31 May 2003
Rice Says U.S. Desires to Spread Freedom, Make World More Secure
(Says U.S. bears "disproportionate responsibility" for this) (6090)
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, in an interview in
Washington with foreign print journalists May 29, on the eve of
President Bush's departure on a trip to Europe and the Middle East,
said the United States bears "a disproportionate responsibility" for
the security of the international community, and U.S. actions in Iraq,
Afghanistan and in the war on terror are motivated by the desire "to
make the world more secure" and to try to spread freedom.
Rice was responding to questions by Canadian, German and French
journalists about U.S. relations with their governments now, following
their opposition to the U.S. military action to remove Iraq's Saddam
Hussein from power.
On U.S.-Canadian relations, Rice said, "This is a relationship that's
important to us, it's a good relationship. We have been through some
difficult times. I think there was disappointment in the United States
that a friend like Canada was unable to support the United States in
what we considered to be an extremely important issue for our
security."
"And that disappointment will, of course, not go easily. It will take
some time, because when friends are in a position where we say our
security's at stake, we would have thought, as we got from any of our
friends, that the answer would have been, well, how can we help."
On German-U.S. relations, Rice said, "Again, I think there was
disappointment in the response of the German government to what the
United States was doing (on Iraq), because we've come to expect so
much of our alliance and of our friendship. But, that is done. We've
had good cooperation in getting Resolution 1483 through in the
Security Council. I think very few people would have expected a 14-0
resolution -- victory in the resolution. It's a victory for the Iraqi
people that allows us now to do what we need to do on the ground in
Iraq. We've been through some difficult times. We're getting through
those times, and relations between Germany and the United States will
continue. I can't answer the question of whether personal relations
between the President and the Chancellor will ever be the same. We
will have to see."
On French-U.S. relations, Rice said that France "is an ally. It's a
member of NATO. It's a part of the transatlantic alliance. Of course,
it's an ally."
But she expressed disappointment about "the episode in which we've
just been through. ... There were times that it appeared that American
power was seen to be more dangerous than, perhaps, Saddam Hussein.
I'll just put it very bluntly. We simply didn't understand it. What
was to be checked? The United States and France stand for the same
things. We stand for liberty. We stand for freedom. We stand for human
rights. We are a people who have been prosperous, and benefited from
liberty. We have been allies in great struggles in world wars. The
United States gave its blood to liberate France. And perhaps Americans
couldn't understand why it was not considered a worthy cause to
liberate Iraq.
"So, yes, there is a lot of consternation about the way that this was
posed. We also thought that we had a common understanding that there
was no conflict between a European identity and a transatlantic
identity. And so we couldn't quite understand why the East Europeans
were told to behave themselves, and that they shouldn't somehow choose
to support the United States, it would somehow undermine their
European identity. We just couldn't understand it.
"So, these things happen, and what's important now is how we move
forward. 1483 was a good start because rather than getting into
theological discussions about the role of the U.N. and so forth, we
got down to a practical discussion about what we needed to be able to
do on behalf of the Iraqi people. So that was a very good start.
"I'm sure that there are important things that we can do to advance
the agenda in the Middle East. There are important things that we can
do to advance the agenda on nonproliferation. And if we can now focus
on these common tasks and these common goals, remembering that we
share values, I think the relationship will be just fine. If we fall
back on, somehow, a debate about whether the United States needs to be
constrained, then, no, America's not going to understand that
argument."
In the interview, Rice also was questioned about Iran, North Korea,
Italy and its pending presidency of the European Union, Russia,
missile defense policy, post-Saddam Iraq, the Middle East and the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Following is a transcript of the Rice interview:
(begin transcript)
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
May 29, 2003
INTERVIEW OF NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR DR. CONDOLEEZZA RICE BY FOREIGN
PRINT JOURNALISTS
Office of the National Security Advisor
DR. RICE: Welcome. Happy to do it. On the record. So why don't we just
start with your questions. And we'll just go this way.
Q: Okay. I'll do the Canadian one, then, as my friend, James, has
talked a bit about the troublesome Canadians of late. Our Prime
Minister had some comments about the deficit, the run-up in costs in
the U.S. and, in fact, on the global economy. How would you
characterize, now, U.S.-Canada relations, particularly
Ottawa-Washington, try to political eyeball it? Are we in a bit of a
trough, and do you see some light at the end of the tunnel?
DR. RICE: Well, I would certainly not say that we are anything that
resembles a trough. This is a relationship that's important to us,
it's a good relationship. We have been through some difficult times. I
think there was disappointment in the United States that a friend like
Canada was unable to support the United States in what we considered
to be an extremely important issue for our security. The American
motives in doing what we have done in Iraq, or what we had to do in
Afghanistan, or in the war on terrorism, have to do with trying to
make the world more secure because a disproportionate responsibility
falls on the United States for the security of the international
community, and to try and spread freedom. These are values that we
share with our longtime friends.
And so, yes, there was some disappointment that there seemed to be
some questioning of American motives, and some lack of understanding
that we were simply trying to do this in support of our own security,
in support of everyone else's security. And that disappointment will,
of course, not go easily. It will take some time, because when friends
are in a position where we say our security's at stake, we would have
thought, as we got from any of our friends, that the answer would have
been, well, how can we help.
That said, we continue to have very fruitful relations with Canada,
particularly in counterterrorism. We made a lot of progress on border
security. The homeland security directors have been constant
companions these days. I think that all of North America is safer
because of the work that we have been able to do about -- given our
common border. The trading relationship is extremely important. Of
course, we have our differences about this or that product, but it's a
very fruitful trade relationship.
And the President is going to go to Evian to talk about global
economic growth. And he believes, and many support him in this belief,
that what he has done to stimulate the American economy with the tax
cut that has just passed, is and the other measures that are contained
within -- that that stimulus will lead to greater economic growth and
more jobs. And one of the great beneficiaries of that will be, of
course, Canada, because it's an economy that is extremely connected to
the American economy. And so, the President is doing what he can to
stimulate economic growth.
Q: Great, thank you.
Q: Switching over to Germany, how would you evaluate German-American
relations eight months after you described them as poisoned? Can Mr.
Bush and Mr. Schroeder achieve the same level of cordiality as there
was in the past? And is there anything the German government can do in
this respect? Or would you say, yes, return to the good old days is
possible, but only with a new German government?
DR. RICE: No, we will always have an important and good relationship
with Germany. It goes a long way back into the history of our two
countries. It's been fruitful in, of course, the bringing about the
end of the Cold War, and the unification of Germany.
Again, I think there was disappointment in the response of the German
government to what the United States was doing, because we've come to
expect so much of our alliance and of our friendship. But, that is
done. We've had good cooperation in getting Resolution 1483 through in
the Security Council. I think very few people would have expected a
14-0 resolution -- victory in the resolution. It's a victory for the
Iraqi people that allows us now to do what we need to do on the ground
in Iraq. We've been through some difficult times. We're getting
through those times, and relations between Germany and the United
States will continue. I can't answer the question of whether personal
relations between the President and the Chancellor will ever be the
same. We will have to see.
Q: Dr. Rice, very soon President Bush will meet with Vladimir Putin,
and certainly there will be a two -- among others -- two important
issues on the agenda in St. Petersburg. One is Iraq -- one is Iran,
and also is Iraq. Are you expecting that Moscow can make a step
forward to U.S. position, and to share your concern about nuclear
program in Iran? And the second part of this question, do you see any
role for Russia in postwar reconstruction in Iraq, especially in oil
sector?
DR. RICE: I am quite certain that, as to the last question about the
role in postwar Iraq, that we are going to welcome, as I think the
Iraqi people will, all interested countries that want to help in the
reconstruction of Iraq.
We have to do it in a way that is respectful of, and supportive of, a
new Iraq. In other words, things cannot be done the way that they were
done with Saddam Hussein's regime. It will be a democratic regime; it
will be a forward-looking regime; it will eventually be a regime that
we believe will look to market principles to run its economy. And much
of this will have to be left to the new Iraqi government when it's
finally formed.
But I see no reason that Russia should not have very strong relations
with a new Iraq, and important economic relations with a new Iraq. In
terms of Iran, the United States has long said that there was a
problem in Iran, that the Iranians were, perhaps, using peaceful --
what they called peaceful nuclear research, and nuclear -- development
of civilian nuclear reactors to mask a larger program in -- that was
leading to a nuclear weapons program. And I think very disturbing
things have been found by the IAEA. We will see what the IAEA report
says about what Iran has been doing. But there are very real reasons
to be concerned about Iran.
Now, we've been in discussions with the Russian Federation about Iran
for some time. I think we've made some progress in a better
understanding about how to make certain that Iran cannot use its
civilian nuclear programs for the advancement of its military goals.
And we're going to continue to have those discussions with the
Russians. Minister Rumyantsev and Secretary Abraham have had
particularly fruitful discussions in this regard, and I think those
are going to continue.
Q: Thank you.
Q: Italy. The Prime Minister, as you know, was along with the United
States on the Iraq question. I understand that there's a discussion
coming, probably, in July, when -- the presidency of the -- the
presidency of the European Union. I also understand that Secretary
Powell is visiting Rome.
DR. RICE: I believe he does plan to visit Rome, yes.
Q: Yes, and also Iraq. So I would like to know, do you expect that
with an Italian presidency you will have closer relationship with the
European Union? And do you also -- can you also explain the purpose of
the visit of Secretary Powell to the Vatican?
DR. RICE: We certainly will have a good relationship with Prime
Minister Berlusconi because we have had one from the very beginning.
And it is a strong relationship. The President and the Prime Minister
have a close, personal relationship. They see the world much the same
way.
Italy was extremely helpful and supportive as we were trying to deal
with the threat from Saddam Hussein, and it's greatly appreciated that
the Prime Minister took that course. Italy, I think, will be involved
in its own way in the reconstruction of Iraq. And that will be greatly
appreciated. I should say, Italy was supportive of and able to
support, not through combat mission, but the military mission in which
we were engaged. So this is a full complement, a full-scale
cooperation with Italy on matters of Iraq.
But, of course, it doesn't stop there. The Prime Minister and the
President have had wide-ranging discussions about Afghanistan, where
Italy, again, is playing an important role in the reconstruction of
Afghanistan.
Now, when Italy is in the EU presidency, we expect to have close
relations. But let me do -- let me say that we've had good relations
with the EU presidencies that have -- with every EU presidency that I
can remember during the time that we've been in office. We've had a
fruitful one with the Greek presidency which will be ending.
I think the real issue is for the United States and the EU to get
moving on the common and somewhat difficult agenda that we have ahead
of us. For instance, on the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, we mentioned Iran as a concern, and what the IAEA may
come up with there. I'm sure we will, during this session, have
something on North Korea, where we have a proliferation concern. We
need to be able to do something about weapons of mass destruction. We
should never get into the situation again in which we got into with
Iraq, where you had a very firm set of resolutions against the Iraqis
that said, do this, they refused to do it, and nobody was willing to
do anything about it for 12 years. You can't have bad actors who are
violating all kinds of international obligations that they've
voluntarily undertaken, and have the international community do
nothing about it. And so I think with bodies like the EU, we will want
to develop a common agenda on questions like on nonproliferation.
We also have other issues that are of interest. The EU -- of course,
we have important work to do together to get the Doha trade round, to
get it going again, and to make certain that we can liberalize trade.
Because we're going to have at the G8 a long discussion about poverty
alleviation, and with the NEPAD there, and others, nothing will help
these countries more than trade with them. And the developed countries
need to figure out how to get the Doha trade round completed so that
we can liberalize trade.
Q: Dr. Rice, would the administration like to see a change of regime
in Iran?
DR. RICE: We'd certainly like to see a regime in Iran that is
responsive to the Iranian people. The Iranian people have had an
opportunity to voice their preferences. And every time they have an
opportunity to voice those preferences, they look to a regime that is
-- that protects the rights of women, that is forward-looking and
modern. That has been the preference freely expressed by the Iranian
people.
What they've gotten is, instead, a regime that has done everything
that it can to thwart those aspirations, because they elect one part
of the government, and the unelected part of the government, then,
makes certain that the aspirations of the Iranian people are not
carried out.
Instead, the Iranian regime pursues a program to support terrorism
around the world, to support terrorism -- to support Hezbollah, to
support terrorism in the Middle East, to ship arms into the Middle
East. It supports a program that is using -- that is in violation of
its international agreements to try and build a weapons of mass
destruction program, a nuclear weapons program. It is a program that
seems intent on harboring al Qaeda leaders on Iranian territory, and
not dealing forthrightly with that problem. So what we'd like to see
in Iran is a regime that is responsive to its people, and we believe
if you have a regime that is responsive to its people, it would be a
regime that would be more concerned about the declining prosperity of
the Iranian people, about the isolation of the Iranian people, than
about pursuing an aggressive agenda based on terrorism and weapons of
mass destruction.
Q: So the policy of the administration would be regime change?
DR. RICE: The policy of the administration is that the Iranian regime
should start to act like the elected regime -- like an elected regime
that is pursuing the aspirations of the Iranian people. That's the
American position. And we have a long list of things with the Iranians
that they clearly are not doing in that regard.
Q: Can you just explain what the difference is between that and regime
change?
DR. RICE: I've made American policy clear.
Q: May I have a very quick follow-up to that one? Isn't the danger
coming out of Iran not bigger than the danger of Iraq and of Saddam
Hussein, relating to the support of terrorists and the nuclear
program?
DR. RICE: There are dangers coming out Iran, and there were dangers
coming out of Iraq, and I don't think you need to rank order them.
These are -- the regime in Iraq, in terms of its pursuit of weapons of
mass destruction, in terms of its support for terrorists, in terms of
its -- of what it said to the international community that it was, for
12 years under international sanctions, under resolutions that it
refused to live up to -- what that said about the ability of the world
to actually deal with bad regimes, I think that in itself was a huge
threat because it gave support and succor to other bad regimes that
watched this regime violate the obligations that it undertook, watched
this regime simply fly in the face of its international obligations,
watched this regime defy the United Nations under Chapter 7.
I think that, in itself, was an enormous danger. And an important
lesson has, perhaps, been given to those who are bad regimes that that
can't be tolerated by the international community.
The other thing I have to say is that if you look at what is being
found in Iraq, you see a regime that took great wealth and squandered
it on a few while it impoverished its people at a level that I think
nobody fully understood; and that brutalized its people at a level
that -- and with an efficiency, if I can call it that, that probably
hasn't been seen since the totalitarian regimes of Joseph Stalin and
Adolf Hitler -- mass graves of this kind, torture chambers of this
kind, a Baath Party that was intimidating and terrorizing the Iraqi
people, a regime sitting -- a modern regime sitting in the middle of
the Middle East with aspirations that were such that it started wars
with its neighbors twice in the last 15 years. This is a very, very
dangerous regime. And the world is a lot better off without it.
Q: Going to France, and not about regime change -- (laughter) -- it is
difficult to understand what is the assessment in this administration
of the situation with France. Is still France an ally, as the rhetoric
goes? Or is it viewed as being kind of on probation, and with a kind
of question mark to, as regards to the level of cooperation in the
fields where cooperation is still possible with France?
DR. RICE: Of course, France is an ally. It's a member of NATO. It's a
part of the transatlantic alliance. Of course, it's an ally.
What was particularly disappointing about the situation in which we've
just been through, the episode in which we've just been through, is
that there were times that it appeared that American power was seen to
be more dangerous than, perhaps, Saddam Hussein. I'll just put it very
bluntly. We simply didn't understand it. What was to be checked? The
United States and France stand for the same things. We stand for
liberty. We stand for freedom. We stand for human rights. We are a
people who have been prosperous, and benefited from liberty. We have
been allies in great struggles in world wars. The United States gave
its blood to liberate France. And perhaps Americans couldn't
understand why it was not considered a worthy cause to liberate Iraq.
So, yes, there is a lot of consternation about the way that this was
posed. We also thought that we had a common understanding that there
was no conflict between a European identity and a transatlantic
identity. And so we couldn't quite understand why the East Europeans
were told to behave themselves, and that they shouldn't somehow choose
to support the United States, it would somehow undermine their
European identity. We just couldn't understand it.
So, these things happen, and what's important now is how we move
forward. 1483 was a good start because rather than getting into
theological discussions about the role of the U.N. and so forth, we
got down to a practical discussion about what we needed to be able to
do on behalf of the Iraqi people. So that was a very good start.
I'm sure that there are important things that we can do to advance the
agenda in the Middle East. There are important things that we can do
to advance the agenda on nonproliferation. And if we can now focus on
these common tasks and these common goals, remembering that we share
values, I think the relationship will be just fine. If we fall back
on, somehow, a debate about whether the United States needs to be
constrained, then, no, America's not going to understand that
argument.
Q: When you said, the Middle East, do you think that the encounter
between Villepin and Yasser Arafat was the kind of help that the
French government could bring to this process?
DR. RICE: I do not understand the continuing interest in Arafat in
this regard. The fact is that the Palestinian people need leadership
that is committed to fighting terrorism. That has never been Arafat.
The Palestinian people need leadership that will focus on their needs
and on trying to get to a Palestinian state that is peaceful and
prosperous, rather than someone who simply stokes their grievances.
That has never been Arafat.
We believe that the future is with the new Palestinian leadership, and
that that's where the focus and concentration needs to be. That's been
the American position since the President's June 24th speech almost a
year ago. But we will see whether or not the world can now mobilize to
help the new Palestinian leadership to do what it needs to do. The one
message that should go out to Mr. Arafat is that he should not stand
in the way of the fulfillment of a Palestinian state for his people.
Q: May I ask about North Korea? Recently, the President had a meeting
with Japanese Prime Minister and the Korean President. So (inaudible)
escalation over the situation with North Korea would require tougher
measures, or further steps for -- (inaudible) -- to communicate. Could
you please clarify or explain the meaning of the tougher measures? Is
it including the military option, economic sanction, or is it --
DR. RICE: Well, I don't think it would take any options off the table.
But the President has said that he believes the peaceful resolution of
this problem is completely possible. I think what they were referring
to, the President and the Prime Minister were referring to, is that
the North Koreans seem to believe that the way to enter the
international community of states is to blackmail their way in. And
it's not going to work. It's simply not going to work. The North
Koreans were doing relatively well last summer when they were -- the
North-South dialogue was accelerating, real links, and the like,
beginning to come into being. The Japanese Prime Minister, of course,
went to North Korea to talk about a pathway to normalization.
Secretary Powell met with the North Korea Foreign Minister in Brunei.
And the North Koreans take that fruitful course, and somehow, instead,
turn it into making declarations about their nuclear weapons programs,
and their willingness to do all kinds of horrible things. And somehow
they believe that's the way they're going to get people to take them
seriously? It's not going to happen.
And so, we will see what steps are needed when. But the key now is
that all states, particularly the states in the region -- Japan, South
Korea, China, Russia, and others -- make very clear to the North
Koreans that this is not the way out of the box in which they find
themselves. We have offered, we are not afraid to talk to the North
Koreans, we've offered to have multilateral talks with them at any
time. But they have to be fruitful, and they can't be a forum for the
North Koreans to continue to grandstand and try to blackmail.
So we'll be discussing as time goes on what steps we, as an
international community, may want to take. But the most important step
right now is to have a unified position of interested states in the
world community that -- saying that they're going to -- to blackmail
the world into accepting them simply isn't going to work.
Q: Do you have a plan to link or connect Japanese abductions cases to
the negotiations?
DR. RICE: The President was very clear that the Japanese abduction
cases are a priority, also, for the United States, that we abhor what
the North Koreans have done. And it is on the agenda. We don't talk to
the North Koreans that often -- (laughter) -- but it is on the agenda.
Q: Is the President having exchanges with the Pope lately?
DR. RICE: We've had several exchanges with the Vatican over -- we
continually talk to the Vatican. We have a representative there. And
so, not in -- not particularly in the most recent times, but we have
constant contact with the Vatican through our ambassador to the
Vatican. And, of course, the President was able to have an audience
with the Pope last year.
Q: About Iraq, what is the situation of the stabilization force now?
And do you think that at some point, and when, NATO could be called to
take responsibilities?
DR. RICE: I think there's a possibility that NATO might need to
exercise some responsibility. I don't know to what extent. There's
some -- we will probably help Poland in its obligations to take on a
sector, the nature of that help yet to be determined.
NATO is about to take on responsibilities in Afghanistan. And I think
that's extremely important. It's going to take some time on Iraq. This
is a country that was under brutal dictatorship for decades. It is a
country where the Baath Party brutalized and terrorized people, and
where remnants still try to do so. And it is a country that is
emerging from a national nightmare, and it will take some time.
For instance, Saddam Hussein, we know, released thousands of
criminals, common criminals, onto the streets as the war was ending.
Well, common criminals have gone -- gone back to doing what common
criminals do. And so one of the goals has been to get police forces
and to change, somewhat, the nature of the military presence for more
patrol, and the like.
Most of the country is quite stable. And in much of the country,
you're having normal life return and a kind of normal politics
beginning. Baghdad is a problem. And we're paying tremendous attention
now to security in Baghdad and to returning services in Baghdad. And
that has become a real focal point.
But we shouldn't lose sight of what the Iraqi people have gained here.
They are finally free of this monstrous regime. Their lives will get
better. They will be able to pursue a future unafraid of the kind of
repression that they've suffered. And I think the best thing is that
the international community really seems ready to try and role up its
sleeves and help. That is how I read the 14-0 vote on 1483, that
people understand that whatever you thought of the decision to
liberate Iraq, that the Iraqi people who have suffered greatly deserve
a chance. And I think you'll see a very concerted international effort
to reconstruct.
Q: Regarding the summit at Aqaba, do you expect general declarations
or specific commitments? And if there is a signal of hope, will there
be a U.S. special envoy put on track, or monitors?
DR. RICE: First of all, the President is going because he wants to sit
down, face-to-face, eye-to-eye, with these leaders, and say, all
right, it's now time for all of us to take on our responsibilities for
this moment in time to advance the peace. And they will have a
discussion of those responsibilities. How that will get expressed, I
think we will see.
But this is not to try to put together some kind of work program. This
is really to sit down, and for everybody to challenge themselves to
use this moment to try and achieve a peace. We will look at what
organization of the U.S government to fulfill that commitment is best.
Clearly, the President has challenged all of his senior people that
this is an extremely important moment, and a very, very high priority
for him.
So whether there's a special envoy or not, whether there is a
monitoring mechanism or not, the commitment of the U.S. government is
being expressed by the President himself, and you're going to see, I
think, a lot of commitment and activity of senior people to try and
move this forward.
Q: A quick question.
DR. RICE: Yes.
Q: Russia was criticizing for quite a long time U.S. national missile
defense. But now, somehow, Moscow wants to participate in this
program. What's your reaction? What's your position?
DR. RICE: We're obviously delighted that Russia wants to participate.
We want Russia to participate, because missile defense, we have always
seen as, literally, defensive. It didn't threaten anyone to have -- it
doesn't threaten anyone to have missile defense. The whole purpose of
missile defense is to deal with exactly the kinds of elements that
we've been talking about here -- the rogue element, or the hostile
state with ones, and twos, and threes of weapons of mass destruction,
and the ability to deliver them by ballistic missile. And so, it is a
part of -- the missile defense is a part of the response of the
civilized world to the threats of the 21st century.
What we had to go through with Russia was to break out of the mind-set
of the Cold War that believed that large offensive forces and missile
defenses led to an instability in the relationship. Well, the
instability in the relationship between the United States and the
Soviet Union was not because we had large numbers of nuclear weapons
and might, or might not, have had missile defenses. It was because we
were adversaries. That was the instability. When the United States and
Russia were no longer enemies, where was the source of instability?
I think with the decision to move beyond the ABM Treaty with the
Treaty of Moscow, which reduces dramatically American and Russian
ballistic missile forces, nuclear forces, we have a new start on how
to now create a stable relationship for the entire civilized world
that takes advantage of all of the possibilities that we have, and the
technologies that we are working on on missile defenses -- just one of
those possibilities. And it will be, I think, when we and Russia are
working together in that regard.
You have the last question.
Q: May I ask one question? You know, when you talk about these mass
graves, I can't help wondering what the administration is doing or
thinking about U.S. responsibilities to Congo. You hear these
increasingly alarming reports about millions and millions of people
dying, and we don't hear anything from the White House. At least, I
haven't -- maybe I'm missing something -- about U.S. involvement, or
U.S. concerns about the Congo.
DR. RICE: Well, in fact, the President, in New York last year during
the UNGA, met with, first, President Mbeki to encourage his efforts,
and with the Presidents of Rwanda and Uganda and of the DRLC, to try
and push forward the peace agreement that was actually put in place.
And there were constant discussions, particularly with President
Kagame of Rwanda, and President Kabila of the DRLC, and with President
Museveni of Uganda to try to get the withdrawal of those forces. So
the United States was very actively involved in getting the withdrawal
of those forces.
We're now actively involved with the U.N. and with Secretary General
Annan in trying to get a multinational force -- stabilization,
peacekeeping force. And the French will probably take the lead. But
there are a number of other countries that are considering
contributing to what -- I think Canada is considering contributing.
The United States is going to try and help through intelligence, and
perhaps logistical support, and other ways.
So we've been extremely active on the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. I can tell you that I, myself, personally, and Secretary
Powell, personally, have been in phone calls to try and create a
better situation there. And some progress has been made because the
withdrawal of Ugandan and Rwandan forces at least gives the
possibility for stability. Now, it is a constant struggle, and it's a
tenuous situation to keep this in place. But it's a very active -- the
Great Lakes area is a very active diplomatic front for us.
Q: Thank you.
DR. RICE: Thank you.
DR. RICE: -- the offensive forces and defensive forces were starting
to come up, which you get into a position in which it looked like it
was safe to launch a nuclear attack.
Well, that was in a time when you had a Warsaw Pact and you had Soviet
forces deep into the heart of Europe. And everybody -- nobody worried
that just one day, the Soviet Secretary General of the Communist
Party, General Secretary of the Communist Party, might get up and
launch an attack against the United States. There was a fear that
you'd have a conventional war in Europe, and that would lead, then, to
an unstable situation.
So people worried about this very careful balance between American and
Soviet strategists. Well, who can imagine the circumstance under which
you'd have a war in Europe today, of that kind, with Soviet forces
heading across the German plain? It's just not conceivable. So we had
to get out of that one incident and start to think about what missile
defense could do to deal with today's threats, which is the threat of
a North Korea armed with ballistic missiles, or an Iran armed with
ballistic missiles. And I think once we broke the Cold War hold, a lot
of countries really started moving in -- .
Q: Interesting. Yes, thank you.
Q: Thank you, very much.
DR. RICE: It's a pleasure to be with you.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
