UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

USIS Washington File

02 February 1998

TRANSCRIPT: SECSTATE PRESS CONFERENCE IN JERUSALEM, FEBRUARY 2

(Albright criticizes the stalemate in the peace process) (3470)
Jerusalem -- Secretary of State Albright says the current stalemate in
Israeli-Palestinian peace talks is eroding earlier gains and
threatening the entire peace process.
"There is only one way to avoid further deterioration," she told
reporters at a February 2 press conference in Jerusalem. "Both parties
must work to restore the lost sense of partnership by taking the hard
steps to put the process back on track.
"It is no longer enough to simply talk about wanting peace," she said,
"it is time to make the difficult decisions and exercise the
leadership necessary to achieve it."
Albright announced that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Nethanyahu and
Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat have agreed to send
emissaries to Washington during the week of February 9 to follow up on
discussions she had with those leaders over the weekend of January
31-February 1.
Asked if she got any "good answers" from the two leaders during her
discussions with them, Albright replied that she got "some answers,"
but that she is "not as satisfied as I wish I could be in terms of the
level of answers that I got."
However, she emphasized that although the two countries may differ
over how to pursue Middle East peace, "nothing will ever shake the
iron-clad commitment of the United States when it comes to the
security of Israel."
Regarding Iraq's refusal to comply with the U.N. Security Council's
demands that its inspection teams have full and unfettered access to
suspected chemical and biological weapons sites, Albright said the
world must stop Iraqi leader Sadaam Hussein from "ever again
jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons
of mass destruction."
She assured the peoples of Israel, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait that the
"United States stands by you" just as it did "when Sadaam Hussein
attacked you six years ago."
Following is the State Department transcript:
(begin transcript)
Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright
Press Conference, Laromme Hotel, Jerusalem,
February 1, 1998
As released by the Office of the Spokesman U.S. Department of State
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, good afternoon everybody. Before departing
for the Gulf, I want to set my meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu
and Chairman Arafat in perspective.
Two challenges define my current mission to the region: Our
determination to prevent Saddam from threatening the security and
stability of the region with weapons of mass destruction, and our
commitment to get the Arab-Israeli Peace Process back on track.
The threat posed by Saddam Hussein's continued defiance of the
Security Council and obstruction of UN's weapons inspections is
greatest to the peoples of this region. Saddam has used his arsenal
against three of the countries I am visiting on this trip: Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait and Israel. Indeed, he has used chemical weapons
against his own people. We must stop Saddam from ever again
jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons
of mass destruction. The chemical weapons Saddam has used and the
biological weapons we know he has tested pay no attention to borders
and nationalities. They are a threat to Israelis and to Palestinians.
They are a threat to Saudis and Kuwaitis. They are a threat to
Iranians and a threat even to Iraqis themselves. Weapons of mass
destruction kill without discrimination.
Let me say to the people of Israel in no uncertain terms, as I will
say to the people of Saudi Arabia and the people of Kuwait: The United
States stood with you when Saddam Hussein attacked you six years ago.
The United States stands with you in the face of Saddam's latest
threat today.
Of course, there may be differences between us about how to pursue
Middle East peace, but let me say directly to the Israeli people:
Nothing will ever shake the iron-clad commitment of the United States
when it comes to the security of Israel. Although Saddam is bent on
keeping this region mired in conflict, and stuck in the past, the
United States is determined to keep the Middle East focused on the
future and moving towards peace.
And that is the second purpose of my mission. A week and a half ago,
the President -- President Clinton met with Prime Minister Netanyahu
and Chairman Arafat to lay out his ideas to get Israeli-Palestinian
negotiations back on track. He sent me here to elaborate on those
ideas, to solicit the reactions of both leaders and to impress upon
them the importance of making hard decisions so we can move ahead.
At my request, and in an effort to report quickly, Prime Minister
Netanyahu and Chairman have both agreed to send emissaries to
Washington late next week to follow up on our discussions this
weekend. I understand that the issues involved in the four-point
agenda are difficult and complex, and I have no illusions about how
challenging these negotiations are. But both parties must remember
that the four-point agenda is not an end in itself. Israelis and
Palestinians must move to permanent status negotiations in order to
ultimately secure a lasting peace.
We have been stalled at this point in the peace process, negotiating
the same issues for a long time -- frankly, far too long. There is far
too much at stake for this to go on. Over the last several years,
Arabs and Israelis have concluded extraordinary agreements and
established unprecedented ties. The current stalemate which has lasted
for more than a year now is eroding those gains and threatening the
entire process.
There is only one way to avoid further deterioration: both parties
must work to restore the lost sense of partnership by taking the hard
steps to put the process back on track. It is no longer enough to
simply talk about wanting peace; it is time to make the difficult
decisions and exercise the leadership necessary to achieve it.
QUESTION: Six years ago the Bush Administration pressured Israel not
to respond when thirty-nine Scuds fell on Tel Aviv and eleven Israelis
were killed. Considering the dicey situation in Iraq, is this the time
really to be asking Israel to give up territory, territory a small
country considers very vital in a very dangerous neighborhood?
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: First of all as I have said in these remarks we
believe that one of the major reasons to push back on Saddam is so
that he would not be a threat to the countries in the neighborhood,
and as I stated, we are committed to helping them in any way that we
can if they in some way should be attacked.
It is obviously always up to each country to determine its own way of
defending itself, but as I've said, our commitment to Israel's
security is unshakeable. I think it's also very important to
understand that we have two highly important problems going on at the
same time. The peace process is one in which we have all invested a
great deal of time and energy. We believe that it has to go on, that
every determination has to be made to move it along, and at the same
time it is very important to make clear our determination to thwart
Saddam Hussein's ability to acquire and develop weapons of mass
destruction and to threaten his neighbors. So while these problems are
both going on simultaneously, we have to deal with them independently
and we have to make our views on both known very clearly.
Q: Madam Secretary, given the fact that there's a belief that lack of
progress in the Middle East peace process spills over into our
relations in the rest of the region, are you concerned that an
apparent lack of progress here at this point will erode support, or
will have a negative effect on support in the Gulf for the main part
of your mission there, which is to --?
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: My purpose on this mission is to explain where we
are in terms of our determination to thwart Saddam Hussein in his
ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction and threaten his
neighbors, and I think that the important part here is for me to
explain why in itself that is an important mission, and I am not
making any connection between the two.
Q: Madam Secretary, you met with King Hussein on Friday. There have
been reports now that his health is not good. Could you give us some
idea of how he seemed and whether you detected any change in him, or
whether he referred to his health at all.
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, I'm a doctor, but not that kind, and I found
him in very good spirits, looking terrific, very relaxed, and we had a
very good discussion. I think also that he is a keen and astute
observer of what is going on in the region.
I appreciated his insight and his views and also his understanding for
the approach that we were taking as far as Saddam Hussein was
concerned, and very much appreciate a letter that was published today
in which he makes clear that he holds Saddam Hussein responsible for
the consequences of his actions, and for the failure to abide by
Security Council resolutions. So I was just very, very pleased to have
the opportunity to meet him and Queen Noor, and they both looked great
to me.
Q: Madam Secretary, is the military option which the United States has
realistic in terms of (inaudible)? Can it achieve goal of eliminating
weapons of mass destruction or --?
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, let me say that we believe that the kind of
military action we would take, and let me parenthetically say here,
that we continue to prefer the diplomatic route and believe that that
is the best solution to it but, if diplomacy runs out we have reserved
the right to use force and, if we do so, it will be substantial and it
will be directed at what President Clinton stated were the objectives
of it, which is to thwart their ability to acquire and develop weapons
of mass destruction and to threaten their neighbors. And I must say,
in that regard, that if they do, in fact, in some way, threaten their
neighbors or do damage to them, our response to that will be swift and
forceful and so they should have no doubt about that aspect.
Q: Did Israel request U.S. protective equipment for use in case of
chemical or biological attack? And may I ask also, did you receive any
good answers from both Israelis and Palestinians today?
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, first of all, we will obviously be in very
close consultations with the Israelis in terms of their security
needs. I don't think it is appropriate for me to go into any detail on
that but, just to repeat again that our support for Israel, security
is unshakable and that we will continue to consult very closely on the
whole question here.
On did I receive any good answers, I received some answers. I think, I
must say that I had hoped that we would get further on this trip than
we have but there has been some minimal progress and I appreciate, as
I said in my statement, that both leaders have agreed to send envoys
to Washington and my sense is that they are doing what President
Clinton asked them to do which is to absorb and think about the ideas
that he presented and that they are increasingly realizing the fact
that they are the ones that have to make the hard decisions, that the
United States will be there with ideas and support but they are the
ones that have to make the tough decisions and so I am not as
satisfied as I wish I could be in terms of the level of answers that I
got but we did get some answers and I am glad that the process is
continuing in the way that it is.
Q: Madam Secretary, do you think that this visit, your visit now to
the region, did you get good answers from your visit or would it
remind us of the visit you have done before some months? And something
else, do you think this try, this American try, is a try as a peace
mediator or it's a try to have more Arab supporters if the military
option will be taken by the United States?
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, first of all, I think I answered the
question about what answers I have gotten on the peace process and
again, I would just say that I consider my trip here worthwhile for
that purpose because it follows up on some very intensive diplomacy
that took place this fall in other places and also the meetings that
we had in Washington. But, I would have wished that more could have
come out of it and we will continue to press and, I wish frankly that,
as I said, that there had been more.
In terms of the other subject, let me say that I have been very
satisfied with my overall trip in terms of the Iraqi situation. I have
now met with Foreign Minister Vedrine, Foreign Minister Primakov,
Foreign Minister Cook, and what I have found, is that there is unity
in all of those leaders in their belief that Saddam Hussein has to
carry out his obligations that the Security Council has laid on him,
and that there should be unfettered and unconditional access for the
inspectors.
I was very pleased with -- obviously Foreign Secretary Cook has been
supportive from the very beginning, and is one of the people upon whom
-- with whom we have a great partnership and work with very closely.
I was very pleased of the support that came from Foreign Minister
Vedrine who made clear that all options were open. We had some
disagreements with Foreign Minister Primakov who believes that the
chances for diplomacy are better than I do, frankly. But as I've
already talked about King Hussein's support, and certainly the support
here.
What is very heartening, is that as I said initially, that every one
of those people understand the need for delivering a strong message to
Saddam Hussein about unconditional, unfettered access, and, as I also
said earlier, the purpose of my trip was to explain the U.S. position,
welcome the support of those who would support us, and to make clear
what President Clinton said so eloquently in the State of the Union
message: that we are going to do all we could to thwart Saddam Hussein
in his ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction and threaten his
neighbors.
Q: Madame Secretary, I wonder if you could tell us how you evaluate
the reports and signs that you're getting that Iran may be rethinking
its position on the Middle East Peace Process?
We understand the Administration may have gotten word through Arafat
that Khatemi is a little less hostile to the process than his -- some
other officials is Iran. And a senior Iranian official in Davos over
the last two days apparently has made some statement suggesting that
Iran would be more interested in some kind of a dialogue between
Iranians and Israelis, and that there may be division on the Middle
East Peace Process within the government.
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Let me say this: I was very interested initially
when reports came through about some of the resolutions taken at the
OIC meeting in Tehran, where Iran was obviously the Chair of the OIC
for three years. And I think some important steps were taken there to
indicate some support for the Middle East Peace Process, a minimal.
And we are following very closely, obviously whatever statements they
are making, because as you know, one of the three major problems that
we have with Iran, is the we have felt that they have not been helpful
with the Middle East Peace Process. So we will follow that.
As you also know, President Clinton as part of his Eid message,
directed a section to the Iranian people, explaining our respect for
their history and culture, and speaking about the importance of having
-- of examining the possibility of exchanges and having a cultural
dialogue between the peoples.
We will have to see again what these various signals mean, and clearly
what we have -- are witnessing is a discussion of ideas in the Iranian
Government. And as we have all said it is intriguing, some of it is
encouraging. But again, I think we are going to have to watch this
closely and be open in a way as the President was to what we are
hearing.
Q: Madam Secretary, did you find Arafat supportive of U.S. goals
dealing with the stand-off on weapons inspections with Iraq?
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, what Chairman Arafat did was repeat what he
said to me in Bern that he believes that Security Council resolutions
should be abided by, and he made that very clear again that the
resolutions needed to be carried out. I felt that he understood the
difficulties posed by what Saddam Hussein was doing and the general
problems that it posed for us specifically, but you will have to ask
him more directly.
Q: Madam Secretary, I'd like to ask you about oil-for-food. Kofi Anan
is presenting today proposals to expand oil-for-food from two to five
billion dollars per semester. I was wondering if you would support an
expansion on that scale?
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: First of all let me reiterate that it was the
United States who actually initiated the whole concept of
oil-for-food, because we have no fight with the Iraqi people and
understand their suffering. I think we understand their suffering
better than Saddam Hussein does.
First of all we wanted the oil-for-food program to be carried out
swiftly, and it took Saddam Hussein a year or so to even get the
mechanism into place so that the oil-for-food could in fact be carried
out. We will be examining Kofi Anan's suggestions specifically, but in
a general way, but I can say that we do support an expansion of the
oil-for-food program.
Q: Mrs. Secretary, I'd like to ask how you evaluate the step taken
yesterday by the Central Committee of the PLO regarding the Covenant,
the Palestinian Covenant?
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, it is my understanding that they have put
the issue of the Covenant on an agenda item to be discussed. They have
written letters to Prime Minister Blair and President Clinton making
clear which articles of the Covenant they consider invalid, and we
consider that an important step forward, and I understand this
question is going to be on the agenda as an important step in terms of
what is being asked of them.
Q: Madam Secretary, as the technical team, evaluation team, arrived to
Iraq yesterday and another team for biological team. Why don't you
wait the technical team, evaluation team, of twenty-two members and
the second thing as most of the Arab countries do not support a
military strike -- Egypt, Syria and some Gulf countries -- are you
worried of more radicalization in the Arab world and more
fundamentalism after a U.S. strike against Iraq? Thank you.
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: First of all, I think we are watching to see what
the results of the technical evaluation teams are going to be, but the
main thing that we are pressing for because that is the structure that
has been established is for the UNSCOM inspectors to be able to carry
out their work unfettered and in an unconditional way. That is what
this is about.
I think that we are assessing the situation from the perspective of
what we believe needs to be done in order to make sure that countries
in the region are not threatened by Saddam Hussein who has had and
could have and probably has weapons of mass destruction. As I have
mentioned, there are Arab countries that are as threatened by his
weapons as anybody, and therefore we believe that the action that we
take if we in fact have to use force would be done to the end of
trying to help those countries, and I have said in my initial remarks,
weapons of mass destruction know no borders or nationalities, and I
think that we believe that if we have to use force, we will be doing
it for the correct reasons
But again, let me say, that we are trying to sort this out
diplomatically. We all prefer a diplomatic solution, but the window
for carrying out that diplomatic solution and the time for it seems to
be narrowing.
Thank you.
(end transcript)




NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list