26 May 1999
TRANSCRIPT: INDYK DISCUSSES NEW ISRAELI GOVERNMENT, IRAQ POLICY
(US looking to see progress on all tracks of peace process) (6670) Washington -- The Israeli election has provided Ehud Barak a mandate for change, Assistant Secretary of State Martin Indyk said in a WorldNet discussion with journalists May 26. "The Israeli people are now looking for a way to move forward in the peace process." "It's very important from our point of view that the Wye Agreements be implemented, that the Final Status Negotiations on the Palestinian track resume -- and on an accelerated basis, with the objective of trying to achieve an agreement within one year. And we want to see a resumption of the long-stalled negotiations on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks," Indyk said. At the same time, he cautioned, it is important to give Ehud Barak "some breathing room, (to) allow him to form his government." Once that is done, he said, Barak is expected to come to Washington to meet with President Clinton and discuss how he wishes to proceed on the Palestinian, Lebanese and Syrian tracks. Asked about Iraq, Indyk said "there are a lot of signs that Saddam Hussein is in trouble. He is facing continued uprisings and rebellions in the south. ... He faces problems within the family, within the ruling elite, within the Republican Guard." "In the meantime," he continued, "Iraqi opposition is growing stronger, both on the ground in terms of resistance to Saddam, and externally, where the external opposition is coming together." A delegation of this opposition has been in Washington this week. They met with Secretary of State Albright on May 24. Indyk stressed, however, that the United States is not interested in imposing leadership in Iraq. "That is up to the Iraqi people to decide. We are also not interested in doing anything to promote the breakup of Iraq. We respect and support Iraq's territorial integrity. But within that context, we believe strongly that it's time for a change." The United States announced May 24 that it will "begin the drawdown of equipment and training under the Iraq Liberation Act," Indyk noted. He stressed that this entails only non-lethal equipment. "We don't think the conditions are ripe yet" to consider supplying the Iraqi opposition lethal equipment, he stated. "We do not see that it is viable or effective to arm an outside opposition group and try to insert it in Iraq. We are rather looking at ways to support the opposition internally.... The first step we are taking now is to help the Iraqi opposition unify, and to provide it with the kind of equipment and training and broadcasting capabilities that will enhance its ability to play a political role in the delegitimization of Saddam and in the holding up of a vision of a future Iraq to the Iraqi people." Indyk was asked about the decision by the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to consider the possibility of a Palestinian state. "I think that what AIPAC's decision marks is a development in the position of the Jewish community, the pro-Israeli community in the United States," he replied. Following is a transcript of Indyk's Worldnet: (Begin transcript) WORLDNET "GLOBAL EXCHANGE" UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY Television and Film Service of Washington, D.C. GUEST: Ambassador Martin Indyk, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, and Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel TOPIC: Israeli Elections and the Middle East Peace Process HOST: Shameem Rassan (Through Interpreter) DATE: May 26, 1999 TIME: 10:00 - 11:00 EDT MS. RASSAN: Greetings. Hello, I am Shameem Rassan, and welcome to "Global Exchange." Ehud Barak, the decorated, retired general swept to a landslide victory in Israeli national elections last week. Although voters were squarely behind Barak, separate results for parliamentary seats are less clear in their implications for a Middle East peace plan. Today on "Global Exchange" we'll look at the broad issue of U.S. policy toward the Middle East and the future of the process in light of recent developments in the region. Our guest is Ambassador Martin Indyk. Ambassador Indyk is the assistant secretary of State for Near Eastern affairs, and former U.S. ambassador to Israel. Ambassador Indyk, welcome to "Global Exchange." We have a number of journalists and broadcasters standing by, but let me first ask Ambassador Indyk to comment on what preoccupies the minds of reporters. The changes in the Middle East are too many, and the latest is the election, the Israeli elections for prime minister and the replacement of Netanyahu and the victory of Ehud Barak. Do you see any shift in U.S. foreign policy in the region? I know maybe this is early as far as the latest changes are concerned, but I think that everybody wants to know what is the new plan or what are the new policies. AMB. INDYK: We welcome the election of Prime Minister Barak, and we see in his election in the broad mandate he received for change that the Israeli people are now looking for a way to move forward in the peace process. And the prime minister-elect I believe will want to do that on all tracks. However, he now has to form his government. He has to put together a coalition, because his party did not receive enough votes to rule in their own right. And he is trying to put together a broad-based coalition that will give him the political support he needs to make critical and difficult decisions involved in the peace process. He has indicated that he wants to move ahead on all fronts, not just the Palestinian track, but also the Syrian and Lebanese tracks. He has talked about Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon within a year. And for the time being I think it's important that we all give him some breathing space, allow him to form his government. I expect that that will happen in the next few weeks. They have already begun the coalition negotiations. And then we would expect that the prime minister-elect will come to Washington, sit with the president, talk about how he wants to proceed. And then we will become very active in supporting the efforts of all sides to reinject momentum into the peace process. In that regard, it's very important from our point of view that the Wye agreement be implemented, that the final status negotiations on the Palestinian track resume, and on an accelerated basis, with the objective of trying to achieve an agreement within one year. And we want to see a resumption of the long-stalled negotiations on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks. And if we can generate momentum in those areas, we would also like to see the multilateral tracks of the peace process move forward again as well, so that we can get on with the task of integrating the Middle East, and integrating the Middle East into the world, as the whole world enters the 21st century. MS. RASSAN: Is the relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran -- let me say again, regarding Iraq -- some wonder if sanctions were lifted on Libya, and would this include Iraq perhaps, and maybe the change of government inside Iraq? These are important issues. And in addition to the rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran, how do you look at these issues? AMB. INDYK: Well, in the case of Libya, Libya complied with the part of the requirements of the Security Council resolutions by handing over the suspects for trial in the Lockerbie Pan Am 103 bombing. And as a result of that, sanctions were suspended. That was what the resolution said would happen, and indeed that is what did happen. And we were quite prepared to go along with that, and have the sanctions suspended. The sanctions no longer have any effect. They have not been lifted until certain other issues are dealt with by the Libyans, but I think that that demonstrates our position that when Security Council resolutions are complied with we also comply with our obligations under those resolutions. In the case of Iraq, Iraq is in total defiance of the Security Council -- has thrown out UNSCOM, has refused to implement the Security Council resolutions, has refused to even cooperate with the Security Council. And therefore there is no question about lifting sanctions. Sanctions must stay on the regime as long as it is in this posture of refusing to implement the Security Council resolutions. At the same time, we want to find ways to lift the burden of the sanctions off the backs of the Iraqi people. They are not responsible for compliance; it's Saddam Hussein who is in defiance. And that's why we are looking at ways of expanding and streamlining the oil-for-food arrangements, so that the oil can be sold, the money controlled by the United Nations, and spent for the benefit of the Iraqi people. That program has just been rolled over again. In the meantime, Security Council members are engaged in intensive negotiations to see if there are ways of coming up with a new resolution t hat would have the effect of taking care of the plight of the Iraqi people, and also address the disarmament issues that still have to be completed by Iraq, as well as of course the Kuwaiti POW issue. So we also have taken a position since last November that the world, the region and the Iraqi people have waited too long for Saddam Hussein to comply. And therefore it is our view that we should support the Iraqi people in their efforts to change the government. And if they succeed in those efforts, which we will support, then the new Iraqi government, as it complies with the Security Council resolutions, will work with us and the rest of the international community, and we'll work with them -- to lift the sanctions, to bring Iraq back into the community of nations, to deal with the very large debt burden that Saddam Hussein has accumulated through all these wars, and to help the Iraqi people get back on their feet. But that is not going to happen as long as Saddam Hussein is around and defying the Security Council resolutions. It's time for him to go. The whole region believes that, and that is the best way of alleviating the suffering of the Iraqi people. MS. RASSAN: Of course there's another subject that we will be talking about a little bit later, and that one is the rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Now, however, we have our colleagues, a large number of broadcasters who are standing by. Let's welcome first our colleagues at Arab News Network in London, ANN. Welcome. Please go ahead with your question. Q: Thank you very much, and welcome to all viewers of ANN. Mr. Ambassador, my first question has to do with the Iraqi question. U.S. officials have issued many statements about Iraq, and I remember one that was made several years ago by the secretary of defense, and saying that the Iraqi regime would be changed in a matter of months, but the months have turned into years. Now, however, we don't see any signs that there will be a political change in Iraq. What are the facts on the ground and the assumptions that you make when you made the statement that you made a few minutes ago? AMB. INDYK: Well, I think there are a lot of signs that Saddam Hussein is in trouble. He is facing continued uprisings and rebellions in the south. He is of course brutally suppressing them. But he is not succeeding in that. He is challenging us in the no-fly zones, and our pilots are responding in self-defense, and as a result he has been seriously weakened militarily. He faces problems within the family, within the ruling elite, within the Republican Guard. They are all signs of trouble there. He is very much on the offensive. The Iraqi dinar is being devalued constantly, and he is unable to get the sanctions lifted, something that he promised would be achieved last year. In the meantime, Iraqi opposition is growing stronger, both on the ground in terms of the resistance to Saddam and externally where the external opposition is coming together, is unifying. We are pleased to welcome them here in Washington this week. A representative leadership of the Iraqi opposition has met with the Secretary of State, and they are now preparing plans for an all-party opposition Congress that will take place in a few months. So we see the opposition is growing stronger and Saddam weaker. How long it will take we can't say for sure, but I believe it will be sooner rather than later. Q: Since the Iraqis are sensitive toward former U.S. positions, do you think that giving light to the opposition would strengthen it or weaken it? AMB. INDYK: Well, our purpose is to strengthen the opposition and support it in whatever ways we can. There is an external opposition which is involved in political activities to delegitimize Saddam and to help in the efforts to isolate him. There is an opposition internally that is resisting Saddam everyday, and we also want to find ways to help and support them. We are not interested in imposing leadership on Iraq. That is up to the Iraqi people to decide. We are also not interested in doing anything to promote the breakup of Iraq. We respect and support Iraq's territorial integrity. But within that context, we believe strongly that it's time for a change. The Iraqi people have suffered too long under this brutal regime, and we will support them in their efforts to change it. Q: My last question, Mr. Indyk, it is noted that there is -- (inaudible) -- in the peace process plan. The U.S. administration would play a bigger role with the Barak administration, or would this submit to the Jewish lobby? AMB. INDYK: We expect that the Barak government will seek to move forward on all fronts in negotiations. Our role has always been that of a facilitator and an intermediary and an honest broker. We committed to achieving a comprehensive peace, and that means we want to see agreements on all the tracks -- Final Status agreement on the Palestinian track, as well as, of course, the Wye implementation and agreements on the Lebanese and Syrian tracks as well. We will play the role that the parties want us to play. We recognize our responsibility to achieve peace. But in the end of course the parties themselves have to make the peace. It can't be imposed on them, and it wouldn't be lasting if it was imposed on either side. I think we have a chance now to work with the new Israeli government and all of its partners in the peace process to make progress, and we will be playing that role in a determined way with the full commitment of the president of the United States. MS. RASSAN: I would like to thank our colleagues in London, ANN. We are sorry about the shortage in time. We have many colleagues waiting to ask questions. Let's go to Lebanon now and the station LBCI. Go ahead. Q: Hello, Mr. Ambassador. My question is the newly elected prime minister, Ehud Barak, concerned in his electoral campaign that he will withdraw the Israeli troops from south Lebanon within a year. To what extent is the U.S. supporting his five points proposal to withdraw from Lebanon? And is the United States ready, or what are they ready to do in order to solve the problem of south Lebanon? AMB. INDYK: Well, first of all I would warn everybody to be very careful about five points or six points or ten points. Until Prime Minister Barak forms his government and comes here, sits down with the President, we will not know for sure what exactly he has in mind. He has made clear, as I said before, that he intends to move on all fronts, and that one of his objectives is to have an agreement that will lead to Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon within a year. He is keen to restart the negotiations with Syria as well. So I think what we need to do is to wait and see what it is that he has in mind. We are very clear about what we would like to see in terms of progress on all fronts. And within a few weeks we will have the answers to your questions. I know it's frustrating for a lot of people who have waited so long and are anxious to see movement, but I think that in the next few weeks we will get a much clearer idea. And before that we should not jump to conclusions about what it is that Prime Minister-elect Barak intends to do. Q: One of the other solutions that was proposed was the chance of forming a new multinational force to replace the Israeli troops once they decide to withdraw from south Lebanon. I know it's still too early to talk about it, but I would like to ask that: How much do you think the U.S. would be involved in that kind of multinational force in case it is formed? AMB. INDYK: Yes. Look, first of all, when it comes to Lebanon, our long-standing policy has been that we want to see a Lebanese government sovereign throughout its territory. In that context we believe that the Lebanese army can play a very important role. We have been involved in assisting the Lebanese army to improve its capabilities, particularly with equipment. And we would hope that the Lebanese army would play the primary role in protecting Lebanon's borders and exercising control of the Lebanese territory. If there is a requirement for a peacekeeping force, I think that the reality is one already exists in southern Lebanon -- it's called UNIFIL -- and it would be most logical to see an expansion of UNIFIL's capabilities to play the kind of role of peacekeeping that might be necessary when the agreement is struck. MS. RASSAN: I would like to thank our colleague from LBCI in Lebanon. And we will come back, but not to ANN. And we have our colleague from MBC. Go ahead please. Q: Thank you, Mr. Indyk. There is talk about the continuation of the Syrian-Israeli track that ended in 1996, especially as the Israelis and the Syrians did not announce what they came to at the end of those negotiations in '96. AMB. INDYK: It's true that there haven't been negotiations for two and a half years on the Israeli-Syrian track, and we would like to see them resume. Significant progress was made in those negotiations, but they did not reach agreement. Particularly, they did not reach agreement on the all-important security arrangements, and it is those that would have to be the focus of any resumed negotiation. Obviously what happened before will inform the negotiations. And the United States was involved in those negotiations every step of the way, and so we have a pretty good idea of what happened in those negotiations. But we have a new government -- we will have a new government in Israel. The prime minister-elect, Ehud Barak, was actually involved in the previous negotiations. As chief of staff, he sat with then Syrian chief of staff, Hekmat Shihabi in the first round of military or security negotiations. So he is not a stranger to this track. But, again, I think we have to be a little patient and wait to see how we can move forward in these negotiations. I believe with a good will on both sides, with a willingness to be flexible and creative, it will be possible to reach an agreement that meets both sides' minimum requirements. Q: (Off mike) -- declaration of a Palestinian state until later. Does this mean that the U.S. administration will declare its support for the establishment of a Palestinian state? AMB. INDYK: Our position is very clear on this issue. The question of Palestinian statehood is a question that should be resolved between the parties in the negotiations. And with the expectation that Final Status negotiations will resume very soon, there is no reason for any unilateral declarations. The best way for the Palestinians to achieve their aspirations is through negotiations. Declarations will only have the effect of either being empty words or making it more difficult for those negotiations to achieve tangible results for the Palestinians. The Palestinians already have control of all the major Palestinian cities in the West Bank, and of course control over Gaza. And the best, most effective, and indeed the only effective way for them to expand their control in the West Bank and establish a basis for viable self-government is through the negotiations. And that's what we will support, as I said before, in the hope that we can achieve an agreement within a one-year time frame. Q: Aren't you somewhat apprehensive that Barak might pay too much attention to the Syrian and the Lebanese track at the expense of the Palestinian track, and that that may make finding a solution even more difficult and make the whole situation more complicated? How would you comment on that possibility? AMB. INDYK: Prime minister-elect Barak is a man that can play Beethoven and Chopin. In other words, he can play piano with two hands. And I believe he is capable of and intends to pursue negotiations on all the tracks. That is certainly what we would like to see as well. And there is no reason for people to be apprehensive about this. If you think back to the Madrid days when we had negotiations on all tracks, it was possible for positive momentum on one track to produce positive momentum on another track. And it is I think much better for all the tracks that we are able to move forward on all the tracks. That creates a positive environment for the negotiations. And so I think that will be his intention, and it will be our intention to support his efforts and the efforts of Israel's Arab partners in the negotiations. So obviously in this interregnum when everybody is wondering what is going to happen people's fears can overtake their hopes. But I would urge them to hold onto their hopes for a little longer in the belief that we can and will make progress on all tracks. Q: My question about the settlement. It is noticed that despite the success of Barak in the elections, the settlements continue. And in the day of the results of the elections the settlements continued in Jebel Abu Ghuneim. How can negotiations continue with the Israelis when the settlements continue? It started with the Likud Party in power. AMB. INDYK: As we have said on many occasions, this kind of settlement activity where settlers are taking to the hilltops is the kind of unilateral activity which we think is destructive for the environment of a positive movement in the peace process. The prime minister-elect's government has not yet been formed, he is not yet in power, and so he is not in a position to take action yet. But we hope when the Israeli government is formed there will be an understanding reached about what kind of settlement activity is not acceptable, and what kind would be supported. Natural growth within existing settlements that doesn't expand beyond the existing boundaries of the settlements is not something that should be a problem to anybody, but the taking of the hilltops for the express purpose of trying to expand the settlements and grab territory before the negotiations, is something that we feel is not productive for the negotiations. MS. RASSAN: We thank our colleague Bassan Abujemel (ph) and MBC in London. And now we go to Jordan and Jordanian TV -- (inaudible) -- go ahead. Q: I would like to thank Mr. Martin Indyk. Mr. Indyk, you talked about the tripartite summit. Is this tripartite summit a new move for the U.S. administration to revive the peace process, and is this going to be a change in the policy with regards to your policy with the Likud Party? AMB. INDYK: I'm not sure what you are referring to as the tripartite summit. We would -- on the Palestinian track the President has made clear in a letter that he sent to Chairman Arafat that he wants to see the negotiations resume, the Final Status negotiations resume on an accelerated basis, that he is prepared to be involved personally in these negotiations, just as he would be personally involved in the negotiations on the other tracks. And that in that context he would expect to bring the Israeli and Palestinian leadership together by the end of this year to assess what progress has been made and to see what needs to be done to try to reach an agreement in the amount of timeframe that we have been talking about. So we will continue along that path as an indication of our commitment to trying to achieve an agreement on the Palestinian track. Q: Now let's go back to the Israeli elections. The Israeli press said that Ehud Barak is planning to withdraw from south Lebanon. What would be the role of the U.S. in helping in this process of withdrawal from southern Lebanon? AMB. INDYK: Well, I think that the most important contribution that we can make is to get negotiations moving on all the tracks, because it is in that context of negotiations on all tracks that it will become easier to deal with the negotiations on the Lebanese track, and in that context to discuss the conditions for an Israeli withdrawal -- I should say the arrangements for an Israeli withdrawal. So I think that's the best way that we could achieve an arrangement for Israeli withdrawal, through the negotiations on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks. Q: It was announced today that a leader of a religious Israeli party, that they will not stop the settlements. What will the reaction of the U.S. administration be in that regard? AMB. INDYK: I think it's very important that people not react to every single statement that comes out of Israel in this period when negotiations between the parties are going on to form a government. And spokesmen will come out and say things for the purposes of negotiating maneuvers -- tactics designed to affect the negotiations which may or may not be relevant once the government is formed. So I don't want to be in a position of reacting to every statement that is made in that context. I think that it should be clear that the kind of settlement activity that we have seen lately is something that we feel is destructive to the negotiations, and so that's something that we will obviously continue to be concerned with. But what will be most important is for the parties to reengage in negotiations, to reach an agreement, a Final Status agreement. And, by the way, settlements are one of the issue on the agenda for those negotiations. And once an agreement is struck we won't have to worry about these kinds of activities or statements. MS. RASSAN: Thank you to our colleague Hasan Abelzaytun (ph) from Jordanian Television in Amman. And now we go to Istanbul, Turkey, with our colleagues at NTV in Istanbul. Welcome to all of you. Q: Hello, this is Vanna Gavan (ph) from NTV Istanbul. My first question will be on the peace process. You probably have seen the reports on some blueprints for a final peace agreement with the Palestinians. It was mentioned that this blueprint was already prepared on the basis of Abu Mazen and Beilin meetings, and we also heard that Mr. Barak had also some formula on Jerusalem, which he discussed with President Arafat. So what is the evaluation of Washington concerning these so-called blueprints? Could they be blueprints, and how serious are you taking these efforts which have been made till now for a viable peace agreement? AMB. INDYK: Again it's not appropriate for me to be commenting on this idea or that idea, this blueprint or this 10-point program, because we do not know whether any of these blueprints have any standing with a government that has not yet been formed. We know one thing for sure: that Ehud Barak will be the prime minister of Israel, and his Labor Party or his One Israel Party will be the backbone of the government. Beyond that we don't know anything. And until the government is formed -- and it won't take very long -- we simply don't know what positions that government will take, other than the broad outlines of a desire to move forward on all fronts of the peace process, and a different approach to the peace process in general terms, an approach that is based on Yitzhak Rabin's legacy. Ehud Barak is a protege of Yitzhak Rabin. He shares Rabin's -- what was Rabin's world view, which sees Israel as strong, not weak, as capable of taking fateful decisions for peace, capable of taking calculated risks for peace. But like Rabin Barak, a former chief of staff, will be focused first and foremost on the security of his people, and that is every government's first obligation. So what I think we will see is a return to that effort that Rabin started to treat Israel's Arab negotiating partners as partners, to treat them, the negotiations as a compromise in which the minimum requirements of both sides have to be made, and to build a relationship of trust between the parties that is the essential requirement for a successful agreement. Beyond that, the details will have to wait. Q: And this on the same issue, on Jerusalem, do you think that both sides will be able to reach a solution? Is there any solution for Jerusalem for example in your opinion? AMB. INDYK: I believe that if there is trust, if there is a genuine partnership established and a willingness to find creative solutions, it can be done. Yossi Beilin and Abu Mazen engaged in a nonofficial negotiation in which they came up with one solution. I am sure there are other solutions. People should not be surprised that going into negotiations the Israeli government is likely to take the position that Ehud Barak espoused in the campaign, which was that Israel will remain -- excuse me, that Jerusalem will remain Israel's capital, undivided, under Israeli sovereignty. There isn't a politician in Israel across the spectrum, including Yossi Beilin, who would argue otherwise. That is a consensus position in Israel when it comes to Jerusalem. But that doesn't mean that it's impossible to find ways to come up with solutions that meet the Palestinian minimum requirements as well. And the Beilin-Abu Mazen exercise demonstrated that. So I think that even here where one appears to be dealing with absolute positions on both sides, it is possible to see ways in which compromise agreements can be produced. Q: My last question will be on the Iraqi opposition. You also met them in Washington. And when I talked to one of the leaders, Ahmed Chalabi, he always said that under the Iraqi Liberation Act Washington is going to give us weapons, and is going to give us training, and is promising to do that. So one part of the question is that is the United States going to implement this Iraqi Liberation Act, and going to give weapons for an uprising in order to topple Saddam Hussein within Iraq? And the other part of the question is: What will be the composition of this opposition then? If you could also include when the United States is -- on what level the United States would be prepared to give weapons to the Iraqi opposition. AMB. INDYK: We do intend to implement the Iraq Liberation Act. In fact, we just announced on Monday that we will begin the drawdown of equipment and training under the Iraq Liberation Act. But it's important to understand that what we will be doing is providing non-lethal equipment and training in civilian spheres to the Iraqi opposition, whose leaders were -- are in Washington this week. There are a lot of things we can provide to help the Iraqi opposition in exile -- set up their offices, improve their communications, expand their broadcasting, and to help train them for the morning after, for the time when Saddam is gone and it would be important to ensure that a stable situation emerges from that removal of Saddam Hussein. And there are many areas in which civil administration, nation-building, training can be provided that will be helpful for ensuring that after Saddam is gone the plight of the Iraqi people is alleviated. As to the provision of lethal equipment, we don't think the conditions are ripe yet for us to be doing that. We do not see that it is viable or effective to arm an outside opposition group and try to insert it in Iraq. We are rather looking at ways to support the opposition internally. But it's a step-by-step process, and the first step we are taking now is to help the Iraqi opposition unify, and to provide it with the kind of equipment and training and broadcasting capabilities that will enhance its ability to play a political role in the delegitimization of Saddam and in the holding up of a vision of a future Iraq to the Iraqi people, so that they will come to understand that there is a better life after Saddam in which their interests, whether they be Sunni, Kurd, Shi'a, Turkomen, Syrian, whatever -- that their interests will be represented in a government for all the people of Iraq. MS. RASSAN: We thank our colleague from NTV, Turkish TV in Istanbul. We go now to London, Mr. Elias Hafoush (ph) from Al Majalla. Q: (Off mike) -- prime minister in Israel, would the American administration now be willing to recognize a Palestinian state if it was declared, as the Palestinian Authority hopes, by the end of the year? AMB. INDYK: I'll repeat our position just so it's very clear. We are against unilateral acts, including a unilateral declaration of independence by the Palestinians. President Clinton has said that we want to see Palestinians be able to determine their own future. We want to see Palestinians free in their own land. But that has to be the product of a negotiation, not the product of a unilateral act. So we want to see the Final Status negotiations resume, both sides participate in that negotiation in good faith. And we believe that the outcome will satisfy -- will have to satisfy the minimum requirements of the Palestinians and the Israeli partners. What that outcome is is something that has to be produced by the negotiations, not through unilateral acts. Q: There is a report today by Reuters News Agency that AIPAC is willing now to go back from its opposition to a Palestinian state and the report claims here that Ambassador Indyk is a member of AIPAC -- so would that help towards the softening of that position? AMB. INDYK: Believe it or not, I had a job in AIPAC back in 1982, 1983. I haven't worked for AIPAC or been a member of that organization since then. But I think that what AIPAC's decision marks is a development in the position of the Jewish community, the pro-Israel community in the United States. And in that regard I think it's an important development that they no longer rule out their own position the emergence of a Palestinian state. That is also I think the position of the Labor Party, which will form the backbone of the Israeli government. So I think what you see here is an evolution that is in part a reflection of reality and in part a result of the Oslo process, the negotiating process. And what I think people should understand from this move by AIPAC is that the process can produce results, and can affect the long-standing position of influential organizations that have a stake in the outcome. I'll give you another example, which I think is very important for people to focus on. The Israeli people went to an election and voted for the candidate that they thought could bring them peace, and they did it because they were not threatened by terrorist bombs. And people should understand that, that violence and terrorism hurts the peace process, hurts the people who want peace, and turns them against it. It hardens their heart against it. When there are no bombs, when the Israelis feel secure, then they vote for peace. And that's a lesson that I think everybody in the Arab world should take to heart. MS. RASSAN: We go back to the NTV. Q: Yes, Vanna Gavan (ph) again from Istanbul, NTV. I would like to ask you one more thing about the effort to unite the Iraqi opposition. Until now we haven't seen any strong participation of the Shi'ite group in the south in all these meetings, and I believe they are not participating there in Washington either. So I am wondering if you are optimistic for any positive participation of this group, and then when the Iraqi opposition is going to be operational in northern Iraq, because there were plans to be operational in the north, in the south, wherever it would be possible. These two questions. And then something else about the setting up of INC -- is there a new formula there? AMB. INDYK: Well, several questions. I think that first of all there are a number of Shi'a leaders here in Washington with the provisional leadership of the INC, so the Shi'a community is represented. However, the main Shi'a organization, SCIRI, the Supreme Council for the Iraqi Revolution, is not represented here, and we have been talking to them. They are certainly interested in engaging with us, and more importantly with the provisional leadership of the INC, which they are represented. I think that it is very important that everybody understand that the United States supports full compliance with all the Security Council resolutions, and that includes Resolution 688, which calls upon Saddam Hussein to end the oppression of the Iraqi people. And it is in that context that support for the implementation of 688, which Secretary Albright made clear that we would support the implementation of that within her meetings with the Iraqi opposition, that implementation of 688 is very much part of our policy. As I said before, we want to see an Iraqi government that represents the interests of all of Iraq, this wonderful mosaic of Iraqi communities, that include the Sunni, the Shi'a, the Kurds, Turkomens and others. As far as setting up some INC operation in the north, again we have to take things one step at a time. First of all, the opposition has to unify and become an effective political voice. We are very conscious that anything we try to do -- when it comes to the north of Iraq or the south of Iraq or the center of Iraq -- requires the support of Iraq's Arab neighbors and of course the support of Turkey. We understand that they have interests, Turkey has interests, and we obviously will take those into account. We are in close touch and coordination with the Turkish government, and obviously we will not take action in the north without their -- without full cooperation with Turkey. So I think there was one other question that you had there? MS. RASSAN: We apologize that we were interrupted. We have a few seconds left. I would like to thank our guest, Ambassador Martin Indyk, for joining us today in this "Global Exchange" program. I would like also to thank all our broadcasters who called in with their questions for this edition of "Global Exchange." Greetings from Shameem Rassan. (End transcript)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
