UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

Washington File

12 May 2003

U.S., Iran Discussing Afghanistan, Iraq, Other Issues of Mutual Interest

(Reeker says establishment of diplomatic relations not being
considered) (1680)
The State Department's deputy spokesman, Philip Reeker, said the
United States and Iran are communicating with each other through a
variety of international channels on Afghanistan, Iraq and other
issues of mutual interest, but the question of establishing diplomatic
relations is not under consideration.
Briefing reporters at the daily State Department briefing May 12,
Reeker said the United States has long-standing differences with Iran
on matters concerning weapons proliferation, human rights, opposition
to the Middle East peace process, and terrorism.
Reeker said the Bush administration believes that Iran ought to review
its policies on those matters, given the changed strategic situation
in the Middle East brought about by the fall of Saddam Hussein in
Iraq.
Following is an excerpt from Reeker's May 12 briefing containing his
comments about Iran:
(begin excerpt)
QUESTION: On Iran, USA Today was talking about an Iranian interest in
establishing diplomatic relations or reestablishing diplomatic
relations. In Iran's conversations with U.S. officials, has the issue
of diplomatic relations ever come up?
MR. REEKER: I think, as Secretary Powell indicated to a number of your
colleagues on his airplane a couple of nights ago -- and that
transcript is fully available -- diplomatic relations are not what's
on the table in discussions with Iran.
And, as National Security Advisor Rice has said in an interview with
one of your competing wire services, George, you know -- I think we
have talked about it before -- that the United Nations has regularly
facilitated contacts between the United States and Iran through what
we call the Geneva process, to discuss practical issues regarding
Afghanistan originally, and that has expanded to Iraq.
Dr. Rice noted just a short time ago that talks with officials from
Iran, that these talks have involved the Presidential Special Envoy
Zalmay Khalilzad, as Dr. Rice said, grew directly out of needing to
deal with some practical matters dealing with Afghanistan, and then we
extended this to Iraq.
This is not somehow a new opening of diplomatic relations. This is an
opportunity to deal with some practical issues. And we have talked
about the opportunity before and where we can discuss issues of mutual
concern, particularly as they have to do with neighbors of Iran's --
that is, Afghanistan or Iraq.
We continue to have longstanding policy differences with Iran. Our
concerns, as you know, include Tehran's ongoing support for terrorism,
the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, the opposition to Middle
East peace and the human rights process in Iran, the human rights
situation, their record there, which we consider to be quite poor.
Those things have not changed. Those issues remain the serious
concerns we have about Iran.
But our ability through a variety of channels, including the Geneva
channel, to have these contacts in order to discuss issues, to
communicate with them, issues on things like Afghanistan and Iraq,
have gone on and will, I am sure, go on in the future.
Elise.
QUESTION: Could you explain, help us understand a little bit more of
this Geneva process? I know originally the conversations were with
Iran vis-à-vis the 6+2 group, but could you just kind of give a little
bit more definition of what the Geneva process actually is?
MR. REEKER: No, I don't think I could. It is a reference to Geneva as
a place where the United Nations facilitates talks. As you mentioned,
the 6+2 context was a format the United Nations developed to deal with
Afghanistan some years ago, and that included the six neighboring
countries of Afghanistan, plus the United States and Russia, who had
serious concerns about the situation in Afghanistan.
We saw the situation with the Taliban, the support for terrorism
there, the dreadful situation that the Afghan people were living
under; and, of course, after September 11th we all know the history of
the coalition efforts in Afghanistan that liberated that country from
the Taliban and rooting out the terrorist cells, including al-Qaida,
of course, based there. That was a process where we could discuss also
with Iran issues pertaining to Afghanistan, and we have been able to
expand that process to discuss issues of mutual interest, mutual
concern in terms of Iraq. And that is really about as far as I can go.
QUESTION: Do you see this process being expanded into areas of mutual
cooperation beyond Iraq, such as drug trafficking, you know, to other
issues of terrorism such as al-Qaida, issues of mutual concern to the
two countries?
MR. REEKER: I don't know if I would want to go beyond that. This is
what we have used that structure for. And I would just refer you to
Dr. Rice's remarks a short time ago and to what the Secretary said on
the plane. I really don't think there is anything to add.
Teri.
QUESTION: So, can you say that these talks did only cover issues
involved with Iraq? And at whose behest were the talks convened?
MR. REEKER: I think it has been a matter of mutual interest. As the
Secretary said, we have these channels with Iran. We use them to
communicate. As the Secretary also pointed out, we use them to
communicate how we believe that Iran ought to review their policies in
terms of the changed situation in Iraq, the changed equation in the
region, and I have outlined for you again the areas that are of
concern to us. We have been quite clear, quite open, about those areas
of concern. We publish annually a report on global terrorism that
talks about Iranian support, state support, for terrorism. Our Human
Rights Report outlines the human rights situation in Iran, which is of
concern to us.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) other than Iraq have traditionally been brought
up in these --
MR. REEKER: It is where we can make clear to Iran what our concerns
are, and on the basis of the fact that in Iraq there is a new
situation and a new opportunity for the region, just as we have told
other countries, like Syria, that they should examine, seriously think
about how they want to deal with the neighborhood under the new
situation and move forward. So that is the opportunity that we use and
discuss that with them there.
QUESTION:  Why do they have to be held under UN auspices?
MR. REEKER:  This is the way it works, George.  
QUESTION: There is no reason why the two countries couldn't get
together without somebody overseeing it, right?
MR. REEKER: This is the way we have done it; this is the way we are
doing it; this is the way we will do it.
Sir.
QUESTION: My name is (inaudible). I represent the Daily Journal in
Pakistan. After the initial euphoria about the Indo-Pak contacts and
desire to meet --
MR. REEKER: Do we have other things on this subject? We tend to go
subject by subject, sir. So if we have --
QUESTION: Well, I think this is in the subject, Mr. Armitage -- okay,
close this.
MR. REEKER: The subject we were on was Iran. When we are done with
that subject, I will be happy to move on to another one. Thank you.
Eli.
QUESTION: Can you say anything now that would allay concerns that the
Iranians might have about a future government in Iraq, and how that
pro-American government would -- would somehow threaten the regime
over in Tehran? I mean, is there anything you can say to that? There
seems to be a lot of Iranian officials have --
MR. REEKER:  I'm not quite sure what you're referring to.
QUESTION: Many Iranian officials have said openly over the past three
months that an American -- a pro-American government in Baghdad would
be as dangerous or more dangerous to Iranian national security
interests than even Saddam himself (inaudible) --
MR. REEKER: I haven't seen any of these comments that you're
suggesting. I am sure they're out there. I have just missed it in my
reading. So I am not going to try to address them generally.
We have been quite clear, in terms of the vision we have for the
future of Iraq, a government by Iraqis for Iraqis that is
representative, that is democratic, that builds upon the diversity of
the Iranian nation -- pardon me -- the Iraqi nation to have a
government that can serve the people of Iraq, certainly better than
the horrible regime of Saddam Hussein that tortured them. That is our
goal, and there is nothing that I can see in that that should then
represent any threat to any part of the neighborhood.
We have been quite clear that our goal was an Iraq that had its
territorial integrity in place, that did not threaten its neighbors,
as the Saddam Hussein regime did for many, many years, and Iran is
certainly an example of that, as is Kuwait. Also, that doesn't
threaten the region, that doesn't develop weapons of mass destruction,
and that doesn't harbor terrorists or have links to international
terrorists groups that threaten all of us around the world.
QUESTION: I mean, I don't want to go further than what you just said
there. Are you conveying this message to the Iranians in Geneva and
other --
MR. REEKER:  I am sure they just heard it now.
QUESTION:  They just heard it now.  But --
MR. REEKER: I am sure they read all of our statements, Eli, about what
we hope for the future Iraq. And from the very beginning and before
there was even a decision to take military action, we had discussed
for years our goal of seeing an Iraq with a government that
represented all of the Iraqi people and did not threaten its neighbors
and brought stability to the region. And, indeed, as the President
said, as the Secretary said, we now have a new opportunity with Saddam
Hussein gone from the scene to build on that and make a better region
for all of the peoples of the area.
(end excerpt)
(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