Tracking Number: 239891
Title: "Djerejian: US Committed to Iraq's Territorial Integrity." WORLDNET interview of Assistant Secretary of State Edward Djerejian, who discusses US policies toward a
post-Persian Gulf war Iraq. Corrected by NFS553. (920820)
Date: 19920820
Text:
*NFS465
08/20/92 *
DJEREJIAN: U.S. COMMITTED TO IRAQ'S TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY (Transcript: WorldNet on Iraq, 8/20/92)
(6790) Washington -- Assistant Secretary of State Edward Djerejian declared August 20 that the United States is committed to upholding the territorial integrity of Iraq.
The U.S. government, he added, "has absolutely no interest" in seeing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein hold on to power, and hopes to see the emergence of a new regime, "based on democratic principles that will represent the pluralistic nature of Iraqi society."
Djerejian made the comments during a live Worldnet television interview with participants in Islamabad, Cairo, Riyadh and Istanbul.
Following is a transcript of the program: (BEGIN TRANSCRIPT) NARRATOR: Worldnet presents Dialogue, an unrehearsed televised news conference. Now, live from our studios in Washington, D.C., here is your moderator, broadcast journalist Terry Hourigan.
MR. HOURIGAN: Hello. Welcome to Worldnet's Dialogue. Today we'll be discussing the international response to Iraqi violations of UN resolutions. We're honored to have as our guest today Assistant Secretary of State Edward Djerejian, who's joining us from the United States Department of State. Ambassador Djerejian, welcome to Worldnet's Dialogue. Thank you for joining us today.
MR. DJEREJIAN: Thank you very much; happy to be here. MR. HOURIGAN: Let's go immediately to our first question from Islamabad. Would you go ahead, please, for the Ambassador?
Q: This is -- (inaudible). I am -- (inaudible) -- Institute of Regional Studies in Islamabad. May I make one general comment to which perhaps you in Washington and later Cairo, Riyadh and Istanbul may wish to respond, either in part or as a whole. To many of us in Pakistan, it seems that the US-sponsored UN action against Iraq, having started as a military operation and now going through its second phase of sanctions, is gradually assuming the colors of a vendetta, not just against Saddam Hussein, but also the people of Iraq. US-sponsored international action against Iraq has -- (inaudible). And in our view, in the view of many of us in Pakistan, what enables Saddam to continue in power is intrinsic, in our view -- (inaudible) -- US policy in the region. It is alienating an entire people, adding humiliation to misery, and -- (inaudible) -- spectacularly to contain the mischief of what we all recognize as a dangerous despot.
Frankly, to many of us in Pakistan, the rubbing of Iraq's nose in the dust as part of the US-sponsored -- (inaudible) -- of the rule of law worldwide appears to us here in Pakistan, to many of us in Pakistan, appears to us a -- (inaudible) -- diversion from the horrendous genocide for some time in progress now in Bosnia-Hercegovina and in Kashmir. Surely Slobodan Milosevic and his Serbian -- (inaudible) -- engage our attention today with American -- (inaudible) -- than what is now being expended on Saddam Hussein. And the state terrorism in Kashmir comes a close second, with many other fires burning elsewhere around the world -- Georgia, Nagorno-Karabakh, in bits and pieces scattered all over the former USSR, and still others smoldering on back burners until we bring them to the front. And the new world order about which so many have spoken and about which we have heard so much -- (inaudible) -- the values of human rights and the universal observance of the rule of law, will, in the view of many of us in Pakistan, remain a pipe dream if the moral purpose of those in a position to shape world affairs is subordinated to their own strategic commercial interests.
Selective justice, in our view, no matter how passionately pursued, as, for example, in Iraq, will (rebound?), and perhaps a part on which Cairo, Riyadh and Istanbul might respond. It is our understanding that smaller powers which line up with the big in the pursuit of such selective justice will end up damaging the cause of mankind as a whole. These are (some parts?) that many of us here in Islamabad, and maybe you in Washington, you in Cairo and Ankara -- not Ankara; Istanbul -- Riyadh, might wish to respond. Thank you.
MR. DJEREJIAN: Thank you for your question. I think you will allow me some equal time in terms of the presentation you have made, which is a very serious one, and I would like to respond to it in detail. First, let me categorically state that United States foreign policy is not based on any consideration of vendettas. United States policy is based on the fundamental principles of upholding international legitimacy, the rule of law and the pursuit of human rights principles and policies. We are not selectively applying this principal position to any one country. Indeed, if there's any vendetta, as you stated in your presentation, it is the vendetta of Saddam Hussein, as we have seen in the last year, against his neighbors, and now against his own people.
So any implication of vendetta should be focused on the cause of the suffering of the Iraqi people, which is Saddam Hussein, his regime and the policies of repression that he and his regime are following, directed against the people of Iraq. And we share the sense of compassion in your statement in terms of the suffering of the Iraqi people, of all the Iraqi people. So let me make that clear.
Secondly, we are very disturbed by what is happening inside Iraq. We are pursuing with our allies the upholding of United Nations Security Council resolutions that emanated after Desert Storm and after the reversal of Saddam's aggression against Kuwait. What we are talking about here is upholding international legitimacy and the necessity for Saddam Hussein to comply with all of the United Nations Security Council resolutions. And this is not a policy that is taken out of context of what we are doing individually as a country and collectively with our allies and other members of the United Nations in Bosnia, where the United States has taken the lead in elaborating a resolution which allows the use of all necessary means to provide assistance to the people who are suffering in Bosnia, to initiating an essential airlift of food and emergency supplies to the suffering people in Somalia.
And when you talk about United States policy as seeking to single out countries in a region which we are painfully aware is very dangerous in many respects in terms of the regional conflicts that have emerged from the Middle East, we have initiated, in this general context, one of the most important initiatives to bring peace and stability to the Middle East as a whole in terms of the Arab-Israeli peace process which we are now awaiting the initiation of the sixth round here in Washington on August 24th.
So, therefore, I want to take issue with the implication in your statement that our policy is based on some sort of automatic application of military force. We are interested, first and foremost, in establishing peace and stability in the Middle East and South Asia as a whole. And I think the policies that President Bush, Secretary Baker and this administration have put into play in this region demonstrate that.
And in terms of Iraq, look at what has happened over the last year. We have, after Desert Storm, lent our weight and our cooperation to the United Nations Security Council and its members and our allies in the coalition to not only elaborating a series of resolutions and sanctions enforcement, but helping carry them out. And therefore, what we're seeing is Saddam Hussein deliberately defying all the United Nations Security Council resolutions that have been established and supported by the international community. And it is this dismal track record that Saddam has in his cheat-and-retreat policies, especially in terms of UN Security Council Resolution 687, his deliberate repression of his own people in the north, the Iraqi population of the north, the Kurds, the Turkomans, the Syrians; in the south, what we're seeing now, a manifestation of a deliberate policy of repression by military means and economic blockades, in the north and in the south, of the Shia; and even in the center of the country, with the Sunni, in terms of these wide scale executions of merchants who he has singled out as scapegoats for the dismal performance of his own regime's policies.
So, therefore, we must look at what is being done now in the context of Saddam's deliberate, calculated refusal to apply the rule of law as established by the international community and the United Nations.
MR. HOURIGAN: Thank you, Ambassador Djerejian. Cairo, would you care to comment? Go ahead, please.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, my name is Muhammad ....(inaudible). I am -- (inaudible) -- newspaper's senior foreign desk editor. I have a question for you, sir, that has two points, actually. The first is, is there an international intention to partition Iraq? And if you would care, please, to answer this question in view of the point that there is an accusation against the United States that they do not want to take Saddam Hussein out because they are uncertain of the coming regime, whether it be Shiites or any other group in Iraq right now.
MR. DJEREJIAN: I'd be very happy to answer both those questions. First, let me state very definitively that it is not the policy of the United States government to partition Iraq. On the contrary, on the contrary, we have from the very beginning and today upheld the territorial integrity of Iraq. We think this is a very important principle to uphold. That has been and remains United States policy.
What we want to see emerge, in response to your second question, in Iraq is a successor regime, a successor government, based on democratic principles that will represent the pluralistic nature of Iraqi society. We want to see a government emerge in Baghdad that pursues democratic principles and human rights policies to end the suffering of the Iraqi people, who have been brutally savaged by Saddam Hussein's regime. And therefore, we have absolutely no interest in seeing Saddam Hussein remain in power.
Again, President Bush has made this very clear that we look forward to a government in Iraq with whom we can work, based on the principles I have just described. And we would like to work closely with such a government, a government that represents all of Iraq's people and ends the suffering of Iraq's people and no longer poses a threat to Iraq's neighbors.
MR. HOURIGAN: Thank you, sir. Thank you, Cairo. Riyadh, would you please join us now?
Q: This is -- (inaudible) -- from Arab News in Riyadh. Mr. Ambassador, after attacks on the Kurds in northern Iraq, Saddam has now turned his attention on the Shiites down south. Why do you think that Saddam is indulging in such provocative acts when he knows that such actions could invite -- (inaudible) -- which could help President George Bush in this election year?
MR. DJEREJIAN: I couldn't hear that question very clearly. I think I got most of it. First of all, let me state that in terms of the implication that any decision by President Bush and the United States government concerning Iraq is based on any domestic political considerations is nonsense -- nonsense. We have seen such reports and we find them appalling. President Bush -- the United States government has carried out a very consistent policy toward Iraq from Desert Storm to the elaboration of United Nations Security Council resolutions on Iraq. And this policy continues.
We are applying the intent of the international community, as codified by these resolutions, and I think the focus should be not so much on the reaction of what the United Nations, the coalition, the allies are or are considering to do, but why these actions are necessary. And the why there is Saddam Hussein's actions himself within Iraq directed against his own people and the repression of his own people and his defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions. This is where the focus should be. This is the problem. The problem, again, is Saddam Hussein. The problem is not the international community.
MR. HOURIGAN: Thank you, Riyadh. Istanbul, would you go ahead, please, with your first question or comment?
Q: (Inaudible.) I think Islamabad alluded to it, but I'll have to ask it once more, because I think there is a case of double standards here, Mr. Ambassador. So the question would be why in the United States are you reluctant to take a strong action to stop the massacres and so-called ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Hercegovina while you (show so much readiness?) to launch a military attack against Iraq? I know the two cases are different, but shouldn't the Bush administration, which advocates a new world order and great human values, show at least the same sensitivity regarding the mass killing, the (deportations?) in Bosnia? Is the United States aware that this creates the impression that the West is using the double standard I mentioned just a while ago and that (all that is?) described as humanitarian mission, let's say, is in fact based on political motives, unfortunately. This was the question, Mr. Ambassador. Thank you.
MR. DJEREJIAN: I am aware of the perception that you are characterizing, and I can tell you that the United States is not applying a double standard at all. At the outset of the crisis in former Yugoslavia, Secretary Baker used the term that we are facing -- the international community is facing -- and the poor people who are the victims of these incidents in former Yugoslavia are facing a humanitarian nightmare. Our consciousness of the tragedy unfolding in former Yugoslavia was very clear at the outset.
Secondly, the United States took the lead -- took the lead in international councils with our European allies, the United Nations, and in private bilateral exchanges in many different fora, to work toward obtaining a United Nations resolution which allows the international community to use all necessary means in Bosnia, former Yugoslavia, to assure that the suffering stops and to assure that humanitarian assistance is allowed to go to the people and to the victims of the tragedy that's been unfolding in Bosnia.
There is no double standard. That I can assure you of. And what we are doing in terms of our global approach, as we face the emerging situation after the Cold War, is to mobilize and largely through the instrumentality of the United Nations, coherent responses by the international community to these emerging crises, be they ethnic, be they the results of a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein in Baghdad, or be they the compelling appeal of a humanitarian assistance for the Somali people. Therefore, there is no double standard.
MR. HOURIGAN: Thank you, Istanbul. Let's return now to Islamabad. Would you go ahead, please?
Q: My name is -- (inaudible) -- Pakistan Times, Islamabad. My question stems from the (thought?) that military action against Iraq is (imminent?) from United States for non-compliance of UN resolutions. I would like to suggest -- (inaudible) -- to try one more option before the action is taken by the American government, and that is to deploy the good offices and goodwill of a neutral leader of the Third World or Arab world, particularly that leader who is friendly to the Americans and Iraqis -- (inaudible). The name of king of Jordan comes to my mind -- King Hussein of Jordan. Why not go for that option before the Americans take military action, because military action will bring (destruction?) for the people of Iraq. Thank you.
MR. DJEREJIAN: I think when we consider next steps toward Iraq, we have to put it in the context of all the efforts that have been made in the last year -- over the last year through the United Nations, through diplomatic channels. And what we have seen is that no matter what efforts have been made, Saddam has made a basic calculation that he's going to try to defy the will of the international community, again, as represented by a number of very important United Nations Security Council resolutions. And when you see his reaction to the inspections regime, for example, under UN Resolution 687, what we call his cheat-and-retreat tactic -- creating crises, only at the last minute to retreat to see how far and how much he can get away with, not having one of his facilities inspected, to determine whether there is any ongoing activity concerning weapons of mass destruction; a very important objective to eliminate this capability in his hands.
When you see his very cynical, and I must stress, brutally cynical refusal to apply two key resolutions, 706 and 712, which are the food-for-oil resolutions, he is obliged to accept this formula, which will allow Iraq, under UN supervision, to export a certain amount of its oil in order to pay largely for humanitarian assistance and food and medicines to come into Iraq and to help alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people, he has very cynically refused to apply these two key resolutions. And who are the victims of this? The Iraqi people who are the victims of this. And who is the cause of this? It is Saddam's cynical calculation that he can somehow get away with defying the application of these two key resolutions.
When we see that he has strengthened the economic blockade on the Iraqi population in the north, especially against the Kurds, when we see that he is applying military force in the marshlands in the south of Iraq against the Shia, when we see the tyranny that he perpetuates in the center of Iraq, in Baghdad, on economic class, using the merchants as a scapegoat for his inability to meet the needs of his people, we are seeing here a pattern of a man who doesn't want to listen to mediation, who has refused to listen to the voices of counsel.
We, of course, have, as you've referred, very close contacts and close relationships with key leaders in the Middle East, including King Hussein and including many other leaders in the Gulf and in the region as a whole. And we know that over the course of the last year, attempts have been made to see if Saddam can follow policies or would follow policies that would avert the continuing suffering of his own people and diminish the threat to his neighbors. None of that has worked. None of that has worked.
Q: (Inaudible) -- in Islamabad. Mr. Djerejian, you focused our attention on Saddam Hussein as the center from which this problem erupts, and there is no dispute over that. But I think you'll agree that the problem is not just restricted to the (creation of it?). Subsequent problems are also created by the response that the United States and its allies -- the (inaudible) -- of the response to the problem created by Saddam. Take, for example, this issue of what do you call it -- you call it no-flight zone and (exclusive?) zone south of the 32nd parallel. There have been very serious doubts expressed over the legality of this action and questions of its moral inadmissibility, questions of the violation, which you still partially respect, violation of the sovereign rights of an independent nation, Iraq. If the (tailoring?) of the response were not -- or the shape that the response takes were not part of the problem, then we think -- (inaudible) -- the problem and not go about with measures that act as -- (inaudible) -- in the shaping of that response. So I suggest, look at this, for example, when Mr. Douglas Hurd, I think, was queried about this (resolved?) -- not resolved -- this intention of going -- making this area south of the 32nd parallel an exclusive zone not permissible for flights by Iraqi aircraft, the response was, "We agree, France agrees, Britain agrees, the United States agrees. We agree that this is in perfect accord with the resolutions of the UN Security Council (so far?)." And the matter stops (at that?). There is a measure of the big three, if you like to call it that, taking on the role of the United Nations. How do you respond to this?
MR. DJEREJIAN: Well, we think that the question of legality of the various options that we are pursuing establishes a very firm case and a very unambiguous case. This is not just an arbitrary decision. Let's take one step back. Everything that we and our coalition allies are doing are being done under the legality of the framework of the United Nations and the United Nations Security Council resolutions. We are not talking about unilateral actions here on the part of any state vis-a-vis a third country.
This is one of the most important achievements, I think, in the post-Cold War era, where we have been able to establish this type of international cooperation under the United Nations and under the framework of international law. UN Resolution 688 provides the authority for all the options that we, our coalition partners and our allies are considering. We have all the necessary rights to apply these further options. President Bush has made that clear. The leaders in our allied countries have made this clear. And the international framework and the legality is clear. There is not a major question on whether the authority exists. It is there.
So therefore, I think what you should be considering is what has changed over the past year. And when we look at these emerging crises, which your colleagues and I think yourself have pointed out, throughout the world in this period of change that we are facing, that the responses are largely and mainly being elaborated within the context of international law and the United Nations. I think this is a very healthy -- I think this is a very positive development.
MR. HOURIGAN: Thank you, Islamabad. On today's Worldnet Dialogue program, we're discussing international response to Iraq's violations of UN resolutions. Our guest from the State Department is Assistant Secretary of State Edward Djerejian.
Cairo, would you go ahead, please? Q: Yes. This is Muhammad Shervi (ph) again. I'd like to ask you a question, Mr. Ambassador. Does the issue of the inspection team, the UN inspection team in Iraq, have anything to do with the U.S. elections? And what effect, if any, would any military action against Iraq nowadays have on the elections?
MR. DJEREJIAN: First of all, as I stated earlier, the actions and the policy that we are pursuing vis-a-vis Iraq have nothing to do with the domestic political situation here in the United States or the elections here. President Bush has made this very clear. President Bush is, after all, the president of the United States. He is responsible for the conduct of United States foreign policy. Our foreign policy toward Iraq has been established not only with Desert Storm, but following Desert Storm in terms of the United Nations Security Council resolutions.
The central focus of U.S. policy is the application across the board of all these United Nations Security Council resolutions as they apply to Iraq. Therefore, the President is pursuing a consistent policy, and it has nothing to do with domestic politics. In terms of the inspection regime, that, of course, is under UN Resolution 687, one of the most important resolutions vis-a-vis Iraq, and the -- what is called UNSCOM, the United Nations Special Commission, with its director, Mr. Ekeus. They make the determination of what they are going to inspect, when they're going to inspect, where they're going to inspect. And that falls fully under the UN aegis, and that has absolutely nothing to do with domestic politics here in the United States.
Q: Okay, sir. If the Kurds succeeded in establishing the state, or the state they're demanding in north Iraq, would not that be a partition of the (unity?) of Iraq?
MR. DJEREJIAN: Well, we again strongly advocate the territorial integrity of Iraq. That is U.S. policy, and there should be no ambiguity about that. When we met with the Iraqi opposition here in Washington recently, we had extensive discussions. The members of the Iraqi opposition emanating from the Iraqi National Congress met with Secretary Baker, met with other officials in the U.S. government. I met with them several times here in the State Department. And in all of our discussions, the Iraqi opposition, including the Kurdish leadership, made it clear that their objective was to work within a unified democratic Iraq. I stress unified democratic Iraq, with the central government in Baghdad representative of the pluralistic nature of Iraqi society. Therefore, what we are hearing from the Iraqi opposition itself is that they want to work under this framework and not under any other framework.
Q: You mentioned unified democratic Iraq, and you mentioned earlier that you were (waiting?) that the Iraqi people should have a -- want the Iraqi people to have a democratic regime. How do you think Iraq would get any democratic form of government in the future?
MR. DJEREJIAN: Well, that, of course, is up to the Iraqi people. Again, in our discussions with the Iraqi opposition, this theme of working for a democratic regime which would respect human rights, which would respect the pluralistic nature of Iraqi society in a unified state, they felt that a democratic system was the best safeguard for doing this and promoting political, economic and social rights of all the Iraqi people. So therefore, this is nothing that can be prescribed by anyone, especially by outsiders. This is something that must emanate from within and from the Iraqi people themselves. And I think what we have here is a sense that the history of the suffering of the Iraqi people for decades now must come to an end; that the Iraqi people must be given the opportunity to express themselves in a pluralistic society and to develop their capabilities and to become a country that lives at peace with itself and with all of its neighbors in this very important part of the world in the Persian Gulf.
Q: Iraq has a military regime standing right now. When you speak about people having their own choice, doesn't that mean that they have to get rid of that military regime? Would the United States be ready to help any form of government that comes to defy or against this military regime? And what would the outcome be? Wouldn't that be a civil war?
MR. DJEREJIAN: Well, President Bush has made clear that the United States looks forward to working with a government, a successor government to Saddam Hussein that can live at peace with its own people and with its neighbors. And in our discussions, again, with the Iraqi opposition group, I am just conveying to you their own sense of what they think the best formula is for them to achieve these goals.
MR. HOURIGAN: Thank you, Cairo. Would you please join us again now, Riyadh?
Q: Yes. This is Talal Atwa (ph), Mr. Ambassador, editor-in-chief of Riyadh Daily. Actually, I have two questions, maybe more. My first question I would like to ask you, sir, regarding the human rights in Iraq, which is, as we all know, that there are more than hostages in Kuwait -- of Kuwaiti hostages are being detained in Iraq. My question is, what is United States and allies trying to do to release these hostages, because it seems that Saddam Hussein regime is denying that he's holding any of them.
MR. DJEREJIAN: Well, this is a very important issue that has been on the agenda for a long time. It is again another example of how Saddam has been defying the United Nations Security Council resolutions. He is obliged to account for all of these people. And we've been working very closely with the Kuwaiti government. We've been working very closely with other governments and through the United Nations to get an accounting of these people. And to date, that accounting has not come forward despite the best efforts of the international community, the Kuwaitis, ourselves, to assure that there is specific accounting for each individual. So he is in defiance of that, and that is something that has yet to be achieved.
Q: You mentioned that next Monday is the talks between the Arab -- the sixth round of talks between the Arabs and the Israelis will take place in Washington. Now, under the new government of the Israelis, are you optimistic, or can we see a new breakthrough in these talks, which I think it will last for a month, that will result in progress in the peace talks?
MR. DJEREJIAN: We are confident that the sixth round of talks that will start in Washington on August 24th hold great promise for real progress on the substantive issues. As you know, Secretary Baker made a visit to the Middle East in July for very important consultations with the Arab-Israeli leadership. We met with the new Israeli government under Prime Minister Rabin. We met with President Assad in Syria. We met with King Hussein in Jordan. We met with President Mubarak in Egypt. We met with King Fahd in Saudi Arabia. And in a very important historic visit to Lebanon, we met with President Harawi and his government in Zahle in the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon. Those consultations were very important.
We met also in Jerusalem with the Palestinian leadership and delegation. These consultations provided us with the opportunity to continue to play our role as a driving force, an honest broker and a catalyst to make progress, real progress, on the Arab-Israeli peace talks. And we talk now of peacemaking, making peace, getting down to the specific substantive issues at this sixth round of negotiations. And we have urged the parties -- Arab, Palestinian, Israeli alike -- to come to the table prepared to make substantive progress, real progress, on the issues that divide them. And we will be continuing to play our active role as this process continues.
And I think there is real promise. We have seen a very important and significant change in Israel in terms of Prime Minister Rabin's policies of shifting the national priorities of Israel toward economic reforms, restructuring, absorption of the former Soviet Jews, and a very active and direct interest in moving in a very prompt and timely manner on the Arab-Israeli peace negotiations. Therefore, I think there's an opportunity here, a real opportunity, which President Bush, Secretary Baker, this administration, are going to do everything possible to promote.
Q: (Inaudible.) If coalition forces decide to attack Iraq -- (inaudible) -- for aircraft to take off, especially when, you know, Turkish government refused to -- (inaudible)?
MR. DJEREJIAN: Well, I can't comment on such questions involving possible operations. I simply can't respond to such questions.
Q: The second question, sir -- (inaudible) -- security zone -- (inaudible) -- would make Iraq three countries.
MR. DJEREJIAN: Well, that certainly is not the intent of any possible establishment of a security zone in the south. We have established, as you know, under Provide Comfort, a security zone north of the 36th parallel. That did not constitute a division of Iraq or in any way abrogate from Iraq's territorial integrity. If a security zone or a no-fly zone is established in the south, the purpose of that is to monitor Saddam Hussein's compliance with the United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and to cease the repression of his own people. It does not mean that Iraq is being carved up into different zones.
Baghdad remains and will remain in the future the center of, the capital of Iraq. As I said, in our talks with Iraqi opposition, they were talking and are talking, and their intent is to unify a democratic regime in a unified state. We are not talking about the division of Iraq, and any further move on establishing no-fly zones, security zones, whatever they're called, is not a step toward the division of Iraq.
MR. HOURIGAN: Thank you, sir. Thank you, Riyadh. Istanbul, your turn now. Would you go ahead, please?
Q: Hello, this is Istanbul. (Inaudible.) Mr. Ambassador, I would like to (learn?) what would happen if United Nations experts demanded access to the military -- (inaudible) -- ministry on Monday, who has announced that it's not going to open the doors of its ministry to the UN experts -- (inaudible) -- United States. Thank you very much.
MR. DJEREJIAN: As I said earlier, the decisions that are made on inspections are the prerogative of the United Nations under the UNSCOM mechanism, the United Nations Special Commission mechanism, that Mr. Ekeus leads. These inspectors make those decisions -- where, when and how they're going to inspect various facilities, including ministries, in Iraq. Therefore, that is their decision. And they are working in the context of UN Resolution 687, and their job is to determine compliance with 687, especially on the question of the existence and development and disposal of weapons of mass destruction, and they make that call, and that is their call. And the United States does not interfere in any way in their judgment and their decisions on these issues.
Q: (Inaudible.) Mr. Ambassador, there are reports that Turkish government is unhappy with the idea of renewed military action against Iraq because of its territorial integrity. I would like to learn if your government has consulted with the Turkish government before reaching an agreement in creating a non-flying zone below the 32nd parallel. And if the case of renewed military action takes place, do you plan to use the 40 or so planes in the -- (inaudible)? And if so, how would your government (calm?) the Turkish government? Thank you.
MR. DJEREJIAN: In terms of the latter part of your question, I simply cannot answer on the military aspects of any future options. Therefore, I will not answer that part of your question. We certainly have consulted very closely with the Turkish government at the highest levels, both in Ankara and here in Washington, and we remain in close touch with the Turkish government on this matter. Therefore, we are not only consulting, but working closely with the Turkish government on this very important issue. So therefore, what you should understand is that what we are doing is not being done in isolation of our key allies, our key coalition partners, including Turkey.
Q: (Inaudible.) Mr. Ambassador, you have spoken here of the territorial integrity of Iraq -- (inaudible) -- but I think there's a new situation. There's a flight path for Iraqi planes under the 32nd parallel. And this -- (inaudible) -- temporary partition of Iraq into three parts, north for the Kurds -- (inaudible) -- central -- (inaudible) -- Baghdad for Saddam Hussein, and south for the Shia; like in the old Turkish times, I mean the Ottoman empire, three governments there were at the time. If this formula works -- and it worked in the Ottoman times, as you know -- can it be attractive enough for a de facto partition of the status quo which would in the future -- (inaudible)? Thank you.
MR. DJEREJIAN: Well, first of all, three separate zones are not being established by the United Nations or by any outside powers. What is being done is the application of the United Nations Security Council resolutions. The establishment of a security zone north of the 32nd parallel does not mean that Iraq has been partitioned in terms of the north. The establishment of a no-fly zone in the south would not mean that Iraq has ipso facto been partitioned and divided, leaving three separate entities. What is being done is establishing security zones or arrangements to monitor the application of United Nations Security Council resolutions to help protect the Iraqi populations in those areas from repressive measures by Saddam Hussein and his regime. So we're not talking about de facto partition. We're not talking about partition. Our policy firmly remains the maintenance of the territorial integrity of Iraq. And there should be no question about that.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, this is -- (inaudible). You said that U.S. is taking the lead in passing resolutions for taking any necessary means of action against Iraq and Saddam Hussein or the Serbian forces, the brutality of the forces against Muslim people in both countries. And U.S. -- we see that U.S. is very willing to execute the plans against Iraq while she is reluctant against the Serbs and is refusing to send ground troops while (Turkey?) -- (inaudible) -- England and France and Britain said so. How would you elaborate on that and respond to that? Why is the U.S. so reluctant against Serbs in Bosnia?
MR. DJEREJIAN: Well, I think the reluctance is only in your own perception. There is no reluctance on our part to apply resolutions that allow all necessary means to be applied in the situation in Bosnia. Again, I repeat that we took the lead in helping to forge a resolution that achieved that aim, with the immediate objective of providing humanitarian assistance to the peoples who are suffering there, and especially the Muslim population that is suffering as the victim of this brutality, and as Secretary Baker said, this humanitarian nightmare. So therefore, there is no reluctance.
And in terms of your statement on ground troops, the United States is not contemplating the use of ground troops in any of these scenarios that I've mentioned, either in Yugoslavia or in Iraq or in Somalia. What we're talking about is orchestrating international responses using all necessary means, certainly in the case of Iraq and in Bosnia, in coordination with the international community. But I must reject categorically your implication of U.S. reluctance. There is no reluctance. And I think our actions speak as loudly as our words.
Q: (Inaudible.) Mr. Ambassador, you denied before that President Bush was using the threat of intervention to Iraq as a tool for giving a boost to his election campaign -- (inaudible). How would you estimate the changes in American policy if Mr. Clinton, the Democrat candidate, became the president of the United States? Thank you.
MR. DJEREJIAN: Well, I simply can't comment on such a question, and I will not comment on that question.
MR. HOURIGAN: Thank you. Let's return now to Islamabad for a final question. Would you go ahead, please?
Q: I am -- (inaudible) -- again from Pakistan Times. A short while ago, while answering a question, Mr. Djerejian made two points about -- (inaudible) -- regime. One point was -- (inaudible) -- of the UN resolutions and his non-compliance. The second was the human rights violations in the north with the Kurds, in the south with the Shia. Now, in this view, the Americans contemplate an action against Iraq. Now, the same thing is happening in Kashmir. The regime -- (inaudible) -- is doing the same thing. They are defying and they are non-complying with the UN resolutions on Kashmir. And there are serious human rights violations taking place in India. What is the thinking of the American government on this issue -- (inaudible)? Thank you.
MR. DJEREJIAN: The United States government considers very seriously all conflict situations or disputes that can erupt either in a politically negative way affecting the peace and security of a region in the world or that can be the cause of military confrontation. One of the basic thrusts of our policy is to establish peace and security in all the regions of the world. And therefore, we take situations such as prevail -- we've been discussing now in Bosnia, in Iraq -- very seriously.
As you well know, we have also attached the utmost serious concern to the potential for conflict concerning the Kashmir issue. This is an issue which can become volatile. It is an issue that must be addressed, hopefully in a peaceful manner, between India and Pakistan and amongst the Kashmiri people themselves. We have noted our adherence in the past and currently to the formula presented by the Simla Accords. Therefore, it is an issue that must be addressed. I agree with you on that. It is a problem that can cause instability in a very important region of the world, South Asia. And we are hopeful and are prepared to work closely with our Pakistani and Indian friends to help see that that issue can be resolved in the near future.
MR. HOURIGAN: I'm afraid we've run out of time. Ambassador Djerejian, we'd like to thank you for being our guest today.
MR. DJEREJIAN: Thank you. MR. HOURIGAN: And thanks as well to our international participants for sharing in the discussion on this very important topic.
In Washington, I'm Terry Hourigan for Worldnet's Dialogue. (END TRANSCRIPT) NNNN
File Identification: 08/20/92, NF-465; 08/20/92, EP-417; 08/20/92, AX-407; 08/20/92, EU-407; 08/21/92, NFS553
Product Name: Wireless File; Worldnet
Product Code: WF; WO
Keywords: DJEREJIAN, EDWARD/Speaker; IRAQ-US RELATIONS/Policy; IRAQ/Politics & Government; HUSSEIN, SADDAM; POLITICAL INTERVENTION; ARMISTICE; PERSIAN GULF WAR; UNITED NATIONS-SECURITY COUNCIL; HUMAN RIGHTS; ATROCITIES; MOSLEMS;
KURDS;
Document Type: TRA; INT
Thematic Codes: 1NE; 1AC; 1UN; 2HA
Target Areas: AF; EA; EU; NE
PDQ Text Link: 239891; 240079
USIA Notes: *92082065.NFS tr:djerejian wnet on iraq 8/20 bg/rm yb sa kf
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
