27 March 2003
Humanitarian Aid to Iraqi People a Focus of Bush-Blair Talks
(U.S. official briefs on March 26-27 Camp David discussions) (3280) The need to restart the United Nations oil-for-food program to feed the Iraqi people was a main focus of two days of discussions at Camp David between President Bush and Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair, a senior administration official said late March 27. Briefing reporters at the White House following the March 26-27 talks at the presidential retreat in the Maryland mountains, the senior administration official appealed to United Nations Security Council member nations "to recognize that this is not the time to fight old battles of any kind, this is a time to respond to the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people." "[T]his is about the health and well-being of the Iraqi people, not about old battles that were fought in the Security Council before this war began. These are the resources and the assets of the Iraqi people; they ought to be made available to the Iraqi people in a time of humanitarian need," the official said. Not giving adequate authority to restart the program to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan "is, in fact, holding up important humanitarian assistance," the official said. About 60 percent of Iraq's 22 million people are fed through the U.N.'s oil-for-food program, which began in 1996. Under the program, Iraq has been allowed to sell oil as long as the money goes mainly to buy food, medicine and other humanitarian goods for Iraq's people. Discussing the progress of the war, the briefer said Bush and Blair are comfortable with the progress that the coalition is making, and with the military plan that allows for flexibility as circumstances warrant. Both Bush and Blair "have complete confidence in their commanders on the ground," and have "complete confidence that Saddam's days are numbered." Following is a transcript of the briefing: (begin transcript) THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary March 27, 2003 BACKGROUND BRIEFING BY A SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ON THE PRESIDENT'S MEETING WITH PRIME MINISTER TONY BLAIR The Roosevelt Room 4:35 P.M. EST SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I'll just take questions, because I don't have much time. Q: There appears to be, in terms of postwar Iraq, some disagreement within the administration that also includes the Prime Minister about how strong a role the U.N. ought to play, and perhaps also relying on some elements of the Iraq civil service to govern Iraq, versus another point of view which would rely more heavily on the Iraqi exiles and opposition. How do you think this gets worked out? Where is the compromise in all this? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: David, I don't think that a compromise is needed here. I think that people are very clear about where we are at this time. The Prime Minister and the President had an extensive discussion of this and they focused very much on the principles of the Azores statement, and they've very comfortable with the principles of the Azores statement. The first point is that the near-term problem is to get the U.N. to restart the oil-for-food program, to get the Secretary General the necessary authorities that he needs to make the oil-for-food program work, so that the U.N. can help the Iraqi people with, by the way, resources that belong to the Iraqi people in the oil-for-food program. So they focused a great deal on how to get that done, how to get it done in the Security Council, what work needed to be done. The Prime Minister is going up to the U.N. today. The second thing that they focused on is the need to have an interim Iraqi authority. But they had an extensive discussion of the fact that the a lot of how this unfolds will be dictated by what they find when the conflict is over. We're not yet in a post-conflict situation. The most important thing is to win the war and get to the post-conflict stage. At that point -- I don't know if you remember when in Afghanistan it was well into the process of liberation before leadership began to emerge within the country -- people like, for instance, Karzai who emerged -- and you were able to put together an interim Afghan authority. People expect that something like that will happen. The interim Iraqi authority is to be a group made up both of external opposition, people who have worked on behalf of the Iraqi people on the outside, but also with heavy representation of people who are on the ground in the country. And there's a firm belief that legitimate leadership will emerge from inside the country. And of course, the Kurds, who have been governing that northern part of Iraq for some time. So those are the things that they focused on. They do believe there should be a U.N. role, but we're not yet in a post-conflict situation and they believe there should be an endorsement of a proper post-conflict administration. But what will be a proper post-conflict administration were going to have to wait and see until we're on the ground. Q: Do you mean that we're not at the stage, even now, where you can begin actually looking at various blueprints for what the U.N. can do? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Let me remind you, David, that the Iraqi situation is going to be unique, as each of the situations that we've had to deal with is unique. Iraq is a more modern country than Afghanistan by far; it has a civil service that most assessments believe after you're rid of the political level can continue to work. It will have some administrative capability. There is an active exile community that can go into help with that process. There are undoubtedly important things that the U.N. will be able to do. But this is not East Timor, this is not Kosovo, this is not Afghanistan. This is Iraq. And much will unfold as liberation unfolds. But the Prime Minister and the President were very clear, the near-term issue and the issue on which we should be focusing our energies right now is the oil-for-food program and making certain that that functions properly. Q: On that point, the President this morning mentioned that he doesn't want the oil-for-food program to be politicized. Who is he talking about? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, there are those currently in the debate who seem to believe that this is somehow a statement about whether you did or did not agree with what happened in the launching of this war. We believe this is an issue of humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people. And after all, the oil-for-food program, the escrow account of the oil-for-food program is made up of the assets that belong to the Iraqi people. And so that's the difference in opinion in the Security Council, and we feel very strongly that it ought to be settled very quickly. Q: Are those countries Russia, China, France and Germany, and are they -- by politicizing it, are they really endangering the health and welfare of the Iraqi people in terms of -- that might be starving? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I don't think that's exactly the list. For instance, we've gotten some good help from the Germans, just to give you an example. And there have been differences among the groups -- Q: -- less fine a point. (Laughter.) SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: But whoever is in that list, I would say to them that this is about the health and well-being of the Iraqi people, not about old battles that were fought in the Security Council before this war began. These are the resources and the assets of the Iraqi people; they ought to be made available to the Iraqi people in a time of humanitarian need. Q: You said for weeks that the battle plan would obviously be adjusted once you hit the ground and saw what was actually coming on. How much talk was there today about adjusting to the events, foreseen or unforeseen? And was there any discussion about the kind of speculation we've seen in the media today that this could go on for months? Did these guys look at each other and say, we've got to prepare our people for the fact that we could be fighting in June? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No. In fact, the Prime Minister and the President were very confident of the -- what is going on on the ground, of the progress that is being made. You know, it's been less than a week -- or just about a week, and the securing of the oil fields in the south, the rapid move toward Baghdad, the presence that we've now established in the north -- an awful lot has been accomplished in a very short period of time. I know it seems like longer because all of you are covering it 24 hours a day, everybody is watching it 24 hours a day. But in fact, this is a very short period of time. They are comfortable with the progress that is being made. They think it's a period of time in which more progress will be made. But the plan that was presented to both of them, of course, allowed for flexibility as circumstances warranted. And they have complete confidence in their commanders on the ground Q: Are you ahead of schedule? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: -- to make any adjustments necessary. Q: Did they talk about the prospect that fighting might continue for months? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Nobody had ever put a timeline on this conflict. I don't think you will be able to go back and find a single statement by -- Q: The Vice President did. Weeks, not months. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, weeks, not months for what? For total liberation of Iraq? Q: For the conflict, for the war, for what we would consider battle. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, weeks, not months means that there will be a liberation of Iraq when the time -- as the President said today, when it is over it will be over. Now, the fact is the President has never put a timetable on this. The timetable is when we complete the mission. I know it seems like a long time. I'll just remind everybody that in Afghanistan, we were a couple of weeks into the conflict and there were all kinds of stories about bogged down and the Northern Alliance wasn't moving, and were you going to have to Americanize the war. Let's remember the 79-day bombing campaign in Kosovo, it was failing, it was failing, it was failing. We have a tendency to do this because we're following it on -- you're following it on a very, very close basis. Let me just suggest that the progress is steady, it is within the bounds of what was expected, and a lot of progress has been made. The President and the Prime Minister expressed their complete confidence that Saddam's days are numbered. Q: A lot of people seem to think that Prime Minister Blair wants a U.N. presence in Iraq sooner and on a grander scale than what the President is comfortable with. Is that the case? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Judy, there simply isn't any disagreement between the Prime Minister and the President about what to do going forward here. They had a discussion today of the fact that we're not yet post-conflict. There are going to be many variables that determine what kind of administration is needed, what kind of role the U.N. will play, what kind of interim authority we're dealing with and what its powers might be, what kind of conditions you find in the country when you get there. There are just simply too many variables. And their very strong view at this point is that you focus on what needs to be done. And what needs to be done is that the Iraqi people need humanitarian assistance. The oil-for-food program, which, by the way, is not just money, but it's also a distribution system -- needs to be up and running. And the Secretary General needs the authority. Q: How critical is the humanitarian situation in Basra? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, we're getting reports from the field, but there were some reports that I think we think are credible that some of the problems, for instance, with water were caused by Iraqi forces. And there has been a significant effort to reestablish water to the residents of Basra, because the electricity, in fact, was not off. And so somebody cut the water supplies; it wasn't Western forces or coalition forces. So we're looking at it. They're working as hard as they can and as quickly as they can to get humanitarian assistance in. In fact, one of the real very important elements of progress has been the stabilization of Umm Qasr, which is the large port there, and the ability of humanitarian assistance to move through there would be very good. Q: Is it fair to say, on the question of the U.N. and post-Saddam Iraq, that what you envision is not the U.N. administering Iraq, but rather the U.N. in support of the government in much the way it was in Afghanistan? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: What we want to do -- it's a good way to put it, Jim, because what we want to do is to return sovereignty to the Iraqi people as quickly as possible. This is a pretty sophisticated society. It's, unfortunately, suffered under years and years of violent and brutal leadership, and so you don't know what it looks like underneath and you won't know that until you get on the ground. But I just want to caution people, this is not East Timor. This is not Kosovo where you actually didn't have government structures. And so there will be an important role for the U.N., there's no doubt about it. The President and the Prime Minister committed to that, along with Prime Minister Aznar at the Azores. Q: But not as the administrator? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: But we believe that the key is going to be to as quickly as possible get sovereignty back to the Iraqi people. Q: Going on Bill's question before, some people are saying that the real problem is that Russia, and to a lesser extent, France are trying in the oil-for-food program to protect contracts at beneficial rates for oil that their companies have had in the past. Is that correct? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I don't know. I don't know the motives of those who are making it difficult to get oil-for-food restarted. But I would hope that an appeal can be made to them to recognize that this is not the time to fight old battles of any kind, this is a time to respond to the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people. And blocking the restarting of the oil-for-food program with adequate authority for the Secretary General is, in fact, holding up important humanitarian assistance that would be needed. Q: From watching the President this morning, he seemed a little frustrated or bothered by some of the questions about timetables and saying there never was a timetable, it will be done when it's done, and of course, that's the only sort of thing that matters. Is that an accurate perception, that he is focused on sort of why aren't we doing better, and it should be better, and some retired general says "x" on TV and that becomes the barometer? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Everybody understands. Everybody would like it to be over as soon as possible. So everybody understands that people are writing. But I do think there's a little sense of deja vu here from -- with Afghanistan, as I said, where in a much different circumstance there was a lot of concern that the Northern Alliance was never going to move, and people were writing that you were going to have to Americanize the war and we're going to have to change strategy and did we have the wrong strategy. Again, I remember from the outside, myself, Kosovo, where, well, you're just bombing, it's not working. I wouldn't say that anybody finds it unexpected that there is a lot of focus on what have you done lately. But we just have to keep reminding ourselves, all of us, that this is a very short period of time in a very large country that the objectives are being achieved at a steady pace, that we've made a lot of progress, and a lot of very key objectives that people worried a great deal about have already been achieved, like the Umm Qasr port, like the securing of the oil fields. So I think people understand. But the President, a long time ago, told the American people that the goals here were noble but that there was going to be sacrifice, there was going to be difficulty. And I believe he said at one point that this kind of thing never comes free. Could I just mention one other thing to you -- I'm sorry, I'm going to have to go. Q: Real quick. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Real quick. Q: You say we're covering it all the time. It's also been covered all the time in the Arab -- what is your assessment based on your contact with the Foreign Minister, how long can it go on before it becomes a problem, and whether or not the coalition forces, as they're meeting resistance, need to step up the force they use -- more civilians are injured? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, I think that -- the key is -- Don Rumsfeld I heard a little bit ago said, we made certain choices about how we fight this war to try and affect civilian life as little as possible. I think that is a message that needs to be gotten out. It stands in quite contrast, by the way, with Iraqis taking civilians and shoving them in front of forces, or dressing their soldiers in civilian clothes, or pretending to surrender and then executing the people to whom they're "surrendering." Putting -- I do think some of the media have been -- Al Jazeera was -- really it was unfortunate that these pictures have been broadcast. And imagine the families of those British soldiers, imagine the families of our soldiers a couple of days ago when this was done. There is a limit to how this should be done -- Q: What's it doing to the population? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Look, I think no one can be certain, but I'm quite confident that the leaders of those countries are capable of explaining what is going on here, because we have a lot of support in that part of the world. Let me just mention one other thing I think did not get out in the President's schedule. Before, when the President and the Prime Minister met this morning, they took a phone call at 7:30 a.m. with -- I'm sorry, 7:40 a.m., I believe it was -- with Prime Minister Howard of Australia and President Kwasniewski of Poland, who are the other -- other leaders, heads of state with forces on the ground, fighting in Iraq. So I just wanted you to know that took place. Thanks a lot. END 4:53 P.M. EST (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 |
|
|
|
