
05 March 1998
TRANSCRIPT: RIEDEL MARCH 4 WORLDNET "DIALOGUE" ON IRAQ
(UN to Saddam: comply or face severest consequences) (9160) Washington -- The latest United Nations resolution on Iraq sends the clearest and strongest message to date from the international community to Saddam Hussein: comply or face the severest consequences, according to Bruce Riedel, Special assistant to President Clinton for Near East and South Asian Affairs. "I think it's important to remember why this (U.N. resolution) is important," Riedel said. "Iraq is the only country in the world today which has a government which is a repeat offender in the use of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq has started two wars in our lifetime. It has used chemical weapons against its neighbors and against its own people. It has fired missiles at Tel Aviv, at Tehran, at Riyadh and at Manama. This is a very dangerous government which the international community must take efforts to ensure cannot threaten peace and security again," he said. "The resolution passed (by the Security Council) sends that signal in no uncertain terms to the Iraqi government." In the wide-ranging Worldnet interview with journalists in Amman, Cairo and London, Riedel also talked about the differing interpretations among U.N. Security Council members of the term "severest consequences," and the authority the United States has under U.N. resolutions to take military action against Iraq. "We believe we have had a mandate to take action if necessary for some time," he said. "That mandate existed from U.N. Security Council Resolution 678, which authorized military action in 1991. ... When Iraq is in violation of the Security Council resolution that created the cease-fire in 1991, Resolution 687, the United States and its allies have in the past used military force in order to compel Iraqi compliance. We did this in 1992, 1993 and 1996," he said. However, Riedel stressed that the U.S. goal in the Gulf is not to use military force for its own sake. He underscored President Clinton's repeated view that the United States prefers a peaceful and diplomatic solution to end Iraq's defiance of U.N. resolutions, and his concern for the plight of Iraqi people under Saddam's rule. He said U.S. and allied forces will remain in the Gulf to ensure that the latest diplomatic efforts succeed. He also made the following points: -- "It has been the United States and international community which has cared about the Iraqi people. Saddam has cynically tried to use something that we care about, the suffering of his own people, in order to protect what he most cares about, his weapons of mass destruction and missiles. That's why the United States and other members of the Security Council decided to expand the oil-for-food proposal." __ "I frankly reject that argument that the United States has put more effort into containing Iraq than it has into trying to bring about a breakthrough in the Middle East peace process. We have done both." -- "The United States is not trying to impose its will or Americanize the Gulf. The U.S. forces in the Gulf are there at the request of our friends in the region. It is not just the United States forces that rallied to the defense of Security Council resolutions this time. We had the support of the United Kingdom, from Canada, from many European countries, from Argentina, and we enjoyed the support from many countries in the (Gulf) region." Following is a transcript of the interview: (For more information on this subject, contact our special Iraq website at: http://www.usia.gov/iraq) (Begin transcript) MR. FOUCHEUX: Welcome to Worldnet, I'm Rick Foucheux. On Tuesday the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution that warns Iraq of the severest consequences if it breaks the agreement worked out by Secretary General Kofi Annan for U.N. inspectors to search for hidden weapons with obstruction. Here to discuss recent events and the U.S. policy toward Iraq is Bruce Riedel. Mr. Riedel is the special assistant to the president and senior director for Near East and South Asian Affairs of the National Security Council. Mr. Riedel, welcome to Worldnet's "Dialogue." MR. RIEDEL: Thank you very much. MR. FOUCHEUX: It's a pleasure to have you with us. Before we begin with our audience overseas, perhaps you could comment on the latest resolution in the United Nations. MR. RIEDEL: I'd be very happy to. This resolution is a very important message from the international community to the government of Iraq. It sends a very strong signal that Iraq must comply with U.N. Security Council resolution, and it must live up to the commitments that it gave to the secretary general in Baghdad a week ago -- or it will face the severest consequences. Let's take a minute to set the stage here. Since the middle of 1997, Iraq has in a series of challenges confronted the international community, and the regime that was created in 1991 after the Gulf War. That regime created a U.N. Special Commission with the responsibility to find and destroy all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and long-range ballistic missiles. Over the last seven years it has been very successful in doing that, despite continued deceit and other efforts to conceal by the government of Iraq. Since the middle of last year, Iraq has posed several challenges. First, in the fall it told UNSCOM that all the Americans in UNSCOM had to leave. Then this January it said eight so-called presidential sites were off limits to the inspectors. In each case the international community has responded and the United States and its allies have sent forces to the region to give that diplomacy credibility. We now have an opportunity to see if Iraq will finally live up to its commitments. I think it's important to remember why this is important. Iraq is the only country in the world today which has a government which is a repeat offender in the use of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq has started two wars in our lifetime. It has used chemical weapons against its neighbors and against its own people. It has fired missiles at Tel Aviv, at Tehran, at Riyadh and at Manama. This is a very dangerous government which the international community must take efforts to ensure cannot threaten peace and security again. The resolution passed on Monday sends that signal in no uncertain terms to the Iraqi government. MR. FOUCHEUX: Thank you, Mr. Riedel, for those comments. And once again we are pleased to have you in our studios. MR. RIEDEL: Thank you, it's a pleasure to be here. MR. FOUCHEUX: I also want to welcome all of our participants gathered in Amman, Cairo and London. Let's begin our program now in Amman. Go ahead with your first question please in Amman. Q: Mr. Riedel, the question from Amman is: Jordan called for a two-track dialogue between the U.N. secretariat and the other track between the U.S. administration and the Iraqi leadership. What are the U.S. conditions and what is your evaluation of that? MR. RIEDEL: Thank you. The United States is not a party in this dispute with Iraq. Iraq's obligations are to the United Nations Security Council and to the international community. It knows what those obligations are. Let's bear in mind that in 1991 Iraq was asked in Resolution 687 to provide within 15 days a full, final and complete status of all its WMD programs and its ballistic missiles. It is now more than 2,000 days later and Iraq has yet to do it. This is not an issue just between the United States and Iraq; it is an issue between the United Nations and Iraq. Iraq has to fulfill the requirements that it gave in 1991 and live up to its obligations under these resolutions. Kofi Annan went to Baghdad with the support of the international community and with the standing of the Security Council. This is not a question about whether the United States and Iraq are talking to each other; it's a question of whether Iraq lives up to its obligations. MR. FOUCHEUX: Thank you, Amman. Now let's go to Cairo for a question. Please go ahead with your first question in Cairo. Q: Mr. Riedel, I would like now to examine your thoughts or your own reading of the agreement reached between Iraq and the United Nations earlier on. And the reason I'm asking this question is because there is clearly a difference in the understanding or the reading of the agreement when it comes to the United States as the terms "severest consequences" is interpreted by the United States as the right to use military action if Iraq breaks the promises it made. But at the same time we heard U.N. Chief Kofi Annan saying yesterday that the severest consequences, or in case a military action should be taken -- this -- the United States has to go back to the Council, and there should be a sort of consultation between the members. So I would like to know what you think about that. MR. RIEDEL: Yes, I am sure that the Council had one very important objective in mind when it passed this resolution. And I think all members agree, and I think the secretary general said it very well on Monday night. And that was to send a message to Iraq that it needs to comply. The patience of the world, the patience of the Council, has run thin. Now, we can all talk about what are the specific steps that would be taken if Iraq violates this agreement again. The important thing is that Iraq not violate this agreement again. In the days, weeks and months ahead the U.N. Special Commission will be conducting inspections in Iraq. We need to see whether Iraq lives up to its obligations. The United States has long had the view that it already has the authority under existing U.N. Security Council resolutions to take military action should that become action. But let me underline a point that President Clinton has made I think again and again since the beginning of this crisis: Our preferred outcome is a diplomatic solution that allows UNSCOM to do its job. These inspectors have destroyed more of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction than all of the bombs dropped in Desert Storm. The best way for the international community and for Iraq to move forward is to let UNSCOM do its job. That's the message the Council was sending on Monday. That is the message the United States is reiterating every day. MR. FOUCHEUX: All right, thank you in Cairo. Now let's join our audience in London. Please go ahead in London. Q: Mr. Riedel, I am -- (inaudible) -- representing the Arab News Network, ANN, from London. The question is: There has been some rumors in the Arab world that President Clinton might meet President Saddam Hussein to solve the crisis for good. Is that possible? -- the first thing, the first question. And the second part: How long are you going to keep your forces in the area? Some people believe that keeping a large force in the area might mean to them that there is going to be an occupying force for years to come, and that will put pressure, financial pressures, on the Arab countries to support those forces. Is that possible, Mr. Riedel, I mean this interpretation? MR. RIEDEL: Let me deal with both of your questions. The president has absolutely no plans and no intention of meeting with Saddam Hussein. As I said earlier, this dispute is between the United Nations and Iraq, not a bilateral dispute between our two countries. We have no plans, no interest, in direct dialogue. We think the Iraqis have to live up to the obligations they have to the U.N. Security Council. As for your second question, I think it's very important to bear in mind why diplomacy has so far been able to succeed in this crisis. The secretary general made it clear, both in his speech on Monday and in Baghdad, diplomacy worked because it was backed by the credible threat of the use of force. If there has been no threat of the use of force, we can all know what would have happened: Iraq would today be in flagrant violation of all of its requirements. Instead Iraq was forced to back down and allow UNSCOM into these sites. The United States and many of its allies have long maintained a military presence in the Gulf in order to back up the requirements of the cease-fire resolution in 1991. Today the United States is not alone in its military forces in the Gulf. Since the beginning of this crisis, many other countries, including the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Argentina, Hungary, Romania, Canada and several others, have sent forces to work with us in the Gulf. We enjoy the support of several Gulf states in providing use of their bases and facilities in order for those forces to operate. Those forces are not there to occupy anybody's territory. They are there with the approval and with the permission of the countries that allow us to use those facilities. The sole purpose of those forces is to send a message to the Iraqi government that it must comply with the U.N. Security Council resolutions. The size of these forces fluctuate, depending on the nature of the situation in the region and the degree of tension there is. I am confident that the United States will maintain a sufficient force there in order to be able to deal with any contingency. MR. FOUCHEUX: Thank you, London. Let's return now to Amman for more questions. Please go ahead once again in Amman. Q: Yes, Mr. Riedel, my name is -- (inaudible) -- from Jordan Television. And my question is: In the recent crisis between Iraq and the U.N. the Security Council appeared deeply divided on the possible use of force against Iraq. Don't you think there is an increasing opposition to any future military action? Thank you. MR. RIEDEL: There are differences of opinion between Council members on what is the best tactics in order to achieve our common objective. I think it's first of all important though to recognize there was unanimity on the common objective, which was Iraqi compliance. The United States and some of its partners, as I just said -- the United Kingdom and others -- believe that if necessary force will have to be used in order to get the Iraqis to do what they are obligated to do under these Security Council resolutions. We will not hesitate if we have to do that. Others have their own view. I would remind you that in 1991 there was also not entire unanimity about what to do next and what was the right strategy to pursue. At that time President Bush took the right decision and began Desert Storm in order to expel the Iraqi forces from Kuwait. President Clinton will not hesitate if he feels the responsible thing to do is to take action in order to compel Iraq to comply with the Security Council resolutions, or if he feels it is the only way that we can keep the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs under control. Q: Mr. Riedel, would you please elaborate more on your reading of Security Council Resolution 1154? Does it give a mandate to the United States to attack Iraq without prior coordination with France, China or Russia? Thank you. MR. RIEDEL: Our view is quite simple: We believe we have had a mandate to take action if necessary for some time. That mandate existed from U.N. Security Council Resolution 678, which authorized military action in 1991 in order to compel Iraq to comply with the U.N. Security Council resolutions. When Iraq is in violation of the Security Council resolution that created the cease-fire in 1991, Resolution 687, the United States and its allies have in the past used military force in order to compel Iraqi compliance before. We did this in 1992, we did this in 1993, we did this in 1996. The United States' view is it has the authority under the resolutions already to take action if it need be. But let me stress again our goal here is not to use military action for the sake of using military action. Our objective, the president's objective, is a diplomatic solution that allows UNSCOM to go about its job and to do its job in the most effective way possible. Q: (Off mike) -- Jordan Television. It is obvious that the world and the Iraqi people have had enough of the sanctions imposed. Don't you think that it is time to work towards lifting the sanctions on the Iraqi people? And when you have your military strategy, do you think of the Iraqi people that they might really suffer? Thank you. MR. RIEDEL: I thank you for raising the issue of the Iraqi people, because I think it's a very important one. Since 1991 the United States has led the way in trying to do something for the Iraqi people. Let me go back to what I said earlier. In 1991, Iraq promised to provide a full, final and complete declaration in 15 days. It has not done so. The burden of sanctions is not on the United Nations and not on the United States; it is on the leadership of the Iraqi government which has cynically abused its own people in order to hold onto this arsenal of terrifying weapons. In 1991, the United States led the way in proposing a Security Council resolution that would allow Iraq to export oil to buy food and medicine for its people. For five years the Saddam Hussein government decided to disregard that resolution and refused to implement it. Finally in 1996 it belatedly agree to allow that to happen. Then it stalled again and again in setting forth the principles that would allow that resolution to go into place. Finally, after years and years of Iraqi refusal and bottlenecks, food and medicine is flowing into Iraq under United Nations control. The United States this January was an instrumental player in getting the Security Council to broaden that resolution and expand it so that more oil can be sold in order to get food and medicine to the Iraqi people. It has been the United States and the international community which has cared about the Iraqi people. Saddam has cynically tried to use something that we care about, the suffering of his own people, in order to protect what he most cares about, his weapons of mass destruction and missiles. The international community needs to see through this and to understand clearly who cares about the Iraqi people here and who doesn't. I think the answer is, as we all know, Saddam Hussein doesn't care one bit whether his people starve to death or not. He cynically uses their starvation as a card in order to engage diplomatic support from outside. We should see through this farce for what it is. Q: Mr. Riedel, but as you might have referred to Saddam Hussein, the recent showdown with Iraq that produced the same Saddam Hussein with new proportions and popular dimensions and better rehabilitation within the Arab world, including Syria, Egypt and some Gulf states. I would like your opinion about if Saddam Hussein wasn't replaced after seven years of sanctions, overt action and covert action, do you think one year more in addition to those 2,000 days you referred to, can topple a stronger Saddam? Thank you. MR. RIEDEL: The question here I don't think is whether the Arab world likes Saddam Hussein or he is popular in the Arab world. I really doubt that very many Arabs find this a particularly attractive kind of leader -- a man who starves his own people, gases his own people, invaded a fellow Arab state, fires missiles at the capitals of fellow Arab states. I think our friends in the Arab world understand Saddam Hussein for what he is. Unfortunately his apparatus of terror and security keeps him in power. The United States looks forward to the day when Saddam Hussein is gone and there is a government in Iraq that we can work with and that we can help reintegrate into the world community. We will reach out and do all that we can in order to help that government. But in the interim I think we have to be realistic about this. We cannot let a very dangerous regime have in its hand very dangerous weapons to use against its neighbors. Does anyone doubt what Saddam Hussein would do if the sanctions regime were gone, if UNSCOM were gone? I don't think so. I think we all know that this repeat offender would once again try to impose his will on the Middle East, and would once again threaten his neighbors. It is our responsibility as a leader in the international community to do what we can in order to contain him and prevent him from being able to do that again. I think the leaders in Riyadh, in Cairo, in Amman and other places understand this very well. Q: Mr. Riedel, this is again Jordan Television. Going back to the Iraqi people, you mentioned medicine and food going in now to Iraq. Nobody thinks -- I mean, everybody thinks that this is not enough. Iraq has 24 million people, and the food going in now and medicine is not enough for them all. And the other part of my question: Iraq does not have any means -- any extra means to produce more oil in order to get more money. What is your comment on that? Thank you. MR. RIEDEL: That's why the United States and other members of the Council decided in January -- in February actually -- to expand the oil-for-food proposal. We have more than doubled it from $2 billion worth of oil being exported every six months to over $5 billion worth of oil being exported every six months. The resolution also lays out procedures in order to help rebuild those aspects of the Iraqi oil infrastructure that would make it possible for Iraq to do that. But these things need to be done under careful control. The Saddam government is not a government we can trust. It is one that we must constantly keep under scrutiny and make sure we test what it is doing, and that we verify that the food and medicine that it is buying is actually going to the Iraqi people and not to Saddam's supporters in the Republican Guard or the Special Republican Guard. The United States led the effort to expand that resolution. President Clinton, on the day that it was expanded, gave a message to the Iraqi people on television. He stressed that our quarrel is not with the Iraqi people. We have no desire to see the Iraqi people suffer for another minute. We look forward to the day when the man who has imposed their suffering, Saddam Hussein, is gone from power, and we can deal with someone who cares about the Iraqi people. Q: Mr. Riedel, I have here two questions please. If Iraq, as you suggested, complied fully with Security Council Resolution 1154, would the United States withdraw its troops from the Arab Gulf? And how long would it take the United States to do that? My other question is: Americans strongly resolve to implement Security Council resolutions on Iraq, including 1154 and 687, is not matched by equal resolve to implement similar Security Council resolutions regarding Lebanon and the occupation of Israeli troops to Lebanon. I am referring to Security Council Resolution 425. Would you like to elaborate on this point, and the other point? How would you explain anti-U.S. demonstrations in Arab capitals whose heads are friendly to the United States? Thank you. MR. RIEDEL: Let me go through each of your questions, because I think they are very important. First of all, Iraq's compliance with this new Security Council resolution, and living up to the promises it made to the secretary general is not something that can be measured in days or weeks. Iraq's track record is clear. We will have to be vigilant and strong for as long as this regime is in power. The level of U.S. forces in the region will go up and down depending on the level of tension. Our friends in the region -- Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain -- asked us to bring those forces in in order to ensure their security and the stability of the region. We will continue to stay there as long as we continue to have requests from those governments to provide that level of support. Let me turn to the peace process, because I think that's a very important issue. Yesterday the president met with his peace process team. It is his strong feeling that now that the Iraq crisis has abated somewhat we need to get back to the business of trying to get the Middle East peace process back on track again. This has been a high priority for President Clinton for both terms. Remember that in January he invited Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat to Washington to the White House. We had long discussions with both into the wee hours of the morning in January on several nights. It is time now for the leaders in the area, particularly the prime minister and the chairman, to make some hard decisions about how to get -- this process back on track. The peace process is a vital part of American foreign policy. We have led the way in trying to bring about peace between Israel and all of her Arab neighbors for the last quarter century; we will continue to do that. I frankly reject the argument that the United States has put more effort into containing Iraq than it has into trying to bring about a breakthrough in the Middle East peace process. We have done both. This president has put in an enormous effort into trying to get this peace process moving, and he has had important successes. The peace treaty between Israel and Jordan; agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority that for the first time has given Palestinians self-rule inside of their own country and their own areas. These are very important achievements. The president is determined to do all he can to continue to assist that. That is why on the night that the agreement was reached in Baghdad, among the first things the president did was call President Mubarak, King Hussein and Prime Minister Netanyahu and urged them to move on with this peace process and do what they can to make it move again. You will see American determination to continue to do that. As for Syria and Lebanon, we also want to see those tracks move forward. The Israeli government this week is making an interesting initiative asking for implementation of Resolution 425. We hope that will start the process of moving these negotiations forward. The United States cannot impose its will, and should not impose a peace plan on the Arab-Israeli partners. But it can help, and it will continue to do all it can to help facilitate the negotiations between them. MR. FOUCHEUX: Thank you, Amman. Now let's continue our program in Cairo. Please go ahead once again in Cairo. Q: Mr. Riedel, let me introduce my guests here in Cairo, Ambassador Saim Bashir (sp), a veteran diplomat and commentator, and Mr. Ahmed Badissi (sp), deputy editor-in-chief of the -- (inaudible) -- newspaper here in Cairo. We are starting with a first question from Ambassador Bashir (sp). Q: Mr. Riedel, I have a three-pronged question for you. First, what makes the United States sure that an air attack on Iraq will achieve in 1998 what it failed to achieve in 1991 when more than 400,000 U.S. forces were on the ground? You left Iraq in shambles. Even the Kurds. And their problem over the past seven years failed to find a solution, and the U.S. was unable to calm the situation there. That's number one. Number two is that your inspection process seems to have been a failure -- not only because Saddam Hussein's game at manipulation, but when Hussein Kamel disclosed to America some of the materials that have been stored, your inspection team didn't know anything about it, which means that you have a faulty inspection team, or the whole concept of inspection needs examination. After all, in situations of weapons of mass destruction the only balance is not inspection underground, but (a balance of terror ?). If Israel has a nuclear power and it refuses to submit to the IAEA, then the Arabs have to develop a counter like the U.S. did with the Soviet Union. That's question one. Question two: What kind of Iraq would have been left after an American attack? Would the situation post-attack be more stabilizing not only to the Iraqis but to the rest of the Middle East? You don't talk about what will happen to Iraq. All you tell me is that you care about the Iraqi people while you are exercising collective penalty against the innocent. If you want to get rid of Saddam Hussein, if you want to protect the means of weapons of mass destruction, by all means go ahead and do it. But for seven years you failed to do it, and you are putting the blame on the innocent Iraqi people for the operation that the American army, American intelligence, American air force failed to achieve. Number three, you conducted a policy of unilateralism in the Security Council in the Middle East without any regard for the feeling of the Arab people. The Arab people and not the Arab governments. You are putting the Arab governments, the friendly governments, at risk when you act unilaterally, stating that you feel for the Iraqi people. Go ahead and get rid of Saddam Hussein, if that is your policy. Rid the Middle East -- all the Middle East, not only Iraq -- of means of mass destruction -- but stop by all means of inflicting pain on the innocent. Thank you. MR. RIEDEL: Thank you. I will try to see if I can recall all of those questions, that is quite a bundle. Let me start with the military action. Our goal in 1991 -- and I would remind you that Egyptian forces joined with us in Operation Desert Storm and played an important role in this -- was the liberation of Kuwait. We succeeded in doing that. This go around, if we had had to use military force -- and again let me stress our objective from the beginning was a diplomatic solution - -but if we had to use military force the president laid out a very simple criteria to judge it. We would seek to significantly diminish Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability and the threat that it could pose to the region. I am confident that had we used force, or if we have to use force in the days, weeks ahead, we will be able to succeed in accomplishing those objectives. You talk about the inspectors as if they are American inspectors -- they are not. It's a United Nations operation in which many countries participate. Over 45 countries have provided people for the UNSCOM inspections in the past. Egypt has been one of those partners in the UNSCOM process. It will continue to be so, I hope, in the future. These inspectors have been very successful in what they have done, despite deliberate Iraqi attempts to hide, to conceal, and to confuse the process, the inspectors have time in and time out been able to uncover more and more about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The inspectors have destroyed more of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction process than all the bombs dropped in Desert Storm. That's why it is so important that they continue to be able to do their job. They have also been very successful in uncovering the lies of the Iraqi regime. You mentioned Hussein Kamel. I think that's a good example to go back to. In 1991 and for four years after that Iraq claimed that it had no biological weapons program whatsoever -- said it had never done anything to develop biological weapons. Then in 1995 the same Kamel defected to Jordan, and suddenly days later Iraq came forward with quantities of documents about a biological weapons program. The UNSCOM inspectors looked into those documents and they found a trail that led them to a facility outside of Baghdad at a place called el-Hakim (sp). El-Hakim (sp) is the largest biological weapons producing facility anywhere in the Third World. UNSCOM, after a thorough inspection of this facility, decided it needed to be destroyed, and in 1997 it was completely destroyed and leveled. That's a good example of how the UNSCOM process has worked, despite Iraq's efforts to stop it. Your last question was about unilateralism. I don't think that's the process we have here at all. The United States has an important role to play as a leader, but the Security Council, as it did this week, has often acted unanimously on Iraq resolutions. There is not full agreement of course on all the tactics, but I think there is unanimity in agreeing that Iraq must comply with the U.N. Security Council resolutions as long as Iraq is led by a regime that flagrantly disregards the will of the international world. Q: Mr. Riedel, my first question to you is the Gulf of Arabia has become the only region in the world where the U.S. is resorting to the violent use of force, or least threatening to the use of force from time to time although Kuwait is liberated and its independence has become no longer question. Do you want this region to be completely Americanized? Is that what you mean by the only superpower in the world? Also we don't -- the Egyptians -- the man in the street in Cairo is not able to understand that U.S. diplomacy is not able to distinguish between the U.N. Security Council and the U.S. National Security Council. There should be a difference for sure. And some say that there is -- the repeated question that there is some kind of double standard in the Middle East and in the Gulf of Arabia, while the U.S. is tolerating Israel's weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear bombs, whereas you are mobilizing the U.S. naval and air force against a blockaded and hungry Iraq. If this is not a racist situation, as the people or the manifestations in Ohio have raised the emblem, it could be some kind of unprovoked aggression, because UNSCOM and the U.N. inspection is underway throughout Iraq. For seven years now they have done a better job than the U.S. use of force. Thank you. MR. RIEDEL: Well, I am not sure what the question is there, but let me repeat several of the underlying principles here. The United States is not trying to impose its will or Americanize the Gulf. The U.S. forces in the Gulf are there at the request of our friends in the region. You talked about Kuwait. I talked on Kuwaiti television just a few days ago with listeners in Kuwait. I don't think the Kuwaiti people feel that they can live safely with the Iraqi government led by Saddam Hussein still in power. There is a tremendous sense that the Iraqi government continues to threaten Iraq, despite the promises it's made to the United Nations. The United States maintains forces in the Gulf, as it does in several others parts of the world, in order to encourage stability and to prevent dictators like Saddam Hussein from trying to carry out their desires to impose their will on their neighbors. Let me also point out again what I said earlier. It is not just United States forces that rallied to the defense of the Security Council resolutions this time. We had the support from the United Kingdom, from Canada, from many European countries, from Argentina, and we enjoyed the support from many countries in the region which allowed us to use their facilities or to overfly their countries in order to be able to bring this buildup of forces there. And let me also once again point out the purpose of this use of force. It was to send a credible and real signal to the government of Iraq that it could not ignore the will of the international community. I think it succeeded in doing that. I hope it succeeded in doing that. We will find out as UNSCOM goes about its inspections in the days ahead whether or not Iraq has gotten that message. Q: Mr. Riedel, the United States in the last few years concentrated more on its dialogue with the Arab governments in the area of Middle East. Why doesn't the United States try on a variation; that is, to speak to the Arab people, to try to make the American dream the American impulse for democracy, the rule of law, the sense of justice, the lack of double standard the rule? When you talked about Israel and the efforts of the administration, you are talking about visitations. The visitation did not stop Mr. Netanyahu's government of taking the land; i.e., dispossessing the Palestinians of their territory under a technical qualification. This is not usurping Palestinian territories. This is to make the Israelis and the Palestinians live together, respect each other, cooperate with each other. Why doesn't the United States, both the administration and Congress, and the public, invest in the Arab people by adopting a one policy, no double standard, that is reasonable and sensible to all the people across the fighting line. If you do that you might find that Mr. Saddam Hussein would be left exposed, that those who play havoc with the rule of law will be exposed, and that the American public and the Arab public will have a lot to share together. Thank you. MR. RIEDEL: I think the United States has been reaching out to the Arab world and to the Arab people. We have relations with many Arab governments. Those relations are extremely good with many of our partners -- Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and others. We have no quarrel with the Arab people. President Clinton has made clear on numerous occasions that he rejects the arguments of those who say that there is some kind of clash of civilizations between the United States, Islam or the Arab world. We totally categorically reject that. Let me go back to the peace process for a minute. It has been the United States that has led the way in trying to bring about agreements between Israel and its Arab neighbors. We are proud of the fact that on the White House Lawn the Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement was signed in 1980, and that in the early years of the Clinton administration we were able to witness the signing of the agreement between Chairman Arafat and the Israeli leadership at that time. We will continue to do what we can in order to facilitate that process. But let me remind you that it was with American diplomacy and American help that Palestinians for the first time in their history were able to begin ruling themselves in Gaza, in Nablus, in Bethlehem, and only a year ago getting self-rule in Hebron. These are important milestones on the road forward. The United States is not giving up on that process. The United States will continue to invest great energy in it. But I think we have to be careful here to recognize that there is no equivalency between Israel and Iraq. Israel has not engaged in using weapons of mass destruction against its neighbors. Israel has not engaged in firing ballistic missiles against its neighbors. Israel has not gassed its own people with chemical weapons as Saddam Hussein has done. Israel is engaged in a process of negotiations with its neighbors. It has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. It has signed an agreement with the Palestinian Authority. It has entered into negotiations with Syria and Lebanon. What we need to do now it not draw equivalencies between Israel and Iraq, but to move this process forward. And we need the leaders, both on the Israeli side and on the Palestinian side, and in Damascus and in Beirut, to make the hard decisions that they need to make in order to move this process forward. This process has been stuck for months. We know it and you know it. In order to move it forward we can help, and we will help. The president has sent his secretary of state to the region several times in the last six months. He has sent Ambassador Ross even more times. He has met with the leaders in the White House just this past January. He will continue to do what he can. But at the end of the day it is the leaders themselves who have to make the hard decisions to move their peoples forward towards peace. Q: Yes, Mr. Riedel, do you think that another U.S. strike that removes Saddam Hussein will serve U.S. interests in the region of the Arabian Gulf? Some experts say if Saddam survived another strike this will lead to the U.S. losing its credibility in the West and in the Gulf of Arabia. How do you see that? MR. RIEDEL: As I said earlier, the United States never made getting rid of Saddam Hussein the objective of any proposed or hypothetical military action. Air power isn't going to remove a despot like Saddam Hussein who is willing to hide among his own people in order to avoid military responses. We know that and you know that. Our objective, should we have to use military force, would be to substantially reduce the threat Iraq is able to pose to the neighborhood. After that we would have to continue to find ways in order to contain this very dangerous government until the day comes about when there is a change of leadership in Iraq. I think it is safe to say that most Iraqis, most Arabs, most people throughout the region all share one common objective: they long for the day that Saddam Hussein is no longer able to tyrannize his own people and threaten the region. Until that day comes though the international community has a responsibility in order to keep him from threatening the region and to do what it can at the same time to help the Iraqi people. That is America's objective as well. MR. FOUCHEUX: Thank you, Cairo. We will return now to London for more questions. Please go ahead in London. Q: Mr. Riedel, again -- (inaudible) -- representative of the Arab News Network, ANN. In 1991, the forces of the alliance could have marched to Baghdad. Mr. Bush, the president at the time, stopped that. And some people actually believed in the theory of conspiracy between Washington and the Iraqi government, probably indirectly, because they say that as long as Saddam Hussein is there he is -- the American forces, the American interests, are kept because American forces are still in the area. And now even President -- the Libya leader two days ago talked publicly on television about this, and congratulated both President Clinton and Saddam on their "trick," as he described it. Is that true, first of all? MR. RIEDEL: The United States is not engaged in a conspiracy to keep Saddam Hussein in power. I know that that theory is widely prevalent in some quarters, but it is ridiculous. I had the privilege of working for President Bush in 1991. He had no desire to see Saddam Hussein stay in power. But he also knew that once the liberation of Kuwait had been completed the international community had fulfilled its mandate. And moving American, Egyptian, British, Syrian forces to Baghdad was not part of that mandate. We do not seek to impose some kind of new government on Iraq by military force. Ultimately changing the government of Iraq is something that the Iraqi people have to do. As I said earlier, we look forward to the day when that happens. Until then we have to ensure that this regime is contained. But we are not engaged in any kind of conspiracy to keep Saddam Hussein in power. We look forward to the day that he is gone. It will be a much better day for us, for Iraq, and for the entire region. Q: (Inaudible) -- actually some time ago that as long as Saddam Hussein is in power there will be no lifting of the sanctions. Does that stand now after the Annan agreement? MR. RIEDEL: The U.S. position has been consistent since the beginning of the Clinton administration. We want to see Iraq fulfill all of its requirements under all of the United States Security Council resolutions. Until that happens the issue of lifting sanctions is a hypothetical one. Let's go back to what Iraq's requirements are. They were to give a full accounting of its weapons of mass destruction program, but also to do other things -- to give clear assurances that it respects the sovereignty and independence of Kuwait, to answer questions about the 600 or so Kuwaitis missing or prisoners of war after Desert Storm. Iraq has still failed to do those things as well. Those 600 people are still unaccounted for, and their families in Kuwait still worry and wonder what has happened to their loved ones. Iraq holds within its own hands the power to bring about the lifting of sanctions. What the Saddam Hussein government has done has pushed that day off again and again and again. The Security Council in its resolution this week noted that fact. It said that Iraq's actions -- not the international community's and not the United States' -- are the reason why the issue of lifting sanctions has been pushed off as far as it has. Q: Mr. Riedel, I recently interviewed the Egyptian foreign minister. He said actually publicly again on television that there were plans to defy Iraq and some other Arab countries and bring on a new border, similar to that of -- (inaudible) -- of 1916. Is that true, first of all? And, second, is there any American-British plans to create a Kurdish state at the expense of Iraq? MR. RIEDEL: The answer to both of those questions is no. The United States supports the territorial integrity of Iraq. That has been our posture since 1990; it continues to be our posture. We are not interested in seeing Iraq broken apart. We are interested in seeing Iraq comply with Security Council resolutions and respect the will of the international community. We have no desire and we have no plans -- we have engaged in no conspiracy to bring about a division of Iraq. Q: Mr. Riedel, as you know there is a majority in the Arab world who really believe in the American justice and in the American way of life as being pioneers, especially in this age, the new civilization. Now few -- one week ago President Clinton addressed the Arab people, the Muslim people, about the Iraqi question, and said that he was concerned about the future of the peoples of the area. But while the Iraqi people had no means of protecting themselves against the spread of chemical and biological agents -- say after -- during bombing Iraq or after bombing Iraq we witnessed that the capitals of the world rushed to send gas masks, other protective means, to the Israeli people. I mean, did any one in the United States administration consider that, that the Arab people, the Iraqi people, the neighboring countries, had no means of protecting themselves? MR. RIEDEL: Let me state very clearly that as we look at military options the president has instructed his military commanders to do everything they can to ensure that there is minimal risk of civilian casualties. But if chemical and biological weapons are still in Iraq, and were somehow blown up and dispersed during a military action, I think we have to bear in mind whose fault that would be. Iraq was supposed to give those weapons up. The Saddam government was supposed to announce where it kept them. If now we discover through a military action that they are still there, I think that clearly answers the question who was at fault here. You raise the question about why Israel desired gas masks and other protective gear during this crisis. I think you know the answer as well as I do, because in 1991 for no reason Iraq attacked Israel in the midst of the Gulf War. It fired 39 Scud-type missiles against Israeli cities. It underscores a point I made earlier: This Iraqi government is really unique. Many countries around the world have weapons of mass destruction, many countries have ballistic missiles, many countries have them in the Middle East. But only one has used them again and again and again, and only one has used them not only against its neighbors but against its own people. That government falls into a separate category. It is a repeat offender, and the international community has a responsibility to make sure it is not able to do it again in the future. Q: But, Mr. Riedel, I mean that is true, but at the same time Iraq attacked Saudi Arabia as well, and Bahrain as you just mentioned. And nobody has mentioned -- nobody has cared about providing the people of, say, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain or Iran or Syria with any gas masks or protective gear as you put it. I mean, why is that? Why has that been ignored? MR. RIEDEL: I think some of those governments have taken steps in order to provide protective equipment and protective gear. The United States has also deployed its Patriot missile systems in several of those countries in order to ensure that we can do the best we can to defend them with the most modern military technologies we have. We have Patriot missile systems for example deployed in Saudi Arabia in order to ensure protection of our forces, and to the extent we can of the Saudi nation as well. Israel is in a special category because it was attacked without any provocation whatsoever in 1991. The Israeli government has a responsibility to its people to take the steps necessary. The point here though is not whether or not gas masks are being distributed in different places; it is why does this question arise at all? Why do people throughout the region -- why do governments throughout the region -- including in Iran, including in Israel, including in the Gulf -- feel threatened by this regime? I think the answer is self-evident: The regime's pattern of deceit, of threatening the region, and of using force to try and get its goals. Q: Mr. Riedel, there is another question about negotiations, if you can allow me to ask it. Syria entered into these negotiations with Israel in sincerity, and under the supervision of the United States government. The whole process has come to a halt just because of the change of government in Israel. Now Syria does not believe in the neutrality of the United States, and actually they believe that there is no point of conducting any negotiations. If you go back a little bit, Washington also was a witness, signatory to the Washington peace deal with Israel between the Palestinians and Israel, and the late Yitzhak Rabin was there, President Arafat was there, President Clinton was there. And now again the Israeli government has come back on its promise -- I mean the previous government's promise or even signature. I mean, what is the way to get out of this dilemma? Isn't there a moral question to ask that the United States, because of its superpower status, because of its -- because it's a broker of peace in the area -- they have to -- I mean, Washington has to influence to pressure not only the Arab side, but Israel as the same side, and not say we are not going to pressurize -- the leaders have to come and make peace with themselves. I mean, this is not acceptable in the Arab world. What do you think about the whole thing? MR. RIEDEL: The United States is very proud of the role that it has played in trying to bring about peace between Israel and the Arab states. We are determined to continue to do all that we can. This is a priority for President Clinton. As I said yesterday, he met with the rest of his peace process team to try to see ways to move this thing forward. We want to move on all tracks, including the Syrian track and including on the Palestinian track. The Israeli-Syrian negotiations actually broke down before the change of government in Israel. We regret that they have not been able to start again. We are constantly looking for ways to try to get that process moving again. The Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have been bogged down for months. We are determined to do all we can to press that forward. At the end of the day though peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors is fundamentally a decision that Israelis and Arabs have to make. They have to make the hard decisions to move forward. We can help them. We can facilitate it, and we will do that. President Clinton regards this as one of his highest foreign policy priorities. But only the leaders themselves can make the decisions that they can explain to their own peoples as to why to move forward. I am confident that you will see in the weeks, months, ahead the United States continuing its efforts to broker peace between Israel and the Palestinians, between Israel and Syria, and between Israel and Lebanon. MR. FOUCHEUX: Thank you in London. And with that I'm afraid we have run out of time. I'd like to thank our guest, Mr. Bruce Riedel, for joining us once again. MR. RIEDEL: Thank you very much. MR. FOUCHEUX: Thank you, Mr. Riedel. I'd also like to thank all of our participants in Amman, Cairo and London. I'm Rick Foucheux for Worldnet. (End transcript)
NEWSLETTER
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|