• Military

• WMD Menu                           

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

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

23 December 1998

TRANSCRIPT: NSC DIRECTOR RIEDEL "GLOBAL EXCHANGE" ON IRAQ

(US determined to help bring about new government in Iraq) (12,480)
Washington -- "The United States is determined to do what it can
through prudent, effective step-by-step efforts to assist the Iraqi
opposition in bringing about the day when there is a new government in
Iraq that is willing to abide by its commitments under international
resolutions and is willing to live at peace not only with its
neighbors but with its own people," says Bruce Riedel, Special
Assistant to the President and Senior Director, Near East and South
Asian Affairs, National Security Council.
"I think most of the world understood ... if with some regret, that at
that point the action the United States took along with its British
allies was the only appropriate course left," Riedel said about the
air strikes against Iraq.
The objective of the military action, Riedel explained December 23 in
a USIA Worldnet Global Exchange, "was to degrade the Iraqi weapons of
mass destruction program and Iraq's ability to threaten its neighbors.
These strikes were not intended to overthrow the regime or bring about
a significant weakening of the regime. If there was weakening, that
was an extra added benefit," he said.
Riedel said the U.S. policy, over the longer term, will be "one of
containment plus efforts to support the Iraqi opposition."
"But I think we've also learned that there can be no real long-term
solution to this problem as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power,"
he said, emphasizing that efforts to bring about change in Iraq are
"going to take a careful amount of time. It is going to require
careful planning." He cited as an example of success in these efforts
the meeting, arranged under American auspices, and reconciliation of
the two most significant Kurdish factions in Iraq, the Patriotic Union
of Kurdistan and the Kurdish Democratic Party.
"The president and the people of the United States are determined to
bring about a change in Iraq because we think it's in our interests
and we think it's in the interest of the region and of the Iraqi
people to see this very dangerous regime with its proven track record
of threatening the peace of the region be replaced by a regime willing
to think about the Iraqi people and Iraqi children first, and not
about the hegemonic dreams of a power-mad dictator," Riedel asserted.
Asked about Arab support of the sanctions on Iraq, Riedel said "We
would expect all members of the United Nations to live up to their
commitments. And one of their commitments is to enforce sanctions."
The burden for creating these crises, as well as the burden for the
suffering of the Iraqi people rests with the Saddam Hussein
government, Riedel said. He noted that in 1991, under U.N. Security
Council resolution 687, Iraq was asked to provide within 15 days a
full, final and complete declaration about its weapons of mass
destruction program. "We are now 2,800-plus days later, and Iraq still
has failed to live up to that very simple requirement. Consequently
the sanctions regime has stayed in place."
"Until there is a leadership in Baghdad that actually cares about the
Iraqi people, the international community is going to have to ensure
that the Iraqi people's needs are taken care of. And that's what the
United States is determined to do, and we are prepared to look into
expanding the oil-for-food program if there are additional
humanitarian needs that can be met through that program," Riedel said.
Riedel emphasized that there is no struggle between Islam and the
United States but, he said, "I think it would be irresponsible if we
don't realize that there are some governments in the Middle East --
and Iraq is the best example -- which still pursue a policy of keeping
the Middle East mired in warfare, mired in the old passions of the
past. It is time to move beyond that.
"We all should be working for a 21st century in which the Middle East
is integrated into the global economy, is prosperous, and in which all
the children of the Middle East are looking forward to a better
future. That's the objective of President Clinton, and that's what we
try to do in the Middle East day in and day out, whether it's at the
Wye River or it's in containing dangerous regimes like Saddam
Hussein's."
Following is the transcript of the global exchange:
(Begin transcript)
WORLDNET "GLOBAL EXCHANGE"
UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY
Television and Film Service of Washington, D.C.
GUESTS: Bruce Riedel, Special Assistant to the President and Senior
Director, Near East and South Asian Affairs, National Security Council
Dennis Johnson, Professor of Presidential Politics,
George Washington University
TOPIC: U.S. Policy Toward Iraq and the Impeachment of President
Clinton
HOST:     Mohanned Khatib (Through Interpreter)
DATE:     December 23, 1998
TIME:     09:00 - 10:30 EST
MR. KHATIB: Hello, I am Mohanned Khatib, and welcome to this special
edition of "Global Exchange." Our program will be extended to 90
minutes today to cover two important topics. We will focus on U.S.
policy toward Iraq in the first half of the program, and we will
devote the second half to the ongoing impeachment proceedings of
President Clinton.
It has now been almost a week since the U.S. and British forces
completed military strikes against Iraq. While the U.S. is assessing
the effectiveness of the raid, President Hussein has claimed that the
civilian locations were targeted.
(Begin videotape.)
ANNOUNCER: U.S. Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni, who ran the
four-day U.S.-led bombing of Iraq, is denying Baghdad's claim that
civilian areas were attacked. Speaking at the Pentagon Monday, General
Zinni said U.S. and British forces struck military bases and
industrial plants linked to banned chemical and biological weapons. He
denied an Iraqi claim that schools, hospitals and private homes were
targeted.
GEN. ZINNI: We absolutely do not target those kinds of things. We take
every care to ensure that civilian casualties are prevented to the
best of our ability.
ANNOUNCER: Iraqis spent Monday trying to pick up the pieces following
four days of bombardment. Reporters were shown what Iraq claims is
damage resulting from the attack.
Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz said military casualties
numbered 62 dead and 180 wounded. He added military facilities will be
rebuilt or repaired. Baghdad has said it will not allow arms
inspectors from the U.N. Special Commission, or UNSCOM, back into
Iraq. U.S. State Department Spokesman James Foley said that policy
undermines Iraq's stated goal.
MR. FOLEY: If Iraq is ever going to see the prospect of sanctions
lifting, Security Council resolutions stipulate that UNSCOM has to
give them a clean bill of health. UNSCOM cannot do that unless they
are there on ground working effectively and without hindrance. And so
yet again I think the Iraqis are damaging their own case.
ANNOUNCER: The U.N. Security Council held closed-door talks in New
York Monday on how to get Iraq to comply with U.N. resolutions.
Another meeting is planned for Tuesday.
(End videotape.)
MR. KHATIB: Joining us to discuss the topic of the U.S. policy toward
Iraq is Mr. Bruce Riedel. Mr. Riedel is a special assistant to the
president and the senior director for Near East and South Asian
affairs on the National Security Council. Welcome, Mr. Riedel.
I would also like to welcome our viewers around the world, and invite
you to call if you would like to join our discussion on U.S. policy
towards Iraq. If your questions are in Arabic, please call collect at
this number: 202-205-9066. But if you are calling with a question in
English, the number is 202-205-9032.
We have a number of broadcasters standing by. But let me first ask Mr.
Riedel to comment on what world reaction has been to the military
strikes.
MR. RIEDEL: Thank you. Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be here
today.
I think the reaction that we've seen from around the world has been
generally understanding. The United States and the international
community have been in a prolonged confrontation with Saddam Hussein's
Iraq. The United States went out of its way for more than a year to
try to find a diplomatic solution to the efforts by Iraq to hinder the
work of the U.N. Special Commission and its inspectors in Iraq. The
United States accepted a negotiated diplomatic solution last November,
a year ago. It accepted the Kofi Annan memorandum of understanding
that was reached in February. And in November, when Iraq again blocked
U.N. inspectors, President Clinton gave the Iraqi government one more
chance to cooperate fully with the U.N. inspectors. Instead Iraq chose
not to cooperate. And once the inspectors had reported that they could
not do their job, the president and our British allies took immediate
action, as we had promised in November, in order to see that Iraq's
efforts to threaten the neighborhood and build weapons of mass
destruction were significantly degraded.
I think most of the world understood why we reached that point, and
understood, if with some regret, that at that point the action the
United States took along with its British allies was the only
appropriate course left.
MR. KHATIB: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Riedel. We will start taking
questions. We have -- (inaudible) -- standing by in Algeria. Go ahead.
Q: I have two questions here. And the first is that there is the point
of view that the American strikes were not aiming at toppling the
regime. Add to this the points -- (inaudible) -- about containing Iraq
and the lack of other supporting efforts against Saddam. So this
ended, the situation ended with just a limited military strike. What
is your take on that?
MR. RIEDEL: Well, let me define very clearly what our objectives were
and were not. The objective of our military action was to degrade the
Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program and Iraq's ability to
threaten its neighbors. These strikes were not intended to overthrow
the regime or bring about a significant weakening of the regime. If
there was weakening, that was an extra added benefit, but the main
objective was to degrade his weapons of mass destruction program and
to degrade the Iraqi military's ability to threaten the region. We
feel very confident based on the assessments that we have gotten from
our own military so far that we were successful in doing that.
Over the longer term I think our policy can be seen to be one of
containment plus efforts to support the Iraqi opposition. The
immediate requirement is to contain a very dangerous regime which has
a proven track record of using force against its neighbors, of using
weapons of mass destruction against its neighbors, and indeed against
its own people. This regime has for the last 20 years again and again
disrupted the stability of the region and has imposed a very onerous
dictatorship on its own people. Our immediate objective will be to
continue to contain that regime as we have since 1990.
But I think we've also learned that there can be no real long-term
solution to this problem as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power.
So the United States is determined to do what it can through prudent,
effective step-by-step efforts to assist the Iraqi opposition in
bringing about the day when there is a new government in Iraq that is
willing to abide by its commitments under international resolutions
and is willing to live at peace not only with its neighbors but with
its own people.
Q: But why this is different than what happened back in 1991, that the
United States does not follow up support by the Shiite resistance in
the south?
MR. RIEDEL: In 1991 the Bush administration used force in order to
compel Iraq to withdraw its forces from Kuwait. That operation was
very successful and resulted in a successful conclusion and the
withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The uprisings that followed in
Iraq after that were not coordinated with the United States, and I
fear and I know we all feel resulted in a huge loss of innocent lives.
It is very important as we look forward towards efforts to bring about
change in Iraq that we do so in a very methodical and step-by-step
approach so that innocent people are not killed in desperate efforts
against a regime which we all know, despite all of our efforts to
contain it over the last several years, continues to have very
powerful instruments of repression. Those instruments of repression
will need to be very carefully controlled and contained in any effort
to move against the regime. And the U.S. approach is one that tends to
be effective, but also step by step, and not encourage innocent people
to do things precipitously that could lead to large-scale massacres by
the regime.
MR. KHATIB: Thank you, La Tribune. We will move now to Beirut. Mr.
Habar (sp), go ahead with your question please.
Q: Yes, Mr. Riedel, it is becoming nowadays more difficult for the
Arab governments to support the sanctions against Iraq -- first
because the last time in 1991 when the U.S.-led coalition got the
Iraqi troops out of Kuwait, at the same time -- and simultaneously the
administration, the Bush administration, launched a peace plan, the
Madrid conference, which helped reduce the tension at the time.
However, despite after the bombing we don't see any similar plan that
might help those governments to ease the tension, especially among
Arab masses.
And my second question is one of the reasons also it is becoming more
difficult to support the U.S. policy in containing Iraq is the lack of
-- (inaudible) -- in seeing the Iraqi regime toppled. And I was
reading today in the New York Times that Congress has refused to
permit the CIA to begin a campaign to topple the Iraqis, and key
Republican figures are accusing the administration of not being
serious in overthrowing the Iraqi regime. Do you have answers to those
questions, Mr. Riedel?
MR. RIEDEL: Yes, let me start with your question about the Middle East
peace process. I think it is fair to say that no country has devoted
more effort to trying to get the Middle East peace process moving
again than the United States. President Clinton and his national
security team spent nine days at the Wye River Plantation pushing
forward an interim agreement in order to get the process moving. And
just earlier this month the president and the secretary of state, the
national security adviser, visited Israel and the Palestinian
territories in an effort to keep that process moving. I would remind
you the president made a very important and a precedent-setting visit
to Gaza in the middle of this month in order to keep this process
moving forward. It is certainly our intent to devote full attention
and full effort to keeping this process moving forward. The government
of Israel is now in the process of having new elections. It remains
our determination that even as those elections go forward that the Wye
River process be implemented by both sides. So our determination to
work on the peace process is as strong today as it ever has been.
Regarding our efforts to bring about change in Iraq, as I said earlier
this is something that is going to take a careful amount of time. It
is going to require careful planning. We will have to work prudently
and effectively with Iraqi opposition elements. Precipitous, dangerous
actions will only result in large-scale death of innocent Iraqis. That
is not what the United States has in mind. What we would like to do is
work with the Iraqi opposition to make it more effective to bring
about change in Iraq.
We've had some success already in doing this. Earlier this fall, for
example, under American auspices we brought together the two most
significant Kurdish factions in Iraq, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan
and the Kurdish Democratic Party. And in Washington we were able to
bring about a reconciliation between them, which has led to an
improvement in the standard of living and in the situation in northern
Iraq. It is through such careful step-by-step measures that we can
bring about an effective strengthening of the Iraqi opposition, bring
closer the day that there is a change of government in Baghdad.
Q: (Inaudible) -- to the latest bombings of Iraq, could you please
tell us who picked up the bill for the bombings this time?
MR. RIEDEL: Well, I think that the United States will of course have
to fund its own military operations and that's something that we
understand is part of our burden as being a world power.
Q:  And a contribution from the Arab Gulf countries?
MR. RIEDEL: We received a great deal of support from our friends in
the Arab Gulf. Obviously American military forces have been present at
various facilities and installations in different Gulf countries for
some time. We have arrangements with those countries in order for them
to provide us with assistance. But in terms of funding Operation
Desert Fox, that's something that we will be funding ourselves.
MR. KHATIB: Thank you. We are moving now. Go ahead with your question
please. Jordanian TV, are you there?
Q: Yes, I am here. My question is many Arab countries have or Arab
people have asked your government to unilaterally lift sanctions off
of Iraq. What will the American reaction be if some of these countries
did indeed lift sanctions?
MR. RIEDEL: Well, the sanctions imposed upon Iraq in 1990 by the
United Nations Security Council are what the U.N. calls Chapter 7
restrictions, which is to say that they are mandatory upon all members
of the U.N. Security Council. We would expect all members of the
United Nations to live up to their commitments. And one of their
commitments is to enforce sanctions.
I think though that we ought to take a careful look at this question
of where our governments are on the issue of Iraq. In November you
will recall that eight Arab states met in Doha, in Qatar, and they
reviewed the situation in Iraq. And those eight Arab states, the GCC
members, Egypt and Syria, unanimously agreed that the burden for this
crisis with Iraq rests solely upon the government of Iraq for its
refusal to cooperate with the U.N. international inspection regime. I
haven't seen any change in those governments' posture towards that.
The burden for creating these crises rests upon the Iraqi government
and its refusal to live up to its international obligations.
The burden for the suffering of the Iraqi people also rests with the
Saddam Hussein government. But bear in mind the facts here. In 1991
Iraq promised to disarm. Under U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 it
was asked to provide within 15 days a full, final and complete
declaration about its weapons of mass destruction program. We are now
2,800-plus days later, and Iraq still has failed to live up to that
very simple requirement. Consequently the sanctions regime has stayed
in place.
Saddam Hussein has always had the opportunity over the last eight
years to live up to his requirements and see the sanctions regime
taken away. He has refused to do that. As a consequence the United
States has led the international effort to ensure that the Iraqi
people have the humanitarian necessities that they require. We
sponsored the oil-for-food resolution in 1991, which would allow Iraq
to sell oil in order to feed its people. For six years the Saddam
Hussein government rejected that option. It finally accepted it only
belatedly and only under great pressure.
Oil for food allows the Iraqi people to export their oil and buy food
and medicine. Over seven million metric tons of food have been
delivered to Iraq just this year, and the daily caloric intake of the
average Iraqi has increased substantially. Now, let's ask ourselves
what would happen if Saddam Hussein could determine where Iraq's oil
revenues went. I think we all know the answer to that. It wouldn't be
oil for food -- it would be oil for tanks, oil for missiles, and oil
for weapons of mass destruction.
Until there is a leadership in Baghdad that actually cares about the
Iraqi people, the international community is going to have to ensure
that the Iraqi people's needs are taken care of. And that's what the
United States is determined to do, and we are prepared to look into
expanding the oil-for-food program if there are additional
humanitarian needs that can be met through that program.
Q: Mr. Riedel, my question still remains. Russia has called for a
lifting of sanctions, the Russian Duma. The Russian president is now
in India, going to China to talk about maybe a coalition there. What
would American reaction be? What would America be doing if some of
these countries said we are not going to live up to commitments about
the sanctions on Iraq?
MR. RIEDEL: Well, as I said, the commitments those countries have made
as members of the United Nations obligate them to abide by the
Security Council resolutions. The sanctions regime imposed upon Iraq
in 1990 is not a voluntary one. It's one in which member states are
supposed to live up to their obligations.
I'm not going to discuss hypotheticals about what could happen under
various scenarios. I will say this: the United States position in the
Security Council will be that Iraq has to live up to its obligations
under the U.N. Security Council resolutions before there will be any
change in the sanctions regime.
For that to happen, first and foremost the U.N. Special Commission has
to report Iraq has disarmed. And until Iraq cooperates with the U.N.
Special Commission, there is no way for the sanctions to be changed in
any way whatsoever.
Q: My third question is: What is going to happen to the U.N.
inspectors, the UNSCOM? Iraq has said we will not let them back into
the country. What will be the future of that body? What will be the
future of inspections? How will the United Nations make sure that Iraq
has rid itself of weapons of mass destruction?
MR. RIEDEL: Well, the choice here is with the Iraqi government. It has
promised again and again and again that it would cooperate with the
inspectors, and yet we have seen every one of those promises broken by
the Iraqi government.
What we expect should happen now is that the inspectors would return
to the job, but only after there is a clear, affirmative commitment by
Iraq to fully cooperate.
There are all kinds of things that Iraq has promised it would do over
the last seven years -- provide documents, provide the truth, fully
disclose about its programs. Iraq needs to show the international
community that it sincerely really is trying to do those things.
In the absence of that, if it continues to take the posture which it
has in the last several days that UNSCOM cannot go back to its job,
then the sanctions regime will stay in place and there will be no
reviews of the sanctions regime and no comprehensive review of the
problem. This is Iraq's choice. We are confident that we have our own
national means of intelligence collection and information collection
that we will know what is going on with Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program. Obviously we cannot know about every laboratory
and every building in Iraq, but we have a reasonable level of
confidence that if we see Iraq trying to rebuild its weapons of mass
destruction programs and its missile delivery systems that we will
know about it, and we reserve the option to use force again in order
to prevent Iraq from doing so.
The reason we have to do that I think is very important to bear in
mind: Iraq is a proven repeat offender. It has used weapons of mass
destruction and missiles against its neighbors again and again and
again. It would be irresponsible of the United States and of the
international community to allow Iraq to once again rebuild the
capability in order to threaten the neighborhood and threaten regional
peace and stability.
Q: What about the future? What's going to happen in five years, in
three years? What is American foreign policy towards Iraq? If America
does not trust Saddam Hussein, what is the goal in the military
attacks in weakening him?
MR. RIEDEL: Nobody can predict how long the Saddam Hussein
dictatorship will last in Iraq. What we can do is ensure that that
dictatorship is kept constrained and contained until the Iraqi people
bring about change. Our objective, as I said earlier, is to contain
Iraq until such time as there is a change of leadership in Baghdad.
Ultimately change in Baghdad can only come about if the Iraqi people
bring it about. We will do what we can to support them. We will do
what we can to help their humanitarian needs. And we will do what we
can to strengthen the Iraqi opposition.
In the long term our objective is an Iraq that lives at peace with its
neighbors and lives at peace with its people. Iraq is a rich and
potentially bountiful country. It can play an enormously positive role
in the Middle East. Unfortunately for the last quarter century led by
a power-mad dictator it has thrown away that bounty in one war after
another. This is one of the great tragedies of our times.
What we look forward to is a day in which Iraq can be a positive
influence in the region, taking care of its own people and a center of
stability, peace and something which all Iraqis can be proud of,
instead of the regime which we have all had to live with for too long.
MR. KHATIB: We will move now to Milliyet (sp) TV in Turkey. Go ahead
with your question please.
Q: Yes, thank you. Mr. Riedel, I was wondering if you could elaborate
on what the United States plans to do regarding the political future
of Iraq. There has been a good deal of talk about the U.S. intention
to bring an end to Saddam Hussein's regime by supporting actively
opposition forces in and outside Iraq, as you have just pointed out.
But that would include of course the Kurds in the northern part of the
country and the Shiite today in the south. There is a particular
interest in Turkey about this. In fact, the Turkish authorities fear
that as a result of this policy there might be a division of Iraq --
although this might not be the intention of Washington. Well, the
perception among many Turks is that this could lead to an emergence of
a Kurdish state, an independent state in northern Iraq. How can Turkey
be sure that this is not really the U.S. policy goal? And how can it
be sure that the Iraqi Kurds, which probably will be encouraged by
this new strategy, will not take advantage of that support to declare
their own independence?
MR. RIEDEL: Well, let me state very clearly that American policy is
built around the principle that we support the territorial integrity
and unity of Iraq. We have no interest, no desire in order to see Iraq
broken up into smaller entities. As I said earlier, Iraq can play a
very positive and important role in the region. It can be a center for
stability, it can be a leading player in bringing about a new Middle
East, a more peaceful Middle East, a Middle East in which the
objective is to make a better future for all the children of the
Middle East.
We oppose any effort to break Iraq into pieces. We have made very
clear in our conversations with the Iraqi Kurdish leadership that we
support the territorial integrity of Iraq, and we have been assured by
both Mr. Barzani and by Mr. Talibani that that is also their goal,
that what they are looking for is a life in Iraq in which their people
can enjoy freedom and prosperity. That is our goal as well. So we
would oppose any effort to break Iraq up into pieces.
Q: Yes, Mr. Riedel, can I follow up with another question? The United
States is committed under the Iraqi Liberation Act to help the Iraqi
opposition groups in various ways. We hear -- I mean, there are
certain reports that have been circulating in the last two or three
days that military aid for training Kurdish militia units in northern
Iraq is one of those measures. Is this true, or is it really planned
for the future as a measure to bring down Saddam Hussein?
MR. RIEDEL: The Iraq Liberation Act provides the president with the
authority to draw down U.S. military equipment to support Iraqi
opposition groups. That's an authority that we welcome having, but
have made no decision about using at this point.
As I said earlier in this program, our support for the Iraqi
opposition will be on a careful, prudent, step-by-step approach. I
think the place to start is with political support, building the
opposition as a credible political alternative. Over time we may look
at other options. But at this point we have no plans for training, for
arming Kurdish groups or any other groups. That's something that we
will not reject as an option in the future, but not something that we
currently intend to plan on doing.
MR. KHATIB: We'll move now to ANN Network in London. Go ahead with
your questions please. ANN.
Q: As we reported to earlier, we are moving now to Washington to join
this special edition of "Global Exchange" where Mr. Bruce Riedel will
be answering questions. My question to you, Mr. Riedel, is how could a
president who has relations, emotional relations and who is being now
under impeachment proceedings, could he convince Arabs and the rest of
the world that he is really genuine about the declared intention of
striking Iraq?
MR. RIEDEL: Well, I think if we look back over the course of the last
year it is clear that the president made this decision to use force
against Iraq only after having exhausted every possible diplomatic
alternative. Let's just briefly recount them. A year ago Iraq tried to
block the inspectors, arguing there were too many Americans and too
many British inspectors. After a considerable effort in Geneva in
November Iraq backed down. Then it refused to allow access to the
so-called presidential palaces. Again the United States marshaled
force and used its diplomacy, and in February Iraq backed down again.
It promised at that time full access and full cooperation.
In August of last year it broke that promise and said it would not
cooperate. Again the United States responded in a measured, and very
careful way. Iraq backed down in November, and again it promised full
cooperation. After each one of these episodes the United States said
it is time for Iraq to fully cooperate.
In November the president said he would give Iraq one last
opportunity. But Iraq did not live up to its obligations we would take
action quickly and swiftly, and that's what we did. And the
president's decision to do that was based solely upon the national
security interests of the United States and upon living up to the
international requirements that Iraq itself had promised it would do.
Q: Why did President Clinton not start that before the first day of
Ramadan and four days before Christmas? Wouldn't you think that this
is an affront and an insult towards Muslims as well as Christians in
the area?
MR. RIEDEL: Well, the United States very much appreciates the
sensitivity of Ramadan for Muslims around the world. The president has
gone out of his way this year I think on a number of occasions,
including in his speech to the General Assembly in September, to make
very clear our position. We categorically reject any notion that there
is some fundamental confrontation -- a collision between the United
States and Islam. Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in our
own country, and more than six million Americans are Muslims. But we
cannot allow a dictator to build weapons of mass destruction and to
defy the international community under the cover of a holy month. It
was our responsibility to take action as quickly as possible once it
became clear that he wasn't living up to his requirements. We
suspended those operations when those military objectives had been
accomplished. We now hope very much that we will not have to resume
those operations either in Ramadan or at any point. But the obligation
is up to Saddam Hussein to abide by his commitments to the
international community.
Q: Mr. Riedel, you are stating now that he is a dictator, and we know
that the West and the United States claim that the problem with Iraq
is not a problem with the Iraqi people but with the regime represented
in Saddam Hussein. Why then don't you focus dealing with Iraq at the
source of all these problems that is Saddam Hussein as you are just
stating and not the cat-and-mouse play with Saddam Hussein and UNSCOM
issues?
MR. RIEDEL: We didn't start the games of cat and mouse and cheat and
retreat. Those games were initiated by the Iraqi government. And I
very much hope that Desert Fox marks the end of the game of cheat and
retreat with Saddam Hussein. We will not welcome the return of UNSCOM
to Iraq unless it is very clear this time from Iraq's actions
beforehand that it intends to live up to its requirements.
As for trying to keep the focus on the regime, that is exactly what
the United States has been trying to do. That is why we have supported
the oil-for-food program in order to insulate the Iraqi people from
the actions of their government.
Q: But, Mr. Riedel, President Clinton affirmed in the last press
meeting that the problem is a problem of a regime, and it is not a
problem of UNSCOM or any other detail. He repeated that quite often
what you have with problems here is facing the Iraqi regime itself.
MR. RIEDEL: That is correct. That is our view. And consequently it is
our view that while in the near term, in the mid term, we need to
contain that regime, degrade its ability to threaten the region,
prevent it from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Over the long
term the only real solution to this problem is a change of leadership
in Baghdad.
We look forward to that day, and we will welcome that day. And when
there is a new leadership in Baghdad that abides by its commitments
the United States will be the first to assist that regime, first in
easing the economic sanctions, and second in looking for ways to ease
the massive debts that Saddam Hussein has accrued for his country over
the last quarter century.
The Iraqi people are now heavily indebted to various countries around
the world for the massive arsenal that Saddam Hussein has built over
the last 25 years. Iraq's children and grandchildren should not have
to pay those debts for this massive arsenal. And if there is a change
of leadership in Baghdad, the United States will do all it can to
first see about ending the sanctions and second to see if there are
ways that we can ameliorate and reduce that massive debt which Saddam
has put upon generations of Iraqis yet to come.
MR. KHATIB: Let us take this call now. We have a caller, Mr. --
(inaudible) -- who has been following this from ANN, Arab Network and
News, calling from Germany. Go ahead.
Q: The question is the Iraqi people have a right to the millions of
dollars that the United Nations employees have in terms of their
costs, as opposed to these resources not meeting the basic
requirements of the Iraqi people, particularly that a large portion of
that are being earmarked as reparations of war. Couldn't we have a
timeframe, even of several years, in order to afford the Iraqi people
meeting these basic requirements? And my other question is that some
Arabs in the United States believe that the American strike is a new
crusader, and a new wave of crusading just aimed at Islam. And mind
you that a lot of those who were killed were Christians. Father Yohana
Bullis (sp) also perished in this. So this American-Iraqi
confrontation is a wave of crusade -- is this an American-Muslim
crusade, or what is your take on that exactly? Thank you.
MR. RIEDEL: Let me deal with your first question. The United Nations
Security Council resolutions do provide that from Iraq's oil revenues
under the oil-for-food program a small percentage goes to fund U.N.
programs in Iraq. I think this is only right, since after all it is
the Iraqi government that continues to create these crises and should
bear the responsibility for paying for the expenses of the U.N.
Special Commission and other U.N. programs. But that's a very small
percentage of the overall amount of money produced under the
oil-for-food program. The vast bulk of that money goes to buy food and
medicine for the Iraqi people. And it's been successful in the last
year in getting large quantities of both into Iraq, particularly in
northern Iraq in the three provinces outside the control of the Iraqi
government it has had a marked improvement in the standard of living
of the average Iraqi.
Your second question is a very important one. This country, this
president, categorically rejects the notion that there is some kind of
inevitable confrontation between the United States and Islam. We are
now crusaders trying to bring the Middle East back into the medieval
world. Those who accuse us of it I think actually have that in mind.
They want to keep the Middle East in the medieval period. They want to
fan the passions of hatred and tension. Our objective is to support
efforts to bring about a more peaceful, more stable and more
prosperous Middle East. We work with many countries in the region --
with Saudi Arabia, with Egypt, with Jordan, with Turkey and others to
try to bring that about. But I think it would be irresponsible if we
don't realize that there are some governments in the Middle East --
and Iraq is the best example -- which still pursue a policy of keeping
the Middle East mired in warfare, mired in the old passions of the
past. It is time to move beyond that. There is no struggle between
Islam and the United States. There is no inevitable clash of
civilizations. We all should be working for a 21st century in which
the Middle East is integrated into the global economy, is prosperous,
and in which all the children of the Middle East are looking forward
to a better future. That's the objective of President Clinton, and
that's what we try to do in the Middle East day in and day out,
whether it's at the Wye River or it's in containing dangerous regimes
like Saddam Hussein's.
MR. KHATIB: Thank you, caller. We go back to our colleagues at ANN.
ANN, go ahead with your question please.
Q: Mr. Riedel, why the American administration would not look to the
total implementation of the Security Council's decision? After the war
they confiscated the funds outside of the United States in order not
to let Saddam Hussein use it. How come you don't freeze Iraqi funds
overseas and those funds belonging to Iraqi citizens?
MR. RIEDEL: Well, I think under the Security Council resolutions Iraqi
funds abroad have been frozen wherever we can find them -- wherever
the United Nations and member states know them to be. I think that's
actually been quite successful in denying Saddam Hussein the financial
resources in order to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction program.
If there are financial resources that come to our attention belonging
to the Iraqi government, appropriate action will be taken in order to
freeze them.
Q: Mr. Riedel, you are talking now and made reference to the danger
that Saddam Hussein could cause to his neighbors. We know that the
American administration are always aware of the danger that Iraq poses
to neighbors. What are the sources of this? Is it the Iraqi military
capabilities or the behavior, unexpected behavior of Saddam Hussein?
MR. RIEDEL: Well, I think in the case of Saddam Hussein we have a very
clear track record, a very clear history. This is a government that in
1980 started a war with Iran. More than a half million people,
Iranians and Iraqis, died in that war. In 1988, when that war ended,
Saddam Hussein then turned his fire against his own people, and he
crushed an uprising in northern Iraq through the brutal Anfall (sp)
campaign and used chemical weapons against his own people, including
killing tens of thousands in Halabjah in 1988. At that point he then
turned his attention to his neighbor Kuwait, because his war of
aggression against Iran and his wars against his own people had
further and further indebted the Iraqi people in massive debts to
foreign countries for the arms build-up that he engaged in. He started
a war in 1990 by invading Kuwait without provocation and without
justification. At the end of that war he not only brutalized Kuwait as
he left it -- he also lit fire to hundreds of oil wells throughout the
region, and poured tens of thousands of gallons of oil into the Gulf.
Since 1991 he has had repeated opportunities to cooperate with the
international community. Again and again and again he has refused to
do that. So our concern about Iraqi intentions I think is based upon a
well established track record. This is not a hypothetical problem;
this is a serial repeater who given every opportunity we know what he
will try to do again. He will try to dominate the region, he will try
to impose his hegemony over the area, and he will start wars again
against his neighbors.
It is the American government's position that until such time as there
is a leadership in Iraq that is willing to live at peace with the
neighborhood and willing to live at peace with its own people we will
have to take those measures to contain that regime and prevent it from
being able to threaten its neighbors. And the single purpose of
Operation Desert Fox was to degrade his ability to build weapons of
mass destruction and degrade the Iraqi military's capability to
threaten the neighborhood. We are very confident based on the reports
we have so far that we were successful in doing that.
If we see Iraq again moving to threaten its neighbors, threaten the
Kurds, or try to rebuild its weapons of mass destruction program, we
reserve the right to use force again.
Q: Mr. Riedel, in this Desert Fox operation President Clinton and Mrs.
Albright affirmed the need to cooperate now with Iraqi oppositions
abroad. We know that you have declared this in the past. And you used
a public media to do this. Cooperation with Iraqi opposition is going
only to be restricted to media aspects or you are going to have in the
field and on the ground real cooperation?
MR. RIEDEL: I think the cooperation with the Iraqi opposition will
take many different facets. First and foremost, it will begin with
efforts to improve the political strength of the Iraqi opposition. And
I think we will do this in a methodical step-by-step effort.
But we have not ruled out any options, and I think there will be much
of our cooperation with the opponents of the Saddam Hussein regime
that you will see in public, and much that will occur behind the
scenes.
At the end of the day, only the Iraqi people and only the Iraqi
leadership in a broad sense -- the Iraqi army, the Iraqi
intellectuals, the Iraqi business people -- can bring about change in
Baghdad. We will work with all of them. We will work with those who
want to bring about a free, prosperous and peaceful Iraq. Some of that
will be clear in the public domain. Others will happen behind the
scenes. I cannot tell you how long it will take, but I can tell you
this: the president and the people of the United States are determined
to bring about a change in Iraq because we think it's in our interests
and we think it's in the interest of the region and of the Iraqi
people to see this very dangerous regime with its proven track record
of threatening the peace of the region be replaced by a regime willing
to think about the Iraqi people and Iraqi children first, and not
about the hegemonic dreams of a power-mad dictator.
MR. KHATIB: We have a caller, a viewer of ANN in Austria. Go ahead
with your question please.
Q: Greetings. My name is Mohammed Ahmed Ali (sp), and I a resident
here in Austria for the time being. My question is how do you
Americans allow -- the American President Clinton allow himself to
strike Iraq? Is he the policeman of the world? Would you allow the
Iraqis to inspections inside the United States? Why the United States
and Israel only have the right to process and own such weapons?
MR. RIEDEL: I think the place we need to look is in the U.N. Security
Council resolutions. Since 1990 more than 40 U.N. Security Council
resolutions have been passed, almost all of them unanimously by the
Council, asking Iraq to live up to certain international obligations.
Let's not forget Iraq began this crisis in August 1990 by invading its
neighbor without provocation, without justification. Since 1991 the
Iraqi government has had every opportunity to get itself out of the
sanctions regime by simply cooperating. It has refused to do so.
Earlier this year the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution after
Iraq promised to live up to its commitments in the meeting with Kofi
Annan that said if Iraq did not live up to those commitments member
states could take action in order to bring about compliance. It warned
the Iraqi government that there would be the most severe consequences
if Iraq did not live up to its obligations. In November, after Iraq
again refused to live up to its obligations, the Security Council
passed another resolution reiterating that warning. On December 15th,
when the United Nations Special Commission reported that Iraq had not
lived up to its commitments, the United States and the United Kingdom
took action under the rubric of those resolutions. We made clear we
were operating for limited purposes and with limited objectives.
MR. KHATIB:  Let us go back to our colleagues at ANN.  Go ahead ANN.
Q: Deputy Tariq Aziz stated that he is not going to cooperate with the
United Nations unless Washington and London should be condemned for
their military strikes against Iraq. What's your comment on this, and
do you see that Iraq is now in a position to dictate conditions?
MR. RIEDEL: Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz often comes forward with
statements saying that Iraq will not cooperate with the United
Nations, that it won't do this and it won't do that. I think he should
bear in mind that as long as Iraq refuses to cooperate with the U.N.
Security Council the sanctions regime will stay in place and the
United States will take whatever action is necessary in order to
ensure that Iraq cannot be a threat to regional peace and stability.
It is not up to Iraq to dictate the terms to the United Nations. The
United Nations provided Iraq with a simple path to move forward in
1991: cooperate with the Special Commission, disarm. That was the
simple requirement laid out in Resolution 687. In 687 Iraq was asked
to provide a full disclosure of its programs in 15 days. Again and
again and again Iraq has lied to the international community about its
programs. It has refused to live up to its obligations under the
international resolutions, and consequently the Iraqi government has
seen itself isolated, and has seen the kind of military action that
has just taken place.
Q: It was reported that the French did play a major role in
pinpointing the military targets, and so helping the Operation Desert
Fox to be successful. But the clear and distinct French position is
quite the contrary. What's your take on that please?
MR. RIEDEL: Well, I'm not going to comment upon intelligence matters
and how information was developed. France has been a participant in
the southern no-fly zone in Operation Southern Watch since it was
created in 1992. The French government has expressed some differences
with the United States over various elements of the tactics of
Operation Desert Fox. But I think we and Paris agree on the
fundamental, which is this is a regime that has obligations under the
U.N. Security Council resolutions to disarm and to cooperate with the
international inspection regime. There is no difference between the
United States and France on that fundamental issue.
MR. KHATIB: I am certainly sorry that we have run out of time for this
segment of our program. I would like to thank Mr. Bruce Riedel for
joining us for our discussion today on this very important topic.
Thank you, Mr. Riedel.
The other big story this week is of course the impeachment of
President Clinton. This is the second time in history that articles of
impeachment against a president have been referred by the U.S. House
of Representatives. They will now be sent on to the Senate for action.
(Begin videotape.)
ANNOUNCER: The U.S. Senate is preparing for a trial on the articles of
impeachment against President Bill Clinton, alleging perjury and
obstruction of justice. The charges stem from Mr. Clinton's affair
with Monica Lewinsky.
If the trial is held, the 100 senators would deliberate behind closed
doors, but the vote would be public. Professor Bruce Ackerman of Yale
University:
MR. ACKERMAN: If the president of the United States were convicted by
two thirds -- that's 67 senators -- he would be immediately removed
from office.
ANNOUNCER: There is no appeal. Vice President Al Gore would
automatically become president. But two former U.S. presidents, Gerald
Ford and Jimmy Carter, Monday urged the Senate to censure President
Clinton for his misconduct instead of putting him on trial. Republican
Ford and Democrat Carter suggest censure by the Senate would end the
ordeal and uphold the rule of law -- this without doing permanent
damage to the presidency.
At the White House presidential spokesman Joe Lockhart welcomed the
former presidents' proposal, but said it is up to the Senate to act on
it. Few in the Senate are said to believe there are enough votes for
the two-thirds majority needed. But Republicans vow to at least begin
the trial. Republican Senator Mitch McConnell:
SEN. MCCONNELL: We have a constitutional obligation to commence the
trial. But Democratic Senator John Breaux puts it this way:
SEN. BREAUX: Does the country really need to know more about what
Monica Lewinsky did and when she did it and how she did it?
ANNOUNCER: A Washington Post/ABC News poll indicates six out of 10
Americans will be dissatisfied or angry if President Clinton is
removed from office. No date for the impeachment trial has been
announced.
(End videotape.)
MR. KHATIB: And here to discuss the topic of impeachment is Dr. Dennis
Johnson. Dr. Johnson is a professor of presidential politics at the
George Washington University here in Washington, D.C. Dr. Johnson,
welcome to "Global Exchange."
If you are willing to call and ask us a question about the impeachment
in Arabic, please call collect at this number: 202-205-9066. But if
you are asking in English, it's a different number. Call collect at
202-205-9032.
Let us start by taking the questions from ANN in London. Go ahead with
your question please, London.
Q: Dr. Johnson, waiting for the Senate's decision in this regard, what
is the impact of the American administration, President Clinton, on
the foreign policy during this process?
DR. JOHNSON: Well, I think what the Clinton administration is trying
to do is trying to keep business as usual. The entire impeachment
controversy, going through the House now, and that is over, and now
going to the Senate sometime in January, the administration is trying
to look as though things are going on just normally. It's a very
difficult thing for the White House to do, but I think that the
president is trying to convince the American people, and I think many
who support him on this, that he has a job to do -- foreign policy is
extremely important at this time -- and that the presidency has to
move on regardless of what's happening over in the Senate.
Q: However, don't you feel that pointing the figure and the blame on
the leader of the greatest country in the world is going to reduce its
credibility in and out of the United States, and that American
administration could face the prospect that no one is going to take
President Clinton seriously after what has happened now?
DR. JOHNSON: Yes, I think what's happening is the credibility is
really not the problem of the president; it's the problem of the
Republicans in the House of Representatives, and perhaps the
Republican Party in general.
I think in America you are finding that so many people in this country
are really revulsed at what is happening by the Republicans. They
support the president. In fact, we had just a week ago, when we were
looking at the public opinion polls, President Clinton is more popular
now than he's ever been. It's very, very difficult for the Republicans
to swallow this, and I think that, yes, the president's reputation and
credibility is being damaged; but more so in this country in
particular it's the Republican Party that really is feeling the brunt
of public discord.
Q: Dr. Johnson, in a follow up to your answer now, what is the
contradiction between the American exit polls indicating that Clinton
is being by and large increasing in popularity and those members of
the Congress who have been ever, ever hard-liners against the
president? This does it appear to the fact that there is a
contradiction here?
DR. JOHNSON: There certainly is a contradiction -- no question about
that. I have to say -- and I'm not big fan of President Clinton by any
stretch of the imagination -- but the Republican Party is on a suicide
mission. If they continue and try to press for impeachment, they are
going totally against the will of the American people. And I think
from a constitutional point of view, and that's my specialty, talking
about the Constitution and the role of the president versus the role
of the Senate, that this is a very tenuous thing that the Republicans
are doing. This is not the kind of impeachment drama that you would
expect. There are frankly no high crimes and misdemeanors, and that
really is the -- that is the definition of what you must have for
impeachment. I really think that the Republicans are going to suffer
tremendously by this. They aren't following public opinion, they
aren't following the Constitution, and I am afraid it's a matter of
political suicide for that particular party.
Q: Dr. Johnson, my last question to you is do you expect that several
Republicans are going to retreat and change their position? Four so
far have turned coats. And this follows up on what both Presidents
Ford and Carter announced. What's your comment on that?
DR. JOHNSON: Yes, it was very interesting just a day or so ago we had
four Republicans in the House of Representatives who already had voted
for impeachment now saying we have second thoughts. This is very
unusual. Remember now that the arena shifts to the United States
Senate, and the Senate is out on recess now and will come back in
early January. I am sure that there are maneuvers going on in the
United States Senate to avoid at all costs what happened in the House
of Representatives. And I think that senators do not wanted to be
painted with the same picture that you had painted by some House
Republicans who are totally against the president, going after him
despite public opinion and despite the dictates of the Constitution.
MR. KHATIB: Before we follow up our discussion here, let me call your
attention again those who would like to call us -- those who are
calling in Arabic, you can call us collect at this number:
202-205-9066. The ones who might want to call in English, the number
is 202-205-9032. As you know, you call collect -- it's a free call for
you.
My question now is, Dr. Johnson, people are talking now about the
possibility of reaching a settlement, a settlement in terms of a deal
between the White House and the Congress, which is exactly what the
White House wants. What are the prospects of reaching such a deal? And
if not, if nothing will be reached, help us understand the
proceedings, the actual de facto proceedings that would take place by
the Senate.
DR. JOHNSON: Yes, there is talk -- and even this morning looking at
the newspapers there's talk about a deal that will be struck. Here is
the constitutional framework: the House of Representatives has already
taken its vote on impeachment. It will then send to the United States
Senate in January their report. Now, the senators probably have an
obligation to at least look at that report. They don't have to go to
trial. They can go to an intermediate step, a bargaining step, which
would be the step of censure. And that's what is being talked about
right now.
Remember, this is really unprecedented. When Richard Nixon was
considered for impeachment back in the early 1970s, it did not go this
far. Richard Nixon resigned before we went to this particular step.
Probably there will be some deal that will be struck. The deal will be
that there will be a censure against the president. The senators will
avoid a long and embarrassing trial that most people don't want to
see. The president will escape the ultimate punishment, which is being
forced out of office. And frankly there are not enough votes in the
United States Senate. Remember, in the United States Senate it is not
just a 50 percent vote plus one, as it was in the House of
Representatives; what you must have in the United States Senate is two
thirds, or 67 votes out of 100, in order to throw President Clinton
out of office. And the senators are very able politicians, and they
can count the votes, and the votes simply are not there.
MR. KHATIB: So Republicans would need two thirds in the Senate in
order to indict the president and consequently throw him out of
office. Now, the numbers are not there. We have 55 Republicans
vis-a-vis 45 so you would need 12 Democrats to part with the party
line and join the Republicans. Why then the White House insists even
though they know the numbers, why don't they start the proceedings
knowing that the numbers are not there in the Senate to throw him out
of office?
DR. JOHNSON: I think the senators are realizing -- particularly the
Republican leadership -- they are realizing they don't have the votes.
You are exactly right: there are 55 Republicans and you need to have
67 votes altogether. Now, in the House of Representatives this is
almost strictly party line -- that is, the Republicans all lined up
against the president; the Democrats all lined up for the president.
You're probably going to have that in the Senate too, so the votes are
not there. There are 45 Democrats in the United States Senate. It
certainly seems from all sides involved, from the president, from the
Democrats in the Senate, from the Republicans in the Senate, that what
you really need to do is strike a deal, and that is what is happening
today in Washington and over the weekend of trying to come up with
some accommodation so, yes, the president will be punished, he will be
censured -- he may be given a fine -- but that he will not go to the
ultimate of trying to kick out a president and failing.
I think the president will not play what we would call hard ball and
try to say, "Aha, I have all the votes I need -- go ahead and try to
impeach me." I don't think he'll go that far, because I think he
recognizes and his people recognize that there has to be some penalty
that will be paid by the president.
MR. KHATIB: Let us go back to the question that was thrown on us by
ANN dealing with exit polls and public opinion research showing that
the satisfaction of American voters about his performance reaches only
73 percent, and that is one of the highest figures ever existing for
any other president. How does this play out on the credibility of the
Republican Party that won't launch all these things since the first
day the Lewinsky came into light? The Republicans want to use this
card in order to play and push things to the level that it reached --
how this is going to play out on the credibility of the Republicans?
DR. JOHNSON: The Republican Party is going to I think pay a very
enormous price in the year 2000. That's of course when our next
elections come by. They are lucky that the impeachment has come almost
at the end of the last elections, the 1998 elections. There are almost
two years for people to forget about what has happened with this. But
I think the issue is so traumatic and the issue is so important in
this country that citizens are not going to forget that Republicans
tried to push as hard as they could and tried to get rid of the
president. And I frankly think that Democrats are going to remind them
in the year 2000 that individual members of the House of
Representatives voted to impeach.
This is all being driven by some very tough, very conservative
Republicans in the House of Representatives that really want President
Clinton's head.
MR. KHATIB: We have a caller here out of Australia. Go ahead with your
question please.
Q: I would like to know the decisions reached by the Congress against
the President Clinton. Would you elaborate on what the Congress did
against the President Clinton?
DR. JOHNSON: Yes. What happened during the impeachment process -- it
is a twofold process. First the House of Representatives has to
determine whether or not there are impeachable offenses that the
president has committed. Now, in the Constitution of the United
States, going back to the year 1789 in the original Constitution, it
says the House of Representatives, the lower chamber, will have the
sole power to impeach, and impeach for treason, high crimes or other
misdemeanors. Now, that has never been used in this country except
twice -- one was in 1868 -- President Andrew Johnson came up to the
brink of impeachment but was not kicked out of office. And then of
course most recently was 1974 when Richard Nixon was going through the
impeachment process. Remember that Richard Nixon resigned from office
before the House of Representatives even had a chance to vote on
impeachment.
But we have gone farther this time. What has happened is we had the
House Judiciary Committee, which is the committee that looks into
impeachment and comes up with the charges, and the committee came up
with four charges. And then it went to the full floor of the House of
Representatives, and the House of Representatives voted on two and
said Mr. Clinton is going to be impeached because of two things: he
lied to a grand jury and he tried to cover it up, or obstruction of
justice. So that's where we are now. Two articles of impeachment have
been voted upon by the full House of Representatives -- and as I said
a minute ago, almost strictly on partisan lines. That is, Republicans
voted for impeachment and Democrats voted against impeachment.
Now there will be a lull because both the House and the Senate are on
recess, and the Senate will now take up the impeachment question in
early January. And that's where we have the real question of will we
go forward with an impeachment trial to kick the president out of
office or will there be some agreement to censure -- to basically
spank the president verbally and perhaps in his pocketbook to for what
he has done.
MR. KHATIB:  Thank you, caller.
Dr. Johnson, the question scolding the president, or censure, is not
in the Constitution and there are no constitutional procedures. But
there are as opposed to this established rules. Do we have any
precedent for this question of censure? Was any of the presidents in
the past censured? I know that other persons on lower levels, like
judges or other administrators faced this. What constitutionally and
technically the concept of censure means, and do we have any
precedents on the record?
DR. JOHNSON: Yes, we do have one precedent which is applying to
presidents of the United States. You have to go back, however, 160
years to Andrew Jackson, who was president of the United States in the
1830s. Now that was a question of censure, and that was a censure over
a political issue dealing with the American banking system at the
time. Andrew Jackson was censured by the United States Congress, but
the next Congress that was developed two years later voted against the
censure and overturned the censure. There has been no precedent since
of censuring a president. So again we are working on really uncharted
territory. It is possible for the Senate to censure. It is possible to
have a joint resolution by the House and the Senate to censure the
president. It is not in the Constitution, but it certainly is in the
prerogatives of the House or the Senate to do this under their normal
course of business. And that's probably what's going to happen -- a
measure short of impeachment.
MR. KHATIB: Former Senator Bob Dole, who was the competitor, the
Republican competitor to Bill Clinton, wrote an article last week
which was published in which he was offering a detailed plan to
censure the president. What's your comment on this matter,
particularly if we know that Senator Dole is one of the conservative
Republicans who enjoy the credibility and the popular base among
Republicans?
DR. JOHNSON: Yes. What you are having here is not only Senator Robert
Dole, who ran for the presidency in 1996, but you are having former
senators -- excuse me, former Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter
coming in also and saying from the standpoint of the presidency you
have to preserve the presidency, and this is not the way to do it. So
you are having -- you will probably have in the next several days a
number of former officials, both senators and presidents, who are
weighing in on this topic and saying this is wrong -- we can't go to
this ultimate route of kicking out a president for these particular
actions.
MR. KHATIB: One of the formulas offered now to reach a solution with
the president is that the president confesses that he did commit these
sins and that he lied under oath. But this would fall in contradiction
somewhat with itself, if the president says, yes, I confess, I did
perjure myself. So this automatically would mean that if he will be
taken to, quote/unquote "court" proceedings and will be impeached or
indicted.
DR. JOHNSON: The interesting thing is that the American people already
believe that President Clinton has lied. They understand that he did
something morally and fundamentally very wrong. They know that he is
lying. They accept that he is not telling the truth. That is the
interesting and very ironic thing about this whole episode.
President Clinton probably could have done himself many favors in the
House of Representatives if he simply had said, "I am sorry. I did
something wrong. Yes, I did lie, but you have to understand why I
lied. I was embarrassed because of my family, and yes I did lie." If
he had said that, if he had showed any point of contrition, I think a
number of moderate Republicans would have said, "Well, that's good
enough -- we understand -- we are not going to vote for impeachment,
but yes we will vote for something else -- namely censure in the House
of Representatives.
But here's the problem that the president faces: If he does admit that
he lies, if he admits that he lied before a grand jury, that then is
an admission of perjury, and perjury is a serious crime in this
country. He might escape impeachment, but later on if he's out of
office he still could face charges in criminal court for lying before
a grand jury. And if he already admits it now he will face jeopardy
later on.
So the president is in a box, a legal box. He's also in a moral box.
He just is not going to admit that he did something wrong, and frankly
the American people are shaking their heads, saying of course he did
something wrong. We understand that. We know what kind of man he is --
but he'll forgive him for this -- there are more important things to
worry about than this particular episode.
MR. KHATIB: Professor Johnson, assuming that the proceedings in the
Senate would start and they did not reach any settlement that's
between the White House and his opponents, how much time do you think
the proceedings will take? And is this going to have a negative impact
realizing the political process in Washington as we have heard some
people think that the country is going to go through a vertigo that is
going to paralyze the political and the decision-making processes in
Washington?
DR. JOHNSON: Yes, this is something that really troubles many people.
I mean, after all in Washington there are many things on the domestic
agenda. There are so many issues on the international agenda that are
pressing and are very important. How long do you spend on impeachment?
Well, leaders in the Senate, the Republican leaders in the Senate,
they say from an optimistic point of view perhaps we could get through
this in three or four weeks. Now, it would start in early January and
perhaps be done by early February. But some are saying that, well,
it's going to take much, much longer than this -- we might be tied up
for three or four months instead of weeks, or perhaps six months.
The public is fed up with this. They were fed up with this probably
two weeks after the event happened in January of last year when Monica
Lewinsky and Bill Clinton were found out to be doing what they were
doing. And the public has been dragged through this. And frankly they
are very, very tired of this.
But it is a real serious question: Do you bring the chief justice of
the United States Supreme Court, who has to preside over this by the
Constitution -- he has to be there -- do you tie up the Supreme Court?
Do you tie up the members of the Senate? And the longer it goes the
more difficult it is for an exasperated public to understand why this
thing keeps going on.
MR. KHATIB: Professor Johnson, I have a last question for you: How do
you see the last two years of President Clinton in office? Of course
his credibility and his position was damaged since the beginning of
last year as this thing came to the forefront. Do you believe that the
president will be able to follow up and exercise his responsibilities
in a routine manner, no matter if he would reach a settlement or no
settlement will be reached?
DR. JOHNSON: One of the real problems that the Clinton presidency had
and faced about a year and a half ago is where is Bill Clinton's place
in history going to be? We have almost a game in the United States of
rating our presidents. And of course presidents like George
Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson are our most
important impressive presidents. Where is Bill Clinton going to fit
into all of this? And one of the things that I think that the Clinton
administration tried to do was try to resurrect the president's place
in history. And in fact about a year ago -- right about this time last
year -- they were working on plans to have the president come up with
certain domestic and international strategies and policies to
resurrect his place in history. Then of course came the Monica
Lewinsky episode, and it's been downhill ever since.
I think in answer to your question very quickly, it's going to be very
difficult for the president to come back from this. And his place in
history is going to be very low in terms of all of our presidents in
our judgment.
MR. KHATIB: Viewers, here at the end of the segment I would like to
thank Dr. Johnson for participating with us today. I also would like
to thank Bruce Riedel, who was here the first segment. Thank you all
broadcasters who have been standing by and all the callers who
participated. Thank you all. This is Mohanned Khatib saying thank you
and signing off in Washington.
(End transcript)