• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

24 June 1998

TRANSCRIPT: INDYK WORLDNET ON IRAN, PEACE PROCESS, IRAQ

(Forsees movement from containment to engagement with Iran) (7590)
Washington -- Assistant Secretary of State Martin Indyk, noting the
positive changes in Iran which manifested themselves in President
Khatemi's election last year, said that under the right conditions,
the United States might be able to move from containment to engagement
with the Islamic Republic.
"We are making clear, as the Secretary of State did in her speech last
week, that if Iran is prepared to act in ways that deal with our
concerns, we are prepared to act in ways that deal with their concerns
in a parallel process that would make it possible for us to move from
a policy of containment to a policy of engagement," Indyk said during
a WorldNet "Global Exchange" television discussion June 24.
Responding to several questions about Israel and the stalemated Middle
East peace process, Indyk said: "We do not believe that an effort to
punish Israel is going to change its behavior when it's dealing with
issues of vital concern to its security and future."
At the same time, he added, "We feel that we are making progress (on
the peace process), that the gaps are being narrowed, and that it's
possible to achieve an agreement. ... We're focused on trying to get
the Palestinian track moving again. We have narrowed the gap there
after long and difficult negotiations, and we hope that we will be
able to achieve an agreement very quickly. If we can do that, then we
would seek to use that as a springboard to launch negotiations, or to
launch an effort to resume negotiations on the Syrian and Lebanese
tracks."
Concerning Iraq, Indyk said the recent report indicating that Baghdad
had put the nerve agent VX into warheads -- despite its previous
claims to the contrary -- "raises questions again about the
credibility of the Iraqi claims about what they have done with their
weapons of mass destruction. And that's unfortunate, because what it
does is prolong yet again the day when the (Security) Council would be
able to say that Iraq has fully complied (with U.N. sanctions.)"
Following is Indyk's WorldNet transcript:
(Begin transcript)
MS. RASSAN: Hello, I am Shameem Rassan. Welcome to "Global Exchange."
Over the past week a number of major news stories have focused on the
tension in the Middle East. Iraq and the United Nations have agreed on
a framework to end the sanctions that have crippled Iraq since the end
of the Gulf War. The Israeli Cabinet approved a new development deal
that would extend the boundaries of Jerusalem, and which the U.S.
State Department describes as, quote, "a provocative step," end quote,
at a sensitive time in Washington's efforts to restart peace talks.
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright extended an olive branch to Iran
as a first step towards eventually normalizing relations with the
Islamic republic.
In this hour we will take a detailed look at these and other issues
facing the Middle East with Martin Indyk, assistant secretary of state
for Near Eastern affairs.
Before we discuss these important issues, let's take a closer look at
the latest developments in the relations between the United States and
Iran, a situation that took a symbolic twist over the weekend when
Iran played against the United States at the World Cup, a game
ultimately won by the Iranians, two to one.
(Begin videotape.)
ANNOUNCER: In a politically charged atmosphere, Sunday's World Cup
soccer match between the U.S. and Iran set the stage for gestures of
good sportsmanship. The Iranians greeted the Americans with flowers
and a handshake. Then the teams posed together before the opening
kick. President Clinton took advantage of the moment to offer his
hopes that the good will of the game could extend far beyond the
playing field:
PRESIDENT CLINTON: As we cheer today's game between American and
Iranian athletes, I hope it can be another step toward ending the
estrangement between our nations.
ANNOUNCER: That estrangement began nearly 20 years ago when Iranian
students stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, and held 52 American
hostages for more than a year. Relations between the nations began to
thaw last year when Iranians elected a new president, moderate Islamic
cleric Mohammed Khatemi. In January Khatemi called for informal
exchanges between Iranians and Americans:
PRESIDENT KHATEMI (through interpreter): Right now I recommend the
exchange of professors, writers, scholars, authors, journalists and
tourists.
ANNOUNCER: Last week U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
described a roadmap for better relations between the U.S. and Iran.
With Iran's access to world oil markets at stake, and U.S. interests
in the Gulf region on the line, better relations could make both
nations winners.
(End videotape.)
MS. RASSAN: Ambassador Indyk, how significant is Secretary Albright's
gesture to the Iranians and the hard-line response from Iran?
AMB. INDYK: Well, I think the response from Iran has been mixed so
far. There has been some welcoming of what she had to say, and also
some criticism of it. I think that the basic burden of her message,
and the message of President Clinton that we just saw was that if Iran
is ready to build a new and more normal relationship with the United
States that is something that we would welcome, and we are prepared to
engage in a parallel process in which both sides could take steps to
meet the other side's concerns, and thereby establish a roadmap
towards a moral relationship between the United States and Iran.
MS. RASSAN: Our viewers, we would like to invite you all to call in
with your questions or comments, and suggestions. If you are calling
in Arabic, please use this number: 202-260-7403. Those who are asking
in English, please call us, still collect, at a different number:
260-3727.
The last weekend the Israeli Cabinet approved a controversial plan to
extend Jerusalem's boundaries -- a plan that has strong criticism from
the U.S., the PLO, and Israel's Arab neighbors. Does this end any hope
of getting the peace process back on track? Mr. Ambassador?
AMB. INDYK: We certainly hope not. That's a primary concern here. For
some time we have made clear -- the secretary of state in particular
has made clear that unilateral actions by one side or the other that
appear to have the appearance or preempting the final status
negotiations are not helpful to this effort to get the process back on
track. And that's what the secretary said in this case: it was
unhelpful.
We have received some clarifications from the prime minister of Israel
about the decision on Jerusalem. And as you mentioned in your opening,
there's an extension of the boundaries of Jerusalem, but that is to
the West, inside the green line, inside Israel proper. There is some
thought of extending municipal services to settlements to the East --
that is, in the West Bank -- but nothing has been done on that, and
this is something we will watch very carefully, because that would
affect the final status issues that have to be negotiated.
At the moment our focus and all of our energies are devoted to trying
to get an agreement on our ideas so that both sides can implement
their obligations under the interim agreement, and we can begin the
final status negotiations and deal with these kinds of issues, such as
Jerusalem, settlements, refugees, borders. So we think it's very
important that both sides keep the focus on that effort to get the
negotiations going, and we hope we can achieve that in the near future
-- very soon. But in order to do that both sides have got to avoid
unilateral steps that create problems in that regard.
MS. RASSAN: Let's move now to the Lebanese Broadcast Corporation that
joins our discussion. The head of international news, Anthony Jaja --
go ahead with your question, Anthony, please.
Q: Hi, Mr. Indyk. I'll begin with some Lebanese issues before moving
to the Middle East peace process and the Iranian issue. President
Clinton has lifted some restrictions on air travel to Lebanon just a
few hours after the explosions near the U.S. Embassy in Beirut.
Ambassador Richard Jones just said that the explosions did not target
the Embassy itself, but the security in Lebanon and the bilateral
relations as well. First, do you agree on that? Or do you think there
is a political message behind Clinton's decision? Second, do you
believe that Lebanon has become a safe place for American citizens and
interests?
AMB. INDYK: Thank you. First of all, I always agree with my
ambassadors, so that should answer the question. I think Ambassador
Jones's point was that stability in Lebanon is first of all a Lebanese
interest and secondly an American interest. And this incident over the
weekend was a disturbing sign, and we are glad to see the Lebanese
authorities taking prompt action to deal with the problem, and we hope
that it won't be repeated. We do not want to see Lebanon return to the
bad old days of communal strife and conflict. We are very glad to see
the way in which the local elections proceeded.
Of course there were some incidents, but by and large a large turn-out
and a democratic process, which is something that is a hallmark of the
new Lebanon. And that's something which we want to encourage. After
Prime Minister Hariri was here last week the president took the
decision. It's a small decision. The secretary of state had previously
removed the travel ban preventing Americans from traveling from
Lebanon. Now it's possible for Americans to buy tickets for that trip
to Lebanon in the United States. And that's all it is, but it's
designed to facilitate that travel. And it's in the context of our
wanting to see Lebanon rebuilt and the Lebanese government sovereign
in all of its territory that we are taking these kinds of steps.
Q:  Yeah, but what about the second question?
AMB. INDYK:  Why don't you repeat it for me?
Q:  Do you believe that Lebanon has become a safe place?
AMB. INDYK: Well, let's say that we believe it's become a safer place
than it was before, and that's why we removed the travel ban. We still
have concerns and there is still a travel advisory warning American
citizens about some problems that still exist. I think that the
Lebanese government has done a lot to deal with the security
situation. We would like to see them take other steps, particularly in
the law enforcement area, bringing known terrorists, people who have
killed Americans to justice. I think that's a top priority from our
point of view. But to answer your question, yes, we think Lebanon has
become a safer place.
Q: Okay, Mr. Indyk, my second question: U.N. Resolution 425 is stuck
in the middle of nowhere for almost 20 years. We now have an Israeli
proposal that links the implementation of 425 with security
arrangements on one hand, and we have a Lebanese stand that requires
implementation with no conditions whatsoever on the other hand. Where
does the U.S. come? Do you think there is something your country can
do to work out the solution?
AMB. INDYK: Well, first of all, Israel's acceptance of Resolution 425,
formal acceptance after 20 years, is a positive step forward. We've
had extensive discussions with the Israeli government, the Lebanese
government, and the Syrian government on this issue. We just it to be
a serious initiative on the part of Israel (sentence as received). It
wants to withdraw from Lebanon. It seems some security understandings.
And in terms of how we can move that forward I think Resolution 425
and Resolution 426, as the Lebanese government has told us, contains
the basis for implementing the resolution, including the UNIFIL forces
and other roles provided in the resolutions for the United Nations.
But we've also been concerned that -- to see that this resolution is
implemented in a way that increases the stability and security of
Lebanon and of the Israelis living on the northern border between
Israel and Lebanon. And to do that I think it's important to put these
into the context -- 425 into the context of the efforts to resume
negotiations on the Syrian track and on the Lebanese track, so that
the effort to achieve a comprehensive peace can help to create an
environment in which Resolution 425 can be implemented successfully.
We are at the moment focused on trying to get the Palestinian track
moving again. We have narrowed the gap there after long and difficult
negotiations, and we hope that we will be able to achieve an agreement
very quickly. If we can do that, then we would seek to use that as a
springboard to launch negotiations, or to launch an effort to resume
the negotiations on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks. And we would want
to do that in short order, as quickly as possible.
At the same time, discussions, informal discussions, will continue on
Resolution 425, and in that way we hope that we can find a way very
soon to bring these two strands together.
Q: Mr. Indyk, you know that time is running too fast, and the peace
process is too slow behind. Now we have nothing moving on both the
Lebanese and Syrian tracks. And this applies to the Palestinian track,
where Israel is taking advantage of the current situation, refusing to
accept the U.S. proposal concerning redeployment, and approving an
expansion plan in Jerusalem. Why is it taking too long? What's holding
Washington from publishing its peace initiative, or at least from
giving up its diplomatic efforts?
AMB. INDYK: Well, if we gave up our diplomatic efforts, then we
wouldn't have a breakthrough; we'd have a breakdown. And I think the
people would say at that point: "Why didn't you try a little bit
harder?," because they would see that we were close. And that's what
is driving us here. We share your concern and say we're even alarmed
about the delay, that it has taken so long, that negotiations are
stalled on all tracks. And we have no lack of a sense of urgency
trying to bring this to a conclusion. But we have made the judgment
that the gaps are narrowing and it is possible to reach an agreement.
We are working very intensively to try to achieve that. And I hope
that we will be able to do it. If not, if we are not able to do it,
then, as the secretary of state has said, we will say so, and we will
explain why.
MS. RASSAN: We thank you, Mr. Jaja, head of the international news
department, for this correspondence, and we continue now in our
edition of "Global Exchange." This is Shameem Rassan. Our guest is
Martin Indyk, assistant secretary for the Middle Eastern affairs. We
would like now to welcome Paul Hijazin from the Jordanian TV. Go ahead
with your question, Paul, please.
Q: Good morning, Mr. Indyk. Thank you for joining us. Some Israeli
newspapers have indicated that the U.S. might make the announcement of
its plan, of 13 percent withdrawal from the West Bank by the Israelis
on the 24th of this month, which is today. That statement has not been
made public. Why doesn't the U.S. go ahead and make this statement
public and see who stands against it, because in the past it's just
been basically weak?
AMB. INDYK: Well, that is an option. But for the time being we have
chosen a different option, which is to try to work with the parties to
reach an agreement, because that would be preferable than going public
and taking the debate into the public arena where it's much harder to
reach an agreement, because all sides then have to take a position,
have to posture for their domestic, political purposes. And the
chances of breakdown rather than a breakthrough are greater. But, as I
say, it's an option. If we reach a point where we feel that we cannot
make progress and we cannot achieve an agreement, then you know we
will consider what to do. And as I just said to -- in answering the
last question -- the secretary has said repeatedly she will say so --
she has no fear about saying so, and explaining why at that point. But
we haven't reached that point yet. And we are very aware of the
urgency of the situation.
We are frustrated by the lack of progress -- visible progress. We feel
we have made some progress, but that's not something we are prepared
to come out in detail at this point. You can read a lot of stories in
the Israeli press, but I think that you can get the feeling from the
debate that's going on in Israel, if you are able to follow it, that
things are moving there, and there wouldn't be such a loud hue and cry
if the opposition to our ideas in Israel didn't get the sense that
things were moving in the right direction in terms of reaching an
agreement, and in the wrong direction in terms of their concerns. And
so I would -- I know it's hard for people to accept this argument, and
nothing will succeed but success in that regard, and that's what we
are trying to achieve. And all I would suggest is that we have just a
little bit more patience -- not a lot -- and hope that we can achieve
an agreement in short order.
Q: Mr. Indyk, you mentioned that you are have not reached the point of
giving up. What do you think it will take? When will the U.S. say,
"Enough is enough -- we can't take this anymore," and bail out?
AMB. INDYK: Well, I think when we reach the judgment that we really
are not going to be able to get to an agreement. We have been at that
point many times in the past six months. But each time as we seem to
get at the brink of that some progress is made, and we feel that it's
worth continuing.
And I think it's very important to put it into the context of the
consequences of a breakdown. If we have a breakdown here it will be
extremely difficult to get the negotiations going again. And leaders
in the Arab world will be under tremendous pressure to take negative
steps. Those who have argued that violence is the answer will feel
that they are now in their heroic phase. And the dynamic could become
very, very negative, and in that case the peace process will not be
served. So we think it's better to make an extra effort in this last
stretch to try to reach an agreement. But we are only doing that
because we believe that we can reach an agreement.
Q: Mr. Indyk, I am going to go back to the announcement that was made
last week by the Israeli government of westward expansion of the city
of Jerusalem, and relating it to the issue of terrorism. The U.S. has
described that move as provocative. If the Arabs, or some Arab parties
do resort to terrorism, it will be because of Israeli moves that have
pretty much put them in a very desperate situation -- the whole world
would turn and blame the Arabs. What would the United States do in
that case, and what will it do so that the situation does not reach
the brink of terrorism or the use of terrorism and erode in that
sense?
AMB. INDYK: Let's be very clear: we will condemn an act of terrorism
-- any act of terrorism. That is just completely unacceptable from our
point of view -- whatever the frustrations. The killing of innocent
men, women and children for the purpose of advancing your cause is
simply unacceptable. And as -- interestingly, as President Khatemi of
Iran has said recently, it's against the Koran and it's
counterproductive. And I think that there is a growing recognition of
that throughout the world, and particularly in the Middle East where
the leaders have come together over the years to condemn terrorism.
But you refer to the frustrations, and we are very conscious of the
fact that frustrations are rising, people are becoming disillusioned.
And that's why we feel so strongly that we have to get the process
back on track, and that's why we are committing so much effort and
energy and credibility -- our own credibility which is suffering as a
result of this prolonged effort. But it's because we believe that the
peoples of the region and the children of the region deserve a better
and a more hopeful future that we will remain committed to trying to
achieve this breakthrough, and then getting everything else moving
again.
But you know a lot of this questioning and my answers is all focused
on what we have to do. But we're an outside party in this regard, and
somehow I think because the process has become so brutal and stalled
for so long we have had to assume that the role of the heavy lifters
here to try to move it. But we really need the help of others in the
region. King Hussein of Jordan I think has done a terrific job in
terms of making clear the stakes involved in peace-making, and making
clear to the people of Israel that there really is a genuine desire in
the Arab world for peace. And that's the kind of message -- it was
interesting the prime minister of Lebanon, Rafiq Hariri, when he was
in Washington also made a strong statement in that regard. And that's
the kind of message that at this particular juncture we need Arab
leaders to be sending to Israel to make clear that if the agreement is
implemented by both sides that the process can move ahead, and that in
the Arab world leaders are willing and even keen to see that happen --
as long as both sides live up to their commitments.
Q: Mr. Indyk, what is the next move on the peace side between the Arab
leaders you have mentioned and Israel? What is the thing that -- you
have mentioned that what His Majesty had done, speaking about peace
with the Israelis -- what is the next step that needs to be taken by
parties both on the Israeli side and the Arab side?
AMB. INDYK: Well, the immediate next step is to get agreement on our
ideas. If we can achieve that -- and, as I say we are looking at a
very short timeframe for trying to achieve that -- then we would want
to engage in an effort immediately to try to restart the negotiations
on the other tracks -- on the Syrian-Israeli track, on the
Lebanese-Israeli track, and on the multilateral tracks and on the
economic track.
The reality was last time we achieved a breakthrough -- and it was a
long time ago, in the Hebron agreement, we did not take advantage of
that momentary respite to try to move things forward everywhere. And
that's what we need to do this time. And again we need those who are
committed to peace to engage with us in that regard.
I've noticed -- and you have probably noticed that the Syrian
government, Lebanese government, have both made clear their desire to
resume the negotiations. So I think that the situation is ripe for
that effort to succeed. But first we have got to get the Palestinian
track moving again in the right direction with both sides implementing
their obligations under the Oslo agreements. And I think then we can
move very quickly to restore life to all parts of the peace process.
MS. RASSAN: Thank you, Paul Hijazin of Jordanian TV for your
contribution in our edition.
We have a call coming in from London. Go ahead with your question
please. London, go again please.
Q: Mr. Indyk, this is -- (inaudible) -- newspaper. Going back to the
long-awaited peace initiative, is it true to suggest that the American
administration is refraining from announcing this initiative to avoid
a showdown which it might lose with Mr. Netanyahu to ban Washington if
the administration tries to put any pressure on him to accept such an
initiative? Is that because you don't want to anger the Jewish vote
just before the mid-term elections? Thank you.
AMB. INDYK: Thank you. Look, as I've said before, the effort that we
are engaged in is to try to achieve an agreement. If you just think
about it -- take it out of context for a moment, the context of your
question, and just think about how you can best reach an agreement. Is
it better to engage in quiet diplomacy to try to achieve agreement, or
is it better to beat people on the head publicly? Are you going to get
a better response? Which is going to produce a better response? And
that's the judgment we're making. But as I'll repeat it now -- this
will be the third time -- if we reach the point very soon where we
feel that we cannot achieve an agreement through our quiet diplomacy,
then the secretary of state has made it very clear that she will go
public, and she will explain what has happened and why we weren't able
to achieve an agreement. So I really think it's a tactical question of
how best to achieve a breakthrough, which is the objective I think
everybody shares here. And that's the judgment we have made. And it's
not based on political calculations. As I said already, we are already
paying the price. We are already paying the price domestically, and we
are already paying the price in the region. And we wouldn't be paying
the price if we didn't feel we could reach an agreement.
MS. RASSAN: We are discussing the Middle East issues with Ambassador
Martin Indyk, assistant secretary for the Middle East. We welcome now
Taoufiz Gazoulit. Go ahead, Taoufiz, please. Go ahead with your
question please.
We have a call coming in from London. Go ahead please with your
question in London.
Q: Mr. Indyk, this is -- (inaudible) -- again. For the last 18 months
the American officials, including you, have made tens of visits to the
Middle East in order to revive the faltering peace process -- but to
no avail. I mean, how long would it be -- I mean, we've been waiting
for -- I mean, every time you -- the American envoys go to the Middle
East, saying -- Okay, this is the last time, and the peace will be
moving forward. Is it not right to suggest that these trips were made
just to appease the people of the area? Wouldn't you agree with me
that the time has come for the U.S. to change its tactics and try to
be more positive in its role if it wants to avoid a chaotic situation
if the peace process fails? Thank you.
AMB. INDYK: Thank you. You know, I would just reemphasize the fact
that, yes, we have put a lot of effort into it, and we are just as
frustrated, if not more frustrated, than the people in the region
about this, because as I said we have been engaged directly in it.
It's been much harder for us than those who have had to sit and watch
it. And it's only because we believe that we have a chance to achieve
an agreement that we are still engaged in that effort.
You know, I said before that you can see if you follow the press in
Israel and the debate in Israel that things are moving. You can get
the sense that something is happening there. Interestingly, if you
look at the polls, when we first started talking about our ideas the
polls in Israel suggested it was about even in terms of support for
our ideas and opposition to them. Now the polls in Israel show almost
a two-thirds majority in favor of our ideas. And I think that that
gives you some objective indicator of where the debate is going there
and how the ground is being prepared for what we hope will be an
agreement.
The other thing I think you should bear in mind is that this will be
an implementation agreement. It's not a Declaration of Principles. The
agreements are already there in terms of a 70-page document of the
Oslo Accords. What we are doing now is focusing on how both sides can
implement their obligations under those Oslo agreements. And when you
get to implementation, things become very detailed and very
complicated. And that takes some time to sort itself out.
So all I can say is that we are doing our best to bring this to a
conclusion, and we are trying very hard to do it, and if somebody
feels they can do better then they're welcome to try. But in the
absence of that -- and, you know, when I say that if you think that an
Arab summit meeting or a French-Egyptian initiative to have another
international conference is going to produce an agreement -- well,
fine, go ahead. But I think that the judgment, both of the European
leaders and the Arab leaders, is that it's better to give us one last
chance to try to reach an agreement. And that's what we are going to
do.
MS. RASSAN: I would like to apologize, because I said that we are
going to receive a call from MBC. Now this is happening now. Taoufiz
Gazoulit from the program "Face to Face," with MBC is on the line. Go
ahead with your question please. Your question please.
Q: Mr. Indyk, following the latest -- (inaudible) -- dual containment
has been received, which is something you initiated and you applied in
American foreign policy. Why don't you admit its failure?
AMB. INDYK: Well, far from admitting its failure I will admit its
success. I think that over the past six years since the policy was
first enunciated the United States has succeeded in protecting its
interests and the interests of its friends in the Gulf region very
effectively through this policy of containing both Iraq and Iran. What
we see in Iran today is a clear manifestation of the desire for change
on the part of the vast majority of the Iranian people -- a desire for
a return to rule of law, establishment of a rule of law, of civil
society, and an end to Iran's isolation through a moderation of its
foreign policy. Those are developments which we want to encourage. And
therefore we are making clear, as the secretary of state did in her
speech last week, that if Iran is prepared to act in ways that deal
with our concerns, we are prepared to act in ways that deal with their
concerns in a parallel process that would make it possible for us to
move from a policy of containment to a policy of engagement.
You know, the idea of containment is appropriate to the circumstances.
As the circumstances changes we make clear that we are prepared to
change as well.
Q: Mr. Indyk, if we move from dual containment to Israel, and you are
an expert on Israeli affairs and on the Middle East generally, Arab
public opinion has always regarded the American administration as
biased towards Israel. At the same time most people in the world blame
Netanyahu's government for not applying the Oslo agreement to the full
-- especially when dealing with the settlements in Jerusalem. Why
don't you try and implement sanctions against Israel when you are
insisting on implementing sanctions on Syria and Iraq for example?
AMB. INDYK: You know, it's going to come as no surprise to any of your
viewers on MBC that the United States and Israel are friends and
allies. We have a unique relationship that goes back to the founding
of the state of Israel, and we have no shame in declaring that. We
also have strong relations with our allies in the Arab world whether
it be Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, or others, and we are engaged in
the process of building our relations with other states in the region,
whether it be the states of the GCC or Yemen, or Algeria. Of course we
have a very strong historical relationship with Morocco.
So there is no contradiction in our view between having a close and
strong relationship with Israel and having a close and strong
relationship with our friends in the Arab world. And I think that our
friends in the Arab world, as they look to a future of peace in the
region, look to us to use our friendship with Israel to influence it
and to help it -- help encourage it to make the decisions that can be
reciprocated in the Arab world, and that can lead us to a more
peaceful, more stable and more prosperous region.
That approach is being challenged at the moment. It's part of the
reason why we feel it's so important to achieve a breakthrough, to
show that that approach can work effectively. We do not believe that
an effort to punish Israel is going to change its behavior when it's
dealing with issues of vital concern to its security and future. So
our tactics are different. But our strategic objective is very much
the same; that is, to try to achieve, as this region heads into the
21st century, a better future that is more stable, and peaceful and
prosperous for all the peoples of the region.
Q: Mr. Indyk, in the same line of questioning, the Palestinian
Authority is requesting the American administration to make public its
new initiative, especially that you in the Administration are
admitting that you are not influencing developments very much in the
Middle East. Why do you think the Administration was hesitating to
make public its initiative, which has not been public so far?
AMB. INDYK: Well, as I have said before, I am not sure whether your
viewers have watched the earlier part of the program, but we are
focused now on an effort to try to achieve an agreement. We have made
the judgment -- the President and the Secretary of State have made the
judgment -- that it is better to try one last effort to reach that
agreement. We feel that we are making progress, that the gaps are
being narrowed, and that it's possible to achieve an agreement, and
that achieving an agreement is the objective here, rather than having
some declaration that gets rejected, and then we have a breakdown in
the process and everybody is worse off -- especially the Palestinians.
So we will certainly take Chairman Arafat's suggestion under
consideration. As I said before in this program that is an option. But
at this point we feel that the better option is to try to reach an
agreement. If we reach the judgment that we are unable to get that
agreement, then, as the Secretary of State has said repeatedly, she
will say so and she will explain why.
Q: Since you are one of the main parties guiding the peace process
since Madrid, it seems that Syria is not very happy with the American
position regarding the future of the Golan Heights. How long will you
insist on marginalizing the Golan Heights issue?
AMB. INDYK: Well, we don't want to marginalize the Golan Heights
issue. As you will recall, we put a great deal of effort into trying
to reach an agreement on the Syrian track. And as President Asad
himself has said recently, we came very close. In fact, the Syrians
are now saying that if we succeed in resuming the negotiations they
believe that a peace treaty can be concluded in three months, which is
an indication of their view of how much work had been done in that
regard.
The sad fact of the peace process is that we have been stalled on all
fronts, and we are trying to deal with that problem and get the
process started again. I believe that Syrian desire to resume the
negotiations, the Lebanese desire to resume the negotiations on the
Syrian and Lebanese tracks, combine with the desire of Prime Minister
Netanyahu to see if something can be organized in that regard --
creates a fertile environment for an effort to resume those
negotiations. And we will be making that effort as soon as we can get
the Israeli-Palestinian track moving again. And we hope that will be
in short order.
Q: Mr. Indyk, in light of any developments regarding the
Syrian-Israeli track, Arab public opinion, especially in Lebanon, was
surprised that Israel couldn't call a unilateral initiative to
withdraw from Southern Lebanon. The Arabs regarded this initiative as
just another Israeli maneuver. But the American position is not very
clear on this. What do you think of this initiative of unilateral
withdrawal from Southern Lebanon?
AMB. INDYK: We believe that the Israeli Cabinet decision to accept
Resolution 425 indicated a serious change in Israel's position in this
regard. If you compare it with an earlier effort by the Israeli
government, an effort that they call Lebanon first, you will see that
there is a difference here, that this is based on the U.N.
resolutions, and it is a manifestation of the Israeli desire to
withdraw from Lebanon as long as it knows what kind of security
arrangements or understandings will replace its presence there in the
South.
Our view is that this is a serious and positive step. When Israel
offers to implement a Security Council resolution and withdraw from
Arab territory, we cannot oppose it, and we don't see why anybody
would want to oppose it.
I think that the burden of your question is: Is this some kind of
trick or some kind of diversion? We don't think so. And our position
is the best way to see this implemented is to have it -- have the
parties engage on this issue in the context of efforts to achieve a
comprehensive peace. What we want in southern Lebanon and northern
Israel is a more stable situation, not a less stable situation, and
therefore we think that this is the best way to go. And if we can
succeed in resuming negotiations on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks in
a way that I've just outlined, then I think that conditions will be
very ripe for engaging in those kinds of discussions about how to
implement Resolution 425.
Q: If we want to be clear regarding Iraq, it's -- (inaudible) -- that
Washington does not want to get rid of Saddam Hussein or that it is
not capable of doing that, or doesn't want that. But Washington
insists on sanctions against Iraq at a time when the international
community does not want it. Why do the States insist on sanctions
against Iraq? Why don't you try humanitarian considerations?
AMB. INDYK: Thank you. Glad to have a question on Iraq. First of all,
I do not believe that it is right to characterize the international
community as against sanctions on Iraq. You know, every three months
the Security Council reviews the sanctions, and every time in the last
seven years that it is has done so it has renewed the sanctions
without dissent -- without a single dissenting vote. And I think that
is a sign of what the view of the international community is, and not
just the United States. We are not isolated on this issue. And the
reason that we are not isolated is that the standard has been set by
the Security Council resolutions, and the standard is full compliance.
And that is the standard that you will hear throughout the Arab world
-- Arab leaders telling Saddam if he wants the sanctions lifted he
needs to comply fully. And so I believe that there is a strong
consensus in favor of that.
There is concern about the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result
of the sanctions. Here I would make several points. First of all, the
sanctions never prevented the importation of food, medicines and other
humanitarian goods. When it became clear to us and to others in the
Security Council that Saddam Hussein was not prepared to provide for
the needs of his people, and preferred to spend huge amounts of money
-- billions of dollars on lavish palaces that serve no function
whatsoever, except as some kind of mausoleum to his own ego -- we
introduced the oil-for-food process, in which Iraq was able to sell
oil and import food and medicines.
We have now adopted the Secretary General's report, the Security
Council has, to expand that so that Iraq will be able to export $11
billion a year worth of oil to meet the needs of the Iraqi people.
It's a bumper crop in Iraq this year. And the Secretary General's
report, which has been adopted, which this $11 billion is going to be
provided in food and medicines and infrastructure support to the Iraqi
people for schools and hospitals as well. That Secretary General's
report establishes a caloric intake for every Iraqi person at 2,400
calories a day. Your viewers may be interested to know that the
recommended daily allowance for Americans is 2,200 calories per day.
So that as this process is implemented, and we are doing everything we
can to see that it is implemented quickly and efficiently, I believe
that it will be possible to see a significant improvement in the
situation of the Iraqi people. And already you can see U.N. officials
stating that already the situation is improving. And indeed the Iraqi
government has said there is no need to send in these humanitarian
flights anymore.
So I think that that issue is being addressed by the Security Council,
with the active support of the United States. And I think people
should look at the facts in this regard and watch the situation and
see how it changes over in the next six months, because I don't
believe that will be a problem. The problem will remain, however, that
Saddam Hussein must fully comply. And in that regard the chairman of
UNSCOM, Mr. Butler, today will be presenting his latest report to the
Security Council in which, as you may have heard already, there are
some disturbing developments that indicate that Iraq's claim that it
did not put VX gas into weapons, into warheads, was in fact a lie.
There are now indications, as a result of lab tests on warhead pieces
that have been recovered, that show that in fact there was VX in these
warheads. And that raises some very disturbing questions about what --
where these warheads, other warheads might be kept, are being hidden,
and raises questions again about the credibility of the Iraqi claims
about what they have done with their weapons of mass destruction. And
that's unfortunate, because what it does is prolong yet again the day
when the Council would be able to say that Iraq has fully complied,
and until the Council is able to say that the sanctions cannot be
lifted.
Q: (Inaudible) -- you have given regarding Iraq, there is no doubt
that the sanctions policy has proved a failure. The regime in Libya,
in Iraq, they still exist. There were sanctions against Cuba and the
regime in Cuba still exists. In the absence of any evidence, solid
evidence regarding Libya in the Lockerbie affair, are you willing to
reconsider the sanctions against Libya?
AMB. INDYK: Look, the sanctions on Libya were imposed by the United
Nations because of credible evidence that Libya was involved in
sponsoring a terrorist attack on a civilian airliner that killed
hundreds of people, including over 180 American citizens. And if
people are prepared to look the other way, and say, "Oh, well, because
time has passed; let's forget about that," when the two alleged
terrorists are sunning themselves on the beach in Tripoli, that is not
acceptable to the United States, and I don't believe it should be
acceptable to anybody in the international community. It's very simple
in this regard: Libya -- the sanctions on Libya can be lifted, can be
suspended in accordance with the resolutions, if those two are handed
over for a trial, for a Scottish or an American trial. That is the
standard. It is not a big deal. It is not complicated. And instead of
pressing on the Security Council to lift the sanctions, Qadhafi's
friends and those who can influence him should be telling him to send
those people abroad for trial.
MS. RASSAN: I am afraid we have come now to the end of our time. And I
would like to thank Ambassador Martin Indyk for his contribution in
this edition of our program -- and also for all those who participated
in this edition of "Global Exchange." This is Shameem Rassan signing
off.
(End transcript)