United States would clearly be part of that external supervision,
others might as well. But it's for training, it's for financing, it's
to help restructure the system so that it's more accountable.
Q: As we understood it all along, with CIA input.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, it's -- George Tenet has been
involved before, the CIA has been involved before, but so have other
regional actors been involved before.
Q: There's -- this is so dependent on the security component, that it
in effect seems as though it's held hostage to it. Where is the carrot
for those larger societies to insist? I mean, you don't see it.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: To the degree that anybody needs a
carrot to make life better for the Palestinian people --
Q: They've never cared before.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, we are saying that everybody
should care about the lives of the Palestinian people. The President
did have a line that said that no one should treat the Palestinian
people as pawns here, they should be given a chance to have a better
future. And that means that terror, which is an obstacle to moving
forward, needs to be resolutely fought by all of the parties, and that
includes the Palestinians, that includes the Arab states, that
includes everybody.
After all, the President and the Bush doctrine here is very clear:
terrorism is something that has to be opposed, and opposed fully;
there is no cause that can be served by terrorism. So the hope here is
that dealing with terror, dealing with the security situation,
reforming the institutions, you can move to a Palestinian state whose
-- even though its boundaries and aspects of its sovereignty still
have to be negotiated, can actually begin to act on behalf of the
Palestinian people, can actually start to build an economy, can make
life better for the Palestinian people. That's a very important step
forward.
Q: To get there seems enormous and easily sabotaged by those who would
wish to do so.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Those who would wish to sabotage it
should have gotten the message today when the President went out and
he gave a speech that called on everybody who is on the side of the
peace process to resolutely defeat -- to resolutely work against and
ultimately defeat terror.
There are things that can be done to make it harder for terrorists to
do what they're doing in the West Bank and in Gaza. There are a lot of
things that can be done. One of the problems is that we have not had
resolute commitment from the current Palestinian leadership to tear up
terrorist infrastructure, to arrest those who are carrying out
terrorism. You have people who are encouraging suicide bombers, people
who are paying suicide bombers. That just can't continue. There is
plenty that you can do to make the situation far better. And if you
see a resolute commitment and, as we've said before, 100 percent
effort, everybody is going to take notice of that.
Q: You have said on many times, the President has said on many times,
that it's not the job of the U.S. President or the U.S. government to
choose the leadership of the Palestinian people. He just did. What
happened?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The President just laid out a process.
And we believe that leaders get chosen through institutions that can
express the will of people. This is an American, a universal -- an
American belief, a belief on which we practice our own politics. And
so what the President was saying is that this is bigger than any one
person. This is about institutional change, this is to create a
process by which the Palestinians can elect leaders who are not
compromised by terror and who can actually defend their interest. And
if they can do that, then the world is going to stand ready to help
them lead toward a state.
Q: It must be a new leadership, not including the current corrupted by
its cavorting with terrorism --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: New leadership was very clear in his
speech.
Q: Okay. Isn't that a change, though, in the --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: This idea of institutions as leading
to new leadership has been on the table for some time. I think if you
go back over the last couple of months you'll see that there has been
an increasing emphasis on reform, on institutions that can produce
responsible leadership.
The fact is, though, the last several incidents, the deterioration of
the situation on the ground perhaps has given new impetus on the
American part to recognizing that our own disappointment with the
current leadership just shows that we're not going to get there until
you get new leadership.
Did you want to mention something?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Terry, the President really feels
strongly that one of the key jobs of a leader is to offer hope. And he
reached the conclusion that this is the -- that the only hope for
Israel to live in security and for Israeli citizens to live free from
free, the only hope for the Palestinian people to have hope and have a
vibrant economy is for a new responsible partner to emerge with whom
Israel can work and create a lasting security in the region.
So I think that was his conclusion, and the reason he decided to go
forward was because he believes that is his role and that this is the
only way to achieve that hope.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It's been there in the policy for some
time. When you're disappointed time and time and time again with the
Palestinian leadership, and when time and time again you have evidence
that they are not doing what they can to fight terror -- and, in fact,
quite to the contrary, that some of the efforts or some of the steps
that they are taking are actually encouraging terror, you have to come
to the conclusion that you're going to have to have new leadership if
you're going to make progress.
Q: Are the Arab partners on board for that?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The Arab partners, I think, understand
our position, and they certainly want a change in the circumstances in
the Middle East.
Q: A two-part question on how do you fight terrorism. The one country
not mentioned today, but of course mentioned in the State of the
Union, is Iran. And there's clear evidence that Iran is the state
that's fostering much of the suicide bombing and financing, et cetera,
et cetera. What do you do about Iran? I mean, it's one thing to change
the leadership in Palestine, but what about Iran?
The second part is, what signal was the President trying to send
today? Obviously a foreign policy issue, it's clear that you and
Secretary Powell were there. But why Defense Secretary Rumsfeld? What
was his purpose there today?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, let me start with the second
point, which is that this speech and the policy behind it is a product
of the President's National Security Council principals. It was one of
the most intensive involvements -- it is the most intensive
involvement of the principals that I've experienced in the time that
I've been here. The Vice President would have been there as well,
except he's traveling today. This is a policy that is an NSC
principals' product, and we all wanted to be there with the President
when he put it forward. Everybody has been very involved.
On the first point, about Iran, Iran is mentioned. And it is, in a
sense, singled out. There's something else said about Syria, which is
that Syria has got to make a choice. But on Iran, we've got to bring
pressure on Iran, through all means necessary, including those states
that deal with Iran, to get Iran to stop support for Hezbollah, and to
stop the kind of thing that they did with the Karine-A in providing
arms into the region.
So it was a very strong call to isolate Iran in this regard. Again,
the President said, you're either for peace or you're against peace,
and you cannot be for terror and be for peace.
Q: Will Secretary Powell or Director Tenet, anybody else, deal
directly with Arafat in the meantime, while he still is the head of
the Palestinian Authority? And if so, how would you expect that to
work? And if not, are things just in suspension until he's in place?
And then when will Secretary Powell go to the region?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Secretary Powell doesn't have a
schedule of when he will go to the region. He's going to do some more
consultations. I think he'll go when he thinks it's best and most
likely to produce some movement forward.
In terms of who we deal with, what is very clear and what the
President said is this is not about one person. This is a call for the
emergence of leaders who are committed to dealing with the terrorist
problem, who are committed to doing the right things for their own
people. And we expect that leadership to start to emerge.
Q: So in the meantime do you deal with Arafat or not?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: This is not about one person, this is
a matter of the emergence of leadership ready to deal with these
problems.
Q: Right. So when somebody goes to the region before there is new
leadership, do you talk to Powell -- or to Arafat?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think we'll talk to Powell, sure.
(Laughter.) This is not about one person. This is about the emergence
of leadership. There are Palestinian leaders and there is a reform
energy in the Palestinian territories I think we want to encourage.
David.
Q: Two questions. First, on the decision to openly task the
Palestinian people to find new leadership, can you tell us a little
bit about the pros and cons and your own internal debates about going
that far? Because certainly we've asked the question here at this
podium many times, and we have never gotten an answer that was quite
like what the President said today, which was the Palestinian people
have to elect new leadership before this process can go forward.
Secondly, it seemed in the speech as if you are calling on the
Palestinians to make a series of changes before Israel really needs to
go do anything, which suggests that maybe you're back a little bit to
where you were before April 4th, which was security first, then we can
move forward. Can you address that?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, David, on the second point, I
don't see how political and economic reform is security first.
Political and economic reform is a part of getting a more secure
environment, because when you have a Palestinian leadership that is
devoted to its people and not -- and to the best needs of its people
-- to the needs of its people, not to stoking its grievances, you will
undoubtedly get a better security situation.
But the President, unlike a lot of people, by the way, was focusing
very much here on the Palestinian people and making their lives
better. Now, he did make clear that as things begin to move -- and we
have every reason to believe that if there is resolute -- resoluteness
on the part of the Palestinians, this can all move fairly quickly --
that as things move, the Israelis do need to address questions of
freedom of movement; they do need to allow innocent Palestinians to go
back to work. And as the security situation improves, they're going to
need to move their forces back.
But the fact is that the terror is an obstacle. You need a leadership
and you need reforms and institutions, including reforms of the
security apparatus, that will make it possible to do something about
the dire situation of security. But I don't see how you can say this
is security first, when what you're really talking about is a brighter
future for the Palestinian people, in which you have reform of
institutions, economic reforms, and ultimately leading to elections.
This is very different than talking just about security first.
Q: Can you address the first question?
Q: Just two quick ones. Who decides that these reforms are legitimate,
that there has been enough reform in the political system or in the
judicial system? The President laid out a whole host of areas that
have to be reformed. Who becomes the judge of that? And then,
secondly, between last week and today, delivery of the speech, with
the violence, did the violence of last week change at all the texture
of the message that we heard today?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I would say that what the violence did
was to make the President more resolute to go out and show people a
way that is different than the way that they are in. I will tell you
-- my colleague could check my memory on this -- but, frankly, before
the violence escalated again, before the suicide bombings started
again, we had planned to report more on our consultations and use that
as the way forward. This gave the President a new passion, or a
stronger passion than he's even had -- which he's been very strong --
that a two-state solution, which he said all the way back at the UNGA,
that a two-state solution is the way to get there, and a determination
to lay this out as a different way.
So, in that sense, I think the violence did change the character of
the speech. It also crystallized again the fact that the
disappointments that we've had with the Palestinian leadership --
finally you have to say: something has to change, something has to be
different.
I'm sorry, the first part?
Q: The part was, when -- if the Palestinians do follow through and
start reforms, who decides that the reforms are correct?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, this is performance based. And
you will see as a result of reforms -- it's not just putting down new
things on paper, or rearranging ministries, it is beginning to see
results, beginning to see a Palestinian leadership that does the
things that we have long known need to be done to fight terror: arrest
people, break up these militias, do something about the accountability
when it comes to finances. These will be measures that will be pretty
easy to see. And I think that when the Palestinian leadership is
performing those tasks, the United States will be ready to move
forward.
Q: Did the -- I just want to draw out one more point on Jean's
question. Was the President prepared to say last week, before the back
to back attacks, that there must be new leadership?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The President has always believed that
new institutions and new processes and more democracy in the
Palestinian political space would lead to a new leadership that was
willing and able to take on these tasks.
If you go back, he effectively -- when he was with President Mubarak
-- said this is not about one person, this is about getting the
Palestinian people the kind of leadership that they need. So it's been
there. But, yes, it became more explicit when looking at the way
things have unfolded over the last week or so, you wonder how long the
hopes and dreams of the Palestinian people are going to be held
hostage to an -- held hostage to a few terrorists, because they're --
because the Palestinian leaders will not challenge those terrorists,
and break down these terrorist networks.
Q: Can I just follow, to ask you a quick technical -- can you tell us
how the provisional borders would be ascertained? If we ever get to a
provisional Palestine, who would determine those borders?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, there are a couple of stages
here. You would get through reform, creation of institutions, and then
there are certain aspects of security arrangements, perhaps including
what the initial boundaries might look like for freedom of movement,
and so forth, that have to be worked out. And it's not just with
Israel, but also with Jordan and with Egypt.
The boundaries of such a state, though, really are left to final
status agreement. Those have to be negotiated between the Israelis and
the Palestinians as part of final status. Let me just remind everybody
that this is actually not a mutant form in international politics.
There have been states whose boundaries, whose borders were
provisional, as well as certain aspects of their sovereignty
throughout history. Germany was one such state between 1949 and 1990,
when its boundaries were not fixed, and when it operated on a basic
law rather than a constitution until 1990, when the 2-plus-4 was
signed.
Q: But there would be a provisional boundary before final status
negotiations, that --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: There may have to be some arrangements
that would be made so that you could get freedom of movement and
continuity and those kinds of things. But those would have to be
arranged with the neighbors.
It's important, though, not to focus so much here on boundaries,
because the boundaries of such a state would be part of the final
status agreement. And there's been a tendency to always focus on what
are the borders going to be, but a state is, of course, a lot more
than its borders. It's its institutions, its practices. And that's
what the President drew attention to today.
Q: I want to ask you, the President made clear in the speech he needs
the help of the Arab countries. In the past, countries like Egypt,
Jordan, Saudi Arabia have backed Arafat; in spite of all the problems,
they've come out and called him the legitimate leader of the
Palestinian people. What -- how can the President get that to change
now?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: What the President is talking about
here is a process. It's a process that we're all familiar with, which
is that you have institutional reform, constitutional reform, and you
hold elections. And those elections produce, then, new leadership. And
what we do know is that our Arab partners are very concerned with the
current situation and they know that change has got to come to carry
out the current situation.
We will go out and we will work with people, but the reform piece and
the emergence of new leadership is extremely important to us.
Let me take just --
Q: Excuse me. Syria -- the President also mentioned Syria. Syria so
far has kept away from a negotiating role, basically backing some of
the terrorist groups. How do you expect Syria to come around?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I thought the message was pretty
clear to Syria today, that they can't play both sides of this fence;
that Syria is going to have to make a choice, and that Syria also, if
it does not make the right choice, needs to be isolated by those who
wish to pursue peace.
Jim.
Q: The President has been on the record in favor of a Palestinian
state, as you say, since his UNGA speech. A number of the reforms he
called for today he's laid out beginning early this spring. How did
today's speech change things? How did it move the ball forward in ways
that weren't already the case before he spoke?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Jim, I think it's comprehensive in
that it sets out a way forward or a kind of program for everybody to
rally around. And that means that you start with reforms of the
institutions, you create a constitution, you have elections, you get
new leadership, you have new institutions. That leads then to a state
whose boundaries are still provisional and who -- some other aspects
of its sovereignty is still provisional, but you then have a partner
for negotiation of the final status agreement. And that then reformed
democratic terrorist fighting state becomes a true partner for Israel
in the final status to determine things like borders and the capital
and so forth and so on. So I think it's more programmatic. It does
suggest a pathway that leads ultimately toward a comprehensive peace.
Last question. Yes.
Q: What makes you so certain that Arafat would not be the elected
leader if there were a reform of the institutions? And what would the
U.S. response be if, in fact, there were elections and he were
elected?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I think the United States has
made very clear today that something has to change. And that the
expectation is that people understand that new leadership
uncompromised by terror is uncompromised by terror, so that the state
isn't built on the basis of terror, is the way that the United States
can support the creation of a Palestinian state. And that is the way
forward.
If you cannot get new leadership that is uncompromised by terror, if
you cannot get a leadership that is actively fighting terror, if
you're not getting a leadership that is, in fact, doing the things
that its people need done, including using finances well on behalf of
its people -- that is, corruption has been taken away as a factor --
it's going to be very hard to get to the kind of Palestinian state
that the President is talking about and the United States cannot move
there until those circumstances obtain.
Sorry, got to go. Thanks.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
