08 June 1999
TRANSCRIPT: RIEDEL URGES PAKISTAN, INDIA TO SHOW RESTRAINT IN KASHMIR
(FPC briefing June 8 on South Asia, Middle East issues) (6530) Washington -- Bruce Riedel, special assistant to President Clinton on Near Eastern and South Asian affairs, addressed journalists at the Foreign Press Center June 8. Riedel began by urging Pakistan and India to show restraint in Kashmir and stressing that the U.S. believes "the best way to resolve this problem is through bilateral discussions." Riedel expressed encouragement that Pakistan's foreign minister will soon visit New Delhi and urged both parties to respect the line of control established during previous conflicts. "Respect for the line of control, and reaffirmation for the line of control is very, very important," Riedel said. "The forces which have crossed the Line should withdraw to where they came from." The U.S. was encouraged by the meeting of the Indian and Pakistani prime ministers at Lahore and said: "the urgency now is to get back to that process of direct conversation." President Clinton still hopes to be able to visit South Asia, Riedel said. "We have an abiding interest in improving, broadening, and deepening our relationship with the one-fifth of mankind that lives in South Asia, and we are determined to do what we can to facilitate that process." Riedel suggested, further, that the two countries "get on with the process of increasing people-to-people contacts, increasing trade, increasing openings between the two." Turning to the Middle East, Riedel said that the U.S. is "encouraged by the decision of the Israeli people to give a strong mandate to a new government to move forward in the peace process. After Prime Minister-elect Barak forms his government, the U.S. hopes "to be able to be in a position, later this summer and fall, to advance the process on all fronts as quickly as possible." "We would like to see an accelerated process of moving Final Status negotiations forward in order to reach at least agreements in principle as soon as possible." At the same time, he conceded that the issues involved in the Arab-Israeli negotiations "are very, very hard issues.... What is called for now is flexibility and creativity." Following is the transcript of Riedel's remarks: (begin transcript) USIA FOREIGN PRESS CENTER BRIEFING TOPIC: U.S POLICY TOWARD THE MIDDLE EAST AND SOUTH ASIA BRIEFER: BRUCE RIEDEL, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND SENIOR ADVISER FOR NEAR EASTERN AND SOUTH ASIAN AFFAIRS MODERATOR: MARJORIE RANSOM 11:38 A.M. EDT TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1999 MR. RIEDEL: Thank you, Marjorie. It is a pleasure to be back again; if I could just set the stage briefly by talking about a few developments in the region and then take your questions. As usual, the area from Morocco to Bangladesh is filled with activity, and there is much that we can talk about today. There are two areas, which I would like to just open with. The first is the Middle East peace process. We are encouraged by the decision of the Israeli people to give a strong mandate to a new government to move forward in the peace process. The president, as you all know, has made advancing the Arab-Israeli peace process one of his highest priorities, not just in this administration but also in his first administration. He has devoted a lot of time and attention, not just in the White House, but at the Wye River, on various trips and in innumerable phone calls and letters, to advancing that process. We are now in the process of waiting for Prime Minister-Elect Barak to form his new government. We look forward to -- when he completes that process -- to engaging in serious and substantive discussions. We hope to be able to be in a position, later this summer and fall, to advance the process on all fronts as quickly as possible. The president has already been engaged, since the election, in discussions with various interlocutors on setting the stage. He hosted the meeting by King Abdullah of Jordan to Washington just a few weeks ago. He will soon be receiving President Mubarak of Egypt. And as I say, we look forward to discussions with the new prime minister once he has his government in order. The second area I would highlight is the situation in South Asia, where we are concerned by the fighting that is going on in Kashmir. We have and will continue to exercise and urge restraint on both sides. We think the best way to resolve this problem is through bilateral discussions between India and Pakistan. And here I am encouraged to note that the Pakistani Foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz will be going to New Delhi in the very near future -- I think maybe this weekend -- in order to try to advance the process in bringing this conflict under control as quickly as possible. Here again, the president has been actively involved in sending letters to both prime ministers, urging restraint, urging a return to the spirit of Lahore, to direct negotiations between the two parties on trying to find ways to improve relations between India and Pakistan. And with those two preliminary remarks, I look forward to your questions, as usual. MS. RANSOM: Yes? Please. Right here. Give him the microphone, please. Q: Raghubir Goyal with Asia Today and India Globe. You said that the U.S. is very much concerned about this conflict or fighting going on. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said that chances are maybe both countries will go to war. And a spokesman in Islamabad said last week that if there is a war between the two countries, Pakistan will use any -- it means he meant "any weapons available" -- that means it could even "nuclear." So how serious is the problem, really? And where U.S. stands today? And any positive change because the president said that they should negotiate on the similar agreement that -- in 1972, signed between then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Mr. Bhutto? MR. RIEDEL: Well, as I said in my opening remarks, we are concerned. This is, as both prime ministers have indicated, a dangerous situation, one in which restraint is urgently required and one in which respect for the line of control and reaffirmation for the line of control is very, very important. I think it is clear that this administration has spent quite a lot of time in the last year in trying to urge both India and Pakistan to take steps to restrain the development of strategic weapons and weapons of mass destruction. As you know, Deputy Secretary Talbott has led a team, which I have been privileged to be a member of, to a region and to other areas in order to try to encourage mutual restraint, increased dialogue between the two. We were very encouraged by what we saw at Lahore. The spirit of bus diplomacy was a brave spirit, and we need to get back to the spirit of bus diplomacy and finding ways to ease tensions, not increase them. Q: If I can just follow quickly on this bus diplomacy -- MS. RANSOM: Okay. Wait for the microphone, please. Q: This bus diplomacy -- when Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee went to Lahore to meet Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, at that time because the troops or militants, 600 to 1,000, doesn't come in one hour or overnight. That means they have been planning for weeks, months, or maybe years. So he knew that militants are already there over the hill. And he never told Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee that we are talking about peace and but we are going to attack you. MR. RIEDEL: I think that it is more useful to focus on what needs to be done to control this situation than to get into a blame game at this point. There is no question that there are those on both sides who would like to increase tensions. The important thing, though, is to focus on how do we decrease these tensions. And as I said earlier, I think both prime ministers showed a great deal of political courage when they met together in Lahore and tried to break down the barriers that have for too long divided India and Pakistan. We need to get on with the process of increasing people to people contacts, increasing trade, increasing openings between the two. Cricket games ought to be the symbol of moving forward, not an opportunity for engaging in blame games and increasing tensions between the two. We have supported that process. The president wrote both prime ministers after Lahore and, in fact, even before Lahore, and urged them to move forward. So as I said, I don't want to engage in castigation or blame. I think the principles upon which we want to move forward are mutual restraint, reaffirmation of the line of control, and intensifying the bilateral dialogue between the two parties. MS. RANSOM: George? Q: George Hishmeh, Gulf News, Dubai. I'm a little perplexed by the Clinton administration's attitude towards the U.N. Here the administration engages in war activities in Yugoslavia without U.N. sanction, but when a settlement is near, it wants -- it agrees to the Security Council playing a role. Again, on the Middle East peace process, it insists that the Middle East peace process is pegged to the two resolutions, and this was a very important one in the opinion of many Palestinians and Arabs, Resolution 181. How do you explain that? Isn't that -- aren't you concerned that this is a factor, one factor why the attitude towards the U.N. and the U.S. is very low? And if I may be allowed a follow-up. MR. RIEDEL: I'm happy to say that Yugoslavia lies outside the boundaries of my area of responsibility. (Laughter.) So I will beg not to answer questions about Yugoslavia. (Laughter.) And the U.N. is also outside my area. (Laughter.) So I will be more specific. We encourage a process of bilateral negotiations between Israel and her Arab neighbors because history has demonstrated that that is the most effective way to reach agreements: the Israeli-Egyptian agreement, the Israeli-Jordanian agreement, the Oslo agreement, the various follow-ups to the Oslo agreement, including the Wye River agreement. That process requires bilateral agreement on what the basis is. The basis that the two parties, Israel and her neighbors, have reached agreement on is Resolutions 242 and 338. At this stage in the process, that remains the basis upon which they are entering into negotiations. We stand, I hope, on the eve of an auspicious era in which we will get back to the negotiating table and move forward. Changing the rules of the game at that point I think would be a mistake. I think we ought to be focusing on encouraging that direct bilateral discussion between the parties. The United States, of course, will play its role, as we have. And as I said in my opening remarks, the president looks forward to rolling up his sleeves and getting progress moving on all tracks. Q: If I may follow up. You know, one of the key U.N. resolutions -- I mean, let me rephrase that. Are you saying that all the U.N. resolutions prior to 242 and 338 are irrelevant? I know one key resolution is 194, for instance, which allows the Palestinian refugees the right of return or compensation. And in fact, as I understand, it has been entered as one of the key discussions in the multilateral process on refugees. How do you feel about that? MR. RIEDEL: I'm not saying any resolutions are relevant or irrelevant. I think one does have to recognize the basis upon which the parties have reached agreement to proceed is 242 and 338, and changing the basis is always a dangerous thing to do in the middle of a negotiations process. Two-four-two and 338 is what the parties have been able to reach significant advancement on over the last two decades, and we continue to support a process based on those resolutions. Q: (Name and affiliation off mike.) Iran confirmed that a group of at least 15 Jews were arrested and charged with espionage for Israel and the United States. What is your comment on that? MR. RIEDEL: Well, we have consistently deplored violation of human rights against any religious group or ethnic group in Iran. We are concerned by this. There is no basis to the charge. We think it is a serious situation, and we would hope that the government of Iran would take quick action in order to resolve it. Q: Mr. Riedel, I'm Halad Mansour (sp) with the Middle East News Agency. I wonder if you can flesh out your remarks a little bit about what is ahead on the peace process in terms of the world map and the time sequencing? Are you suggesting that you will wait and see until Barak finishes his government and then there will be an implementation of the Wye accord? Are you going to revive the multilateral tracks afterwards or before that? What role specifically do you expect from Jordan and Egypt? If you can flesh out? MR. RIEDEL: Sure. By definition, it takes two to tango, and I think we need to let our Israeli friends have the opportunity to put their house in order and put together a government and appoint various ministers. That process is well underway, and I'm confident that Prime Minister Barak will soon be in a position where he's ready to engage. And I think the first step, of course, is going to be for us to have an opportunity at the leader level for the two of them to talk and to share their visions of where we're moving forward. I don't want to speak for Prime Minister Barak; he will soon be having every opportunity to do that himself. What I can say is that our position has long been clear. We want a comprehensive peace, we want to see movement on all tracks. On the Palestinian track, we have an agreed-upon formulation reached at Wye River. We think it's a good deal; the previous government of Israel was a signatory to that deal, and we would like to see it implemented as soon as possible. We would also, and have said for a long time, that we would like to see an accelerated process of moving final status negotiations forward in order to reach at least agreements in principle as soon as possible. And we continue to support that. We would also like to see the Syrian-Israeli track and the Lebanese-Israeli track get back into gear as quickly as possible. And last, but by no means least, we support the multilateral process and a process of engaging the region as a whole in a process of discussions on those issues -- arms control, refugees, water -- that, as you know, the multilateral process was envisioned as dealing with. So, I don't want to paint too rosy a picture, because the issues in front of us are very, very hard issues. We have reached some of the core tough nuts here that we are going to have to deal with. But our goal clearly will be to try to move on as many fronts as possible. We do not see these fronts as a series of zero-sum games in which movement on the Palestinian track has to be at the expense of movement, say, on the Syrian or Lebanese track, or vice versa. Some of the remarks that I have seen from Prime Minister Barak in the last several days, suggests he also does not see this as a series of zero-sum games. MS. RANSOM: Over here. Q: Seema Sirohi, the Telegraph India. I had a three-part question. Is it -- (cross talk) -- it's very quick small questions. Do you believe that the line of control is clearly demarcated? And if so, what do you make of the foreign minister of Pakistan's remarks that: "What is there to discuss? We don't know where the line is"? Number two: According to your assessment, how far in are these infiltrators on the Indian side of the line of control? And from your remarks, I got the feeling that you are equating India and Pakistan in this current problem, because here clearly, the violation has taken place from one side, and the other side is reacting. To say that you don't want to get in the blame game, are you not encouraging those very elements who have planned this kind of operation? MR. RIEDEL: I am not trying to equate the two parties here. I am trying to establish what we think is a reasonable basis for resolution of this problem. We think that the line of control has been demarcated over the years. The two parties have not previously had significant differences about where the line of control is here. We think that that means, in practice, the forces which have crossed the line, should withdraw to where they came from. The urgent step that we need here is to see restraint exercised and a return to the line of control. The president in his communications with both prime ministers, stressed that point. The conflict between India and Pakistan and Kashmir has many origins and a long and tortured history. It is long past the point where it needs to be resolved by the two parties, directly. We saw an encouraging beginning at Lahore. And I think the urgency now is to get back to that process of direct conversation based upon reaffirmation of the line of control and the need for direct communications between the two prime ministers. I hope that is what the foreign minister's visit to Delhi, in the days ahead, will lead us forward. Q: Could you answer the question how far in are these people, and are the Pakistani troops involved? MR. RIEDEL: I am not in a position to give you the blow-by-blow details. I think the better place to get answers to those questions about mileage and kilometers, is Delhi and Islamabad, rather than Washington. MS. RANSOM: Your next question is from the right, in the back there. Q: I'm Jim Anderson, DPA, the German Press Agency. Going back to the Arab-Israeli peace process, what would be the U.S. government view to simply dumping Wye as a lost cause and a time-waster now, and sharpening the focus on the permanent status talks by going directly to them and forgetting about the leftover Wye implementation process? MR. RIEDEL: Well, obviously, we invested, myself included, a great deal of time in the Wye River process. We think it is a useful confidence building measure between the two parties. I don't think the two tracks are incompatible. You could implement Wye, while at the same time beginning the process of final status negotiations. And I think that doing it in parallel rather than seeing them as competing is actually likely to be mutually reinforcing at this stage. The Wye River agreement is a good agreement. It returns some of the fundamentals back onto the bargaining table. It encourages the process of cooperation in the battle against terrorism, which is in both sides' interest; it sets up mechanisms for doing so, and it also allows for the turnover of territory in the West Bank to Palestinian control, which I think encourages a sense of confidence in the Palestinian community that the process is moving forward. Q: (Hershel Melhem ), Radio Monte Carlo. Mr. Riedel, we have, it seems to me, two parallel calendars here. You have Ehud Barak promising the Israelis a withdrawal from Lebanon within a year, which would necessitate negotiations with Syria. You have, on the other hand, an American promise to the Palestinians, and to the rest of the parties, that there will be also a resolution or some sort of an agreement on the final status talks. How realistic is it to expect within one year, given that the president has essentially one year, although Barak has four years, to see real progress on two tracks? I know in the past you had simultaneous negotiations on four tracks, but we've rarely seen real substantive progress on more than one track. How realistic is it to expect that next year will be different than the past, given the criticism that was leveled at the Clinton administration by many people, even including here in Washington, that it was not as engaged as the Bush administration at one time or as the Carter administration at one time, that it remained a facilitator and not really a mediator? I mean, you said it takes two to tango. Obviously, if the Israelis are going to dance with the Syrians, the Americans should be the conductor that provides the background music, and if it's not really a good conductor, then the music will be lousy and the dance will be horrible. (Scattered laughter.) MR. RIEDEL: I think we should be careful how far we take this analogy! (Laughter.) I would say that you will find on the American side a team that is prepared to take on multiple tasks at once; which, as I said, does not regard this as something that has to be a zero-sum game. We have conducted multiple negotiations simultaneously. We had -- during the active phase of the multilateral negotiations, you would frequently have negotiations going on in capitals around the world. We can staff it, and I think you will find the political will here to push on all these fronts. I would take note that among the interactions the president has had since the Israeli election was the phone call to President Assad as well as the phone call to Chairman Arafat. So we think we can staff all the tracks. The question will be questions of political will among all the players, a determination to find flexibility and creativity among all the players. We're prepared to play all kinds of tunes: fast, slow. But in the end, it is the parties that will determine how quickly or how slowly they want to dance. What is called for now is flexibility and creativity, because as I said at the beginning, we are down to some of the really hard issues. There's a commonly -- statement that on the Israeli-Syrian track in the first administration before the talks were suspended we got three-quarters of the way there. Whether or not we actually got three-quarters of the way, I would hasten to add that the last quarter is usually the toughest yards to gain. We should be realistic in our expectations, even as we are determined in our efforts. Q: And do you see the withdrawal from the Jizzin area in south Lebanon by the so-called SLA army, which is supported by Israel, as a prelude, or as lending a great urgency to the Israeli government to move on the northern front, so to speak? MR. RIEDEL: The prime minister-elect has said himself that he attaches a very high priority to this. I think if you recall election night in Israel when he addressed his supporters right after Prime Minister Netanyahu had conceded the race, the first issue he put forward was the question of finding a way to bring the Israeli soldiers home from Lebanon. So I think that underscores the importance he attaches to it. This has gone on far too long. We would hope that there would be a way through negotiations to find an agreement which is to the satisfaction of all the parties involved. MR. RIEDEL: Now, your next questioner is here on the right. Q: Ugo Timbale (sp), Solo 24 Ore (sp), Italy. I assume because of Bibi Netanyahu in these past three years you were overexposed in diplomacy in the Middle East. Are you going to prefer now for the future the bilateral talks, bilateral tracks, rather than other direct involvement of the American administration? And when you will -- when the peace process will be resumed, you will start back from the point you left behind one and a half years ago, more or less, or are you going to change your priorities on the tracks and any other kind of problem in the region? Thank you. MR. RIEDEL: Just like I don't want to engage in the blame game in South Asia, I'd rather not get into a blame game in the Middle East process, either. Let's focus on where we go from here. The first step is for the prime minister to form a government, reach agreement within that government on the principles which will guide it in negotiations. That process is well under way. We then will want to sit down with the prime minister, not just because of the peace process, but because the United States and Israel enjoy a true strategic partnership and we have common interests that we seek to advance throughout the region, and I would think that the president and the prime minister will need to take some time to chart out their respective road maps of where they want to go ahead and what they see as the pitfalls. We are prepared to do all that it is necessary in order to advance this process forward. History has shown that the breakthroughs usually occur when the parties deal directly with each other. The greatest breakthroughs in this process -- Camp David, Oslo -- came in that manner. But we have also been prepared -- President Carter -- since, to roll up our sleeves, to spend an all-nighter or two and try and find the basis upon which an agreement -- we're not bashful about putting forward ideas when the time is right. So, at this stage, I realize I'm not giving you a precise road map, but I think that's because we're at the dawn of a new moment here, and we need to let the players get their houses in order before we begin manicuring the lawns. MS. RANSOM: Your next question is from back against the wall. Q: Amayin Maj (sp), Radio Free Europe. What is U.S. policy vis-a-vis Iran given the fact that there have been a lot of changes since Mr. Khatami came to power? MR. RIEDEL: The United States has been encouraged by much of what we have seen in Iran, over the course of the last two years, since the election of President Khatami. We have seen a great deal of movement towards increasing dialogue at the civilization-to-civilization level. We welcomed President Khatami's announcement that he wanted to move in that process. We have seen some very positive movements by the government of Iran, for example, in the area of narcotics trafficking. And as a consequence, Iran has been removed from the Drug Certification List. There are still areas where the behavior and the policies of the government of Iran are very troubling to us. I think those are familiar to you; support for terrorism, efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction and long-range ballistic missiles, support for the most violent opponents of the Middle East peace process -- and as we had an earlier question -- in some human rights cases. We would like to see a furthering in the encouragement of the relationship between the United States and Iran. We have been prepared, as the Bush administration was prepared before us, to sit down and have a direct dialogue with the government of Iran. We continue to be prepared to do that. We believe that many of these issues can really only seriously be addressed in a government-to-government dialogue. But I think on the whole, what we have seen is an era of movement towards de-escalating tensions between the United States and Iran. We have encouraged that. I think as you gentlemen in the press know well, the rhetoric on both sides has changed towards -- for the better. The level of tension has been reduced. We have also seen Iran's relations with some of its neighbors, in particular Saudi Arabia and some of the other countries of the Arabian peninsula, improve as well, and we welcome that. A de-escalation of tension in the Gulf is in our national interest and is something that we support. MS. RANSOM: Your next questioner is right here. Q: Parasuram, Press Trust of India. There was a report recently that President Clinton has specifically asked the prime minister of Pakistan to withdraw the troops which have been sent, the militants and others who have been sent, to the Indian side of the line of control. You indicated that indirectly. I was wondering whether you could make that a little more direct? MR. RIEDEL: I am going to protect the privilege of maintaining the confidentiality of the president's correspondence. But I think I have made clear our view that restraint and a reaffirmation of the line of control is the basis upon which we can move forward. Q: Mr. Riedel -- MS. RANSOM: Please identify yourself. Thank you. Q: -- N.C. Menon from Hindustan Times. I have a more general question. There has been a complaint for a long time that the U.S. administration has not really focused on South Asia. Now the State Department has reformed inside of their own South Asian Bureau, but there is still a continuing complaint among various places, including some of the think tanks, that South Asian expertise in the White House is still lacking. Will you comment on that? MR. RIEDEL: I like to think that we have a strong base in the White House working on South Asia. Since I become senior director, two -- a little over two years ago, I appointed a director for South Asia for the first time in the NSC system, and we have a full-time person now working on South Asia who works for me. This president made a very conscious decision, at the beginning of this term, that is in 1997, to upgrade and put more focus on South Asia, to try to broaden and diversify our relations with all the countries of South Asia. One symbol of that decision was his announcement that he hoped to visit South Asia in his second term. He still hopes to be able to visit South Asia in his second term. We have an abiding interest in improving, broadening and deepening our relationship with the one-fifth of mankind that lives in South Asia, and we are determined to do what we can to facilitate that process. No question -- and you all know this -- that the nuclear tests a little over a year ago in the subcontinent were a setback for that process. Since then, we have engaged in intense discussions with both New Delhi and Islamabad about trying to find ways to move forward, and we will continue to do that in the time remaining to us in the second Clinton administration. MS. RANSOM: Your next question is from Mustafa here on the right. Q: Mustafa Chtaiwi (ph), Maghreb Arabe Presse, Morocco news agency. Could you tell us something about the projected meeting between the Libyans and the U.S., and what does Washington expect from this meeting? And why now? Thank you. MR. RIEDEL: Let me set the stage a little bit by saying that the decision of the Libyan government to turn over the two Pan Am 103suspects for a Scottish trial in the Netherlands was an important and positive step forward, and we have welcomed it and we have supported the United Nations Security Council in suspending the sanctions that were imposed a decade ago. As a footnote, I would say this episode illustrates that the resolve of the international community sometimes takes its time to succeed, but can succeed, and sanctions can be an effective instrument in bringing about a change of behavior. Our strategic objective vis-a-vis Libya has been, for 10 years, to get it out of the terrorism business. This is a major step forward. We will want to continue to encourage that process. The meeting that you referred to in New York will be an opportunity for the United States and the United Kingdom to sit down with the Secretary-general and the Libyan perm rep and talk about what additional steps are necessary to ensure full compliance with the Security Council resolutions. As you know, those resolutions require more than simply the turnover of the two suspects; they require cooperation with the court process as it moves forward. This week, the court in The Hague announced that it was postponing the beginning of the trial until early in the new year, at the request of the defendants, in order to give them more time to prepare their case. That means that it will be very difficult to judge cooperation with a trial that hasn't begun until well into next year. We think that the process is moving in the right direction. As I said earlier, this is a positive and important step forward, and we hope it will lead, in time, to the accomplishment of what I characterized as our strategic objective -- getting Libya out of the terrorism business for good and for all time. We have no hidden agenda here, and we have no secret deals here. MS. RANSOM: The next question is from Thomas, if he's ready. You gave it up. He asked your question? Rafic? Q: May I ask a follow up? MS. RANSOM: Wait for the microphone, please. Q: Rafic Maalouf, Al Hayat newspaper. A follow-up on the Libya thing. You are saying that, you know, the delay of the trial could delay the process of -- am I to understand that it will delay the process of normalization with Libya? MR. RIEDEL: I think that the process of moving forward is under way. The sanctions have been suspended, international air traffic to Libya has been resumed. But the resolutions require more than simply a turnover, and these discussions in New York will provide a venue for trying to reach common understanding on next steps forward. Again, as I said, I am encouraged by the direction we're moving in and I hope we will continue to move in that direction. Q: Can I ask a question on Afghanistan? Yesterday, Director Freeh said that the -- Taliban movement is not at all cooperating with the U.S. government or other governments, concerning extradition of Bin Laden. What can you tell us, more? And is there any line of communication now between the U.S. and the Taliban movement concerning Bin Laden and the other larger subjects in the area? Thank you. Q: Well, with regards to the second half of your question, yes, we have various means of talking with the Taliban both in New York, through representatives they have there, and in the region. We have gone to Kabul and spoken directly with the Taliban, face to face. I went with Secretary Richardson a little over a year ago, when he went to Kabul, and we sat down with the Taliban. We have a number of differences with the Taliban, but I think you put your finger on the most important of them. Harboring an international terrorist who is engaged in acts of terror against the United States, who has murdered American citizens and diplomats, who has murdered hundreds of innocent Africans, is a very serious issue. And we have asked the Taliban to take steps to bring Mr. Bin Laden to justice, and we are frankly disappointed that they have not cooperated with those requests. Those requests come, not only from the United States, but from others who have been a target of Ussamah bin Laden's acts of terror in the past. And we would hope the Taliban soon will do the right thing and bring Mr. Bin Laden to a process which can bring him to justice. MS. RANSOM: We have time for one more question. Q: Khaled Massurian (sp) with the Middle East News Agency. The Iraqi opposition leaders were in town a few days ago. And some of them said that the U.S. administration made the determination that it is not the Iraqi opposition, especially in exile, that will bring down the Saddam Hussein regime, but a general not close to Saddam Hussein, and that you are waiting for a coup d'etat. I wonder if you care to comment on that and if you would like to bring us up to date with your efforts, at the U.N., on the oil-for-food? MR. RIEDEL: Sure. Iraq remains very much high on our agenda. We seek to contain this very dangerous regime. We think we've been successful in doing that over the last decade. We seek to bring increased relief to the Iraqi people, who are the greatest victim of the Saddam Hussein government, and we have sponsored the oil-for-food process and we are engaged now in conversations with the other members of the council about ways to do more to help the Iraqi people and to restore a consensus within the council on how to proceed next on Iraq. With regards to our third goal -- regime change -- we have a policy of pushing on all fronts and from every point of the compass. Bringing about change in Iraq will not be easy. This is a dictator who has demonstrated again and again a willingness to use the most ruthless exercise of force in order to stay into power. In order to bring about that change, we will need to move on multiple tracks. Our discussions with those Iraqi patriots who seek to bring about change and who have had the courage to speak out against Saddam's tyranny over the last decade, is part of that process. We think that their voice ought to be heard, that the only voice of Iraqis shouldn't be the voice of Tariq Aziz and Saddam Hussein, that other Iraqis ought to be heard as well; that the Iraqi people, through the various elements of the Iraqi opposition and diaspora, should be given a chance to be heard on the world stage. The actual instrument, the actual events that will lead to Saddam's departure, I think are very hard for anyone to predict. We will not oppose whatever process brings that about. What I can say to you is that we are prepared to work with a new leadership in Iraq that is prepared to live at peace with the region, to see a fundamental change in the nature of U.S.-Iraqi relations. If there is a leadership in Baghdad prepared to live at peace with its neighbors and its own people, it will find a partner in the United States to ease sanctions, to bring about economic recovery, to find ways to reduce Saddam's enormous war debts, and to reintegrate Iraq into the family of nations as a healthy and prosperous member. MS. RANSOM: Bruce, thank you very much for taking the time to talk to us today. MR. RIEDEL: My pleasure. Thank you, Marjorie. (end transcript)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
