08 May 2000
Transcript: State's Welch Press Roundtable in Kuwait City May 6
(Discusses issues and challenges for the U.S. and U.N. in Mideast) (4230) C. David Welch, assistant secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, discussed the range of issues and challenges facing the U.S. in the Middle East during a roundtable discussion May 6 in Kuwait City. Welch also visited Saudi Arabia and Egypt. "This dialogue is important now that we are fully into our new year, and as we face some of the issues within the United Nations' system through the remainder of the year, up to and including the Millennium Summit and the General Assembly in the following winter in the United States," Welch said. Regarding Iraq, Welch said, "there is a great risk that in this period of non-compliance (with U.N. Security Council resolutions}, and with the absence of inspection and monitoring, that we will see some reconstitution of the dangers coming from Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction." He said the U.N. has the ability to do something about this if it becomes necessary and that sanctions will continue until there is an Iraqi agreement to implement and comply with the resolutions. Welch said more progress and work is needed in the humanitarian area of implementation of the Security Council resolutions with respect to Iraq, especially 1284, by the United States, the Security Council and the United Nations. Welch expressed concern about the escalation of violence between Israel and Lebanon and said: "Our message is simple: this violence should stop. ... We deeply regret the loss of life and the injuries that occurred in this most recent round. I can say fully and emphatically there is no place of these kinds of attacks." Following is the transcript of the roundtable discussion: (begin transcript) TRANSCRIPT OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION AFFAIRS C. DAVID WELCH PRESS ROUNDTABLE KUWAIT RADISSON SAS HOTEL, KUWAIT CITY, STATE OF KUWAIT, MAY 6, 2000 ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH: Thank you. Thank you all for coming. I appreciate your taking the time this afternoon to join us here. I'd be delighted to answer any questions that you have. At least I hope I can answer them, if they are within my area of expertise. I have visited Saudi Arabia, Egypt and now Kuwait. I have not yet completed my visit to Kuwait, because there are some other things that we will be doing this evening, but I have had some discussions with the leadership here and my colleagues in the Foreign Ministry. I would like to say a couple of things. First, the United States maintains a strong friendship with Kuwait and with all the countries in the GCC. And, as a feature of that, we have a common partnership in discussing and tackling some of the challenges facing us all in this region. These have been the subject of my stops in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and now here. We believe this is an appropriate time for a consultation with Kuwait on the range of issues that we face together. So, as my colleagues mentioned, I'm not the first to visit here recently. I've been preceded by my counterpart, who is the assistant secretary for Near-Eastern affairs, Ambassador Walker. And then our secretary of defense has been here also, not long ago. This dialogue is important now that we are fully into our new year, and as we face some of the issues within the United Nations' system through the remainder of the year, up to and including the Millennium Summit and the General Assembly in the following winter in the United States. I imagine you will ask me about what it is I have discussed on this trip, so I will reserve any remarks for those questions. Let me say that I am appreciative of the hospitality and of the discussions that I have had today with my hosts in the Kuwaiti Foreign Ministry, and with His Excellency, Sheikh Salem. We have tried to cover as many things as we could in a compressed amount of time, but of course, the most prominent among those would have been the regional security concerns, the issue of reform of the United Nations and some particular items that are in the news lately. With that I shall invite your questions. QUESTION: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has been getting away without weapons inspections for some time now. How long do you think this can go on? ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH: Well, this is a critical concern for all of us. We seek Iraqi compliance with the resolutions of the Security Council. There is an abundant track record of non-compliance by the regime in Baghdad. Unfortunately, because of that non-compliance, there is no ability for the Security Council to sit down and address the question of sanctions. Unless the Iraqi regime cooperates and complies with these resolutions, it will see that key to unlocking the lock ever vanishing from its hands. There is a great risk that in this period of non-compliance, and with the absence of inspections and monitoring, that we will see some reconstitution of the dangers coming from Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction. We are very attentive and vigilant about this. It is not a matter of comfort to anyone. Thus, it is much better, in our view, that the resolutions should be implemented and that the work of the special commission, now called UNMOVIC -- if I use that later on, you will pardon me for the acronym -- should proceed. In the absence of that happening, of course all efforts to monitor what is going on are less than perfect. But we have our own means, and we are keeping track of it as best as we can, and we also have the means to do something about it, should that need to be the case. But the most dramatic effect of this, I'm afraid, will be that the sanctions will continue until there is an Iraqi agreement to implement the resolutions and then comply with them. QUESTION: Sir, last week Saddam Hussein celebrated a very lavish birthday. They keep on complaining that the sanctions are killing the Iraqi children, who are suffering from malnutrition, and we saw a picture of a large, huge birthday cake that Saddam was feasting on with other Iraqi officials. What is your comment on that? ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH: Well, apart from the fact that I hope we don't have to see this again next year, I will say this about the birthday party. There are plenty of uses for whatever it cost to have such a party inside Iraq today. The United Nations gives ample reports on the conditions inside of Iraq, and lets be honest among us, there is a humanitarian problem. But the picture of the birthday cake and the celebrations along side what we all understand is suffering among the average innocent person in Iraq is, I have to say, a grotesque one. I'm convinced, however, that this regime has little interest in satisfying the needs of its people, and I don't expect to see much from them. But there are obligations in Resolution 1284 in the humanitarian area on Iraq, and these are very clear. I have a very simple view of this. I am sure there is a school that could have used some desks, that there is a hospital that could have used an electric generator, for which some amount of this birthday party fund could have been used. QUESTION: Sir, how do you evaluate the situation in the South of Lebanon within the escalations, one from the Israeli side and the other from the Hizballah side? Thank you. WELCH: We are deeply troubled by the escalation and the violence across this frontier between Israel and Lebanon. I think it's no secret to you that this is a matter of concern to each of the governments with whom I have been meeting on this trip, including to the government of Kuwait. We have been in touch with each of the parties involved -- that is, the governments' concerned, not the militias. In just the last 24 hours, our ambassadors have been meeting with the Israeli government, the Lebanese government and the Syrian government. In addition, the Secretary of State has been in touch with the Syrian Foreign Minister. Our message is simple: this violence should stop. We want to be sure that there is an environment of as much stability and calm as possible, because I think the next most important step is for the United Nations to continue to take the lead and confirm what it is that Israel has pledged to do - that is, to withdraw fully and completely from Lebanon. After Israel has withdrawn, and once the Secretary General has certified that they are out, then it is up to the parties to preserve the peace in this area. It is not acceptable that there should be attacks on civilians, wherever they come from. This is not something that we can countenance. We deeply regret the loss of life and the injuries that occurred in this most recent round. I can say fully and emphatically there is no place for these kinds of attacks. QUESTION: You said that you discussed during this visit regional cooperation. Could you please tell us more about what exact subjects you have discussed during your visit to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and, particularly, Kuwait? Thank you. ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH: Well, we are in Kuwait, so let me concentrate on that. As my friend and colleague indicated, I have a job to do in the area of international organizations. And, of course, we are all focused on the implementation of the Security Council resolutions with respect to Iraq, especially 1284. This means that there should be progress in 3 areas. I was asked just a moment ago about the disarmament area, but also I think we should reflect on what one of the other questioners mentioned, and that is the humanitarian area. In resolution 1284, there are more provisions with respect to humanitarian issues than any other subject, and this needs progress and work by all parties. That means progress and work by the United States, and I described for the leadership here what it is that we are doing. That means progress and work by the Security Council, and I discussed that with them. It also means work by the United Nations, number 3. The United Nations implements this, the largest humanitarian program in U.N. history, and they have a responsibility for making it more effective also. And finally, and this is the least of my expectations, there is an obligation upon Iraq to do something to improve the situation. I say it is the least of my expectations because I can't control what they do, and they have simply chosen to do something else. We also discussed the issue of the missing persons and those unaccounted for and prisoners of war. I feel that this is a critical issue that needs to be continually elevated in international attention. That is why when resolution 1284 was written there was a special provision for treatment of this question by the Security Council and the appointment of a special person to follow it. That indicates the interest that the Council has in seeing that Iraq lives up to its obligations in this area as well. And this was the primary regional security issue that we discussed. Obviously it is a matter of keen interest here. It was also a subject of interest in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. I don't mean to say that it was not. Today we also spent some time discussing the role of the United Nations in conflict areas around the world. That is the discussion I shall continue later on today, when I meet with my Foreign Ministry colleagues again. That covers a lot of ground, but our principle focus was peacekeeping. As I mentioned earlier too, the subject of the events in Lebanon was raised, and the concern was expressed about the violence there. We had some bi-lateral questions that we dealt with involving issues that are of immediate diplomatic concern in the United Nations that we are working on together with our friends here in Kuwait. But those I would prefer not to get into in detail. QUESTION: Recently, the Arab League Secretary General, Esmat Abdul Majeed, has linked between lifting the sanctions in Iraq and the release of Kuwaiti POWs. What's the United States' position on this? ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH: Well, it's a good question. I won't speak for the Secretary General, because I don't know his exact position on that. I met with him on Wednesday, when I was in Cairo. We did discuss how the Arab League could contribute to providing an additional focus on this matter. But we discussed it in that sense and how we would each do our part to help to make Ambassador Vorontsov's mission a success. In terms of the linkage, the United States has always felt that the resolutions that concern Iraq have, as a fundamental underpinning, that there should be peace and stability restored to this area. We don't see how you can have that without full compliance with all their aspects. And, ultimately, the judgment the Council is called upon to make is not restricted to have they eliminated, you know, this rocket over here. It is restricted to a broad judgement: are they no longer a threat to the peace and stability in this area. Now, we consider resolution of this question of the missing and prisoners of war to be fundamental to our understanding of what constitutes compliance. QUESTION: Why did it take ten years for a special commissioner to be appointed? And, with Iraq refusing him entrance, how is he going to deal with the POW issue? ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH: I do not take their refusal as the last word. If that is to be their last word, then they will have to answer to the Security Council, whose members are united in wanting to see progress on this issue. Even where there are divisions in the Council among other aspects of the Iraq question, there is no division about this one. Why did it take ten years? Well, I ask... I won't ask you, that's not fair. I ask the regime in Baghdad: why has it taken ten years? This obligation has been crystal clear from the very start. Now, I have my answer to that, which I don't need to provide you, because maybe some of you will write "it's American propaganda." But it could be very easy to provide these answers. As I understand it, the documentation provided by Kuwait, with respect to those it knows are missing and unaccounted for and were prisoners, is complete and detailed. And the Iraqis have attempted to create a false equivalency here between other missing. This is not acceptable. They should go back to meetings of the tripartite committee that deals with this issue. They should receive Ambassador Vorontsov. If they do not, then they are the ones to blame for non-compliance. QUESTION: How do you evaluate the situation in Iraq and its influence in the region? And Sandy Berger once mentioned that the change of the regime is a necessity to contain. Are there plans to keep the regime in power? ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH: What is the second part of the question, please? (cross talk) No, before that... (cross talk) ...influence in the region. If you are asking about the political situation in Iraq, then I think that answer is simple: there is one person in charge in Iraq, and he and his followers are responsible for the situation there. Thus, it is our view that the only way that you can bring real, lasting change to this situation is if there were a different regime in power. That is an American answer to this situation. It's not necessarily one that is shared by everybody, but we think that would be the best course. Does Iraq have influence in the region? You would be better positioned than I to answer that, but I think Iraq remains a threat. I think Iraq is a nation that has a lot of people and a lot of resources. And under its present leadership, unless it is very carefully watched, it can be an even larger threat. This is the reason we have the policy we do. QUESTION: Is the United States ready to resort to military action again should Saddam Hussein insist on not implementing the U.N. resolutions, specifically the last resolution, 1284? ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH: It really hasn't been the reason that we have used military force in the past. If you examine very carefully what we said at the time, there was a different rationale. But I won't dwell on the past. Let me dwell on the future. If Iraq doesn't accept this resolution, it's its responsibility. If it accepts this resolution but then doesn't comply, that's also Iraq's responsibility. If it shocks us all and accepts it and complies, then we are prepared to implement this resolution, including all of its parts. So it's up to them. The third point I would make is that I have long ago learned not to speak for the President of the United States when it comes to his options in any given situation. And I won't do that with respect to this one. But I think that the regime in Baghdad has plenty of experience in dealing with the United States. It knows that we are prepared and capable to do what is necessary. QUESTION: With regards to the dues to the U.N. ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH: Yes. Thank you for asking a question about my other responsibilities. (Laughter) QUESTION (cont.): As... I know the United States has a large debt to pay to the U.N. What are you planning to do with that, and what is the future of the U.N. budget? As we know, it is facing a budget crisis as well. ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH: Well, there are many demands on the U.N. this year, especially in the area of peacekeeping. I think we have seen in the news over the last couple of days yet another challenge to U.N. peacekeeping in Africa, in Sierra Leone. The United States wants to have an organization that is effective and capable of meeting these challenges. For us this is a potential success. We want to give it the best possible tools to achieve a good result. We think that part of that is to make sure that the United Nations is adequately financed in a fair and equitable way by all its members. When the United Nations was founded, a long time ago, we paid 50% of its costs. The trend has been downwards over the years, and today we pay 25% of its cost. If we are able to lower that just a little bit more to 22%, then we are in a position to pay many of the bills about which you speak. I won't bore you with the numbers, because it's more detailed perhaps than you want, but take it from me, we are able to pay a very large amount of money. That would be a very healthy thing for the United Nations. It will be very good for our relationship with the United Nations also. But to do this, it requires the cooperation of all countries, because this is a General Assembly vote. We think it is in the interest of other countries also to see an affective United Nations financed by everybody who take their fair share. There are some countries that are able to pay more. There are some who should pay less, and most will not be affected at all. We would just like to see a comprehensive, equitable and fair solution. And if that works out in such a manner that it meets our legislative needs, then we are able to pay our bills. If it does not, then I think the situation for the United Nations will become even more problematic, and of course our relationship will also suffer with the organization. But I hope that won't be the outcome. Indeed, I have heard good responses from all those with whom I have been speaking on this issue, and that goes well beyond this trip. It includes countries in Europe, in Africa, Latin America, Asia, who I think are prepared and able to step up to meet the difference. QUESTION: After visiting Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait, what message are you going to carry to your country? ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH: I don't know if I can have one single message. I think maybe I would summarize by saying the following: all three of these countries are friends of the United States. All three have an important regional voice and are respected internationally for their positions. All three are affected by some of the issues that I described that relate to the United Nations, whether that is in terms of peacekeeping - where Egypt, for example, is one of the largest participants in the world in peacekeeping operations. Whether it relates to the security and stability that U.N. resolutions provide, such as in the case of Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia. These are all matters in which we share a common interest. So I have found a very receptive audience here to the partnership that's necessary to make international organizations, particularly the United Nations, function more effectively. And I would add, too, that all three of these governments, like my own, are very interested in seeing value for their money. I mean, we all pay membership dues to the United Nations, and we want to see it well spent. We want to see the operations run well. We want to see the organization effective and well managed. This is a common interest. So I will take that message back, that these are things that matter to them, as they do to us. QUESTION: Did you discuss the matter of dues with Kuwait? Would you like to see Kuwait pay more? ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH: We have discussed this with the Kuwaiti government, both in New York and here, and I can't answer whether Kuwait should pay more or not. That is not a decision I make. It's not one Kuwait really makes either, because the dues are set by the General Assembly. So there are 188 numbers in the United Nations, who, in December, or if they can agree before that, will make a vote. And then we will all know: does it have a financial implication for us? The key question is not should any one country pay more or less, but what is a fair and responsible way forward on this problem. And there we have our ideas, others have their ideas. As I said, we have some sympathy here and in other places for the suggestions we have made. But at this point, it is hard to say how the debate will eventually conclude. QUESTION: This might be a little forward-looking question, but the U.S. has many friends here in this region, and there are many heavy weights on the global stage who have their own agendas on reforming the U.N. And everybody is, of course, looking for friends and is seeking support for his agenda. Is this something that was raised during your trip here in the region? Is this something that... The U.S., of course, has its own agenda. Is this something that you are seeking support on, or trying to create consensus on, on a certain policy or course of action in reforming the U.N., that the U.S. sees more fit to pursue? ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH: I think I understand your question. Our intentions are really very clear. We think that since the present arrangements for payments of dues in the United Nations have been in place for, in the case of peacekeeping, nearly 30 years, that it's time to look at whether those are valid. When the peacekeeping rate was established in 1973, it was established to fund one peacekeeping operation here in the Middle East on a temporary basis. Yet it has lasted all that time. When it was established in 1973, there were 55 fewer members of the United Nations than there are today. When it was established in 1973, the economies that are now very large economies -- I won't mention one Permanent Five member in particular, but you can imagine who that might be -- who had a much lower role. We think some of these changes need to be recognized. And we think the trend should continue of a decline in the amount that we have to pay. American intentions are very clear in this respect. It is written in our law, and we think it is a responsible thing to do. No nation should have to assume that kind of burden. If you take the contributions of the United States, Germany and Japan together, they fund 55% of the budget of the United Nations. I think that makes my point. Thank you. (end transcript) (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
