• Military

• WMD Menu                           

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

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

06 April 2003

Secretary Powell Outlines Agenda for U.S.-European Cooperation

(U.S. working with friends to structure role for UN in Iraq) (3850)
Along with planning for reconstruction in Iraq, the United States
remains focused on a broad international agenda ranging from the
expansion of NATO to dealing with HIV/AIDS, Secretary of State Colin
Powell said in an interview with European editors in Brussels on April
3.
Powell stressed that U.S.-European relations remain strong because all
nations understand and value the transatlantic partnership.
On the question of roles and responsibilities in Iraq, Powell said:
"We're trying to make sure that we structure a role for the United
Nations that is appropriate and proper, that deals with the provision
of humanitarian aid, that endorses an interim authority when it is
created, so that this interim authority is seen, internationally, as
having an endorsement and legitimacy from the United Nations."
Beyond Iraq, Powell stressed that the U.S. doesn't want to lose sight
of its broader agenda of international cooperation. Among the examples
he cited were HIV/AIDS, the expansion of both NATO and the European
Union, assistance for populations suffering from famine and drought,
encouraging sustainable economic growth and democracy, ensuring
regional stability in South Asia, and advancing relations with
countries such as China and Russia.
When asked about the seriousness of the rift between Europe and the
U.S., Powell pointed out that the transatlantic alliance had
experienced, and overcome, crises in the past and would do so now. He
recalled, for example, the question of why NATO did not "dissolve"
with the end of the Cold War and the Warsaw Pact.
"And I had a very simple answer to them," Powell said. "It's hard.
People keep wanting to join. They re all standing in front of my
counter saying, 'Please give me an application form.' Why? Because
they want to be part of a security alliance that links Europe to the
North American continent, that links Europe to the United States and
to Canada."
In response to a question about U.S.-German relations, Powell pointed
the many areas of active support and international cooperation between
the two nations, including Afghanistan and the Balkans, as well as
providing bases for moving troops and supplies into Iraq.
"We can join hands in interests again as we look to the rebuilding of
Iraq," Powell said. "Rebuilding it not from this military campaign,
but from more than two decades of destruction by Saddam Hussein. He is
the one who has destroyed its society. Not us. We are rescuing its
society and are going to build a better society."
Following is the transcript of Secretary Powell's interview by
European editors in Brussels on April 3, 2003:
(begin transcript)
Department of State 
Office of the Press Secretary 
Secretary Colin L. Powell
Interview by European Editors
Brussels, Belgium 
April 3, 2003
SECRETARY POWELL: Let's get right to the questions. Who would like to
start?
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, we just listened to your statement a very
optimistic statement about your conversations with your European
colleagues, but a lot of people in Europe feel uneasy with the plans
of the American administration vis-à-vis the interim government. How
do you think it's possible to address these concerns? And how do you
think it's possible to put again the United Nations as the center of
the process, as all your European colleagues certainly have told you
they want as a precondition to participating in the rebuilding of
Iraq?
SECRETARY POWELL: We understand that the United Nations has to be
involved. The President has been saying this all along, and the reason
I came here today was to hear their views as to what they think the
role of the United Nations should be. The United Nations has said
clearly they do not want to be in charge of Iraq. Kofi Annan has said
that clearly. So there is no competition for who is in charge, or
responsible for Iraq.
We re trying to make sure that we structure a role for the United
Nations that is appropriate and proper, that deals with the provision
of humanitarian aid, that endorses an interim authority when it is
created, so that this interim authority is seen, internationally, as
having an endorsement and legitimacy from the United Nations. And we
will be working with our coalition partners and our friends in the
Security Council to prepare the necessary UN resolutions that would do
all of these things.
How we actually create an interim authority is something that we are
working on now. I can t get into specifics, but we want to get it
started with people who have been outside and have been part of the
external opposition who have worked so hard to get rid of this
despotic regime. But we also know that it has to include people inside
so that it is seen as representative and not something that is simply
being imposed. Whether a conference is the appropriate way to do that,
such as was done with Afghanistan, these are the kinds of issues we re
looking at and discussing with our coalition partners.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, I represent a German paper, the government of
which was part of the Axis of Obstructionism or no-sayers. How serious
is the rift? And will historians say at some point we have seen the
disintegration of the old political institution called the West over
this issue, and that the conclusion of this process which started with
the fall of The Wall?
SECRETARY POWELL: No. I was there when there was a Wall as a soldier.
I was there as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when it
cracked. I was there when it fell down. And I don t know how many
conversations I have been in about the end of NATO, the end of the
transatlantic Alliance. In my conversations with my Russian general
friends back when the Soviet Union was ending, they would say, Well,
look. We're giving up the Warsaw Pact. Why don t you give up NATO?
Isn't that a fair trade? We're dissolving. We just had a meeting and
we dissolved the Warsaw Pact, why don't you guys go to Brussels and
dissolve NATO?
And I had a very simple answer to them. It's hard. People keep wanting
to join. You want to know what happened to all the guys that used to
be in the Warsaw Pact that you dissolved? They re all standing in
front of my counter saying, Please give me an application form. Why?
Because they want to be part of a security alliance that links Europe
to the North American continent, that links Europe to the United
States and to Canada. Why? Because they still feel a need for that
strong transatlantic relationship between the United States and
Europe. It has not gone away because we have had a fight over Iraq.
That is an enduring reality -- the need for a strong link between the
North American continent, Canada, the United States, Iceland and
Europe. And that will be there for as long as I'm around. I'm not
worried about that.
Germany and the United States have been the closest of friends and
partners since the end of the war. We were there in 1945, after the
defeat of Hitler to help Germany rebuild, to help Italy rebuild, to
help Japan rebuild, to help so much of Europe rebuild. And we forged,
in that postwar period, into a strong Alliance and strong bilateral
partnerships.
I started my career in Germany, and I ended my operational career as a
soldier commanding a corps in Germany. We are doing so many things
together -- in Afghanistan, in the Balkans. We have watched as Germany
has taken on additional responsibilities, went to the Bundestag and
said we need to be a part of a broader alliance or broader coalition
doing more things in the world. We are very appreciative of the
support Germany has provided to our bases while we are moving troops
to Iraq and other places.
So the friendship between Germany and the United States, and the
United States and other nations that we have had disagreements with
over this issue will continue. We'll get through this. Europe will
continue to grow under the umbrella of the transatlantic relationship
and alliance and I have no fears about its future.
It's not the first fight we've had. I mean, would you like me to
enumerate the fights. Let's go back to 1966, when . . .
QUESTION: France?
SECRETARY POWELL: Voila! (Laughter) Remember, we got thrown out of
Paris. Go! Get out of here! But guess what happened. The Alliance
adapted.
This is a problem. We've had a problem with many issues over the
years. This has been a problem. It's a serious one. I don t want to
underestimate the seriousness of it. But at the same time, it's not a
deathblow or a death knell
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, as the Frenchman here, I'm sorry. (Laughter)
I would like to ask the same question. Have you made friends with your
counterpart, Mr. Villepin, today? Is this over? Can we start again?
SECRETARY POWELL: I just finished meeting with Joschka Fischer and I
met with Dominique earlier today.
QUESTION: You're good friends?
SECRETARY POWELL: Yeah, we are good friends. This had nothing to do
with friendship. This had to do with business. That's a mafia term. I
don't think I . . . (Laughter) It's like out of the Godfather movie.
This is not personal. This had nothing to do with friendship. We never
stopped being friends. We never stopped talking to each other. We
argued, we disagreed, we got mad, we fussed a bit and we fumed a lot.
But we never broke the friendship.
We still have some debates and disagreements that we have to work our
way through. But Dominique and I met this morning and Joschka and I
met this afternoon. I talk to them on the phone very frequently and I
look forward to seeing them. This is not a personal matter. This is
business. We had a serious disagreement over a very, very serious
situation, a very serious policy disagreement. But these kind of
disagreements come and they get dealt with somehow, and then they go.
QUESTION: Who has power?
SECRETARY POWELL: Was that the question?
QUESTION: Yes. Do you expect the situation now, enabling you to come
back to some agreement on Iraq?
SECRETARY POWELL: What I am so pleased with, with respect to today's
meetings, is that there was a sense that it is time to come back
together. And we can come back together, and we can join hands in
interests again as we look to the rebuilding of Iraq. Rebuilding it
not from this military campaign, but from more than two decades of
destruction by Saddam Hussein. He is the one who has destroyed its
society. Not us. We are rescuing its society and are going to build a
better society.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, who has power for an interim administration?
There has to be another interim administration between the Saddam
regime and the interim administration of the Iraqis. How long will
that be? How long with that process be?
SECRETARY POWELL: We are conducting a military campaign and, once we
started that campaign, the military commander and the coalition
political leaders bear responsibility for the ground that we are now
occupying. So as the liberation effort continues, and we break the
grip of this regime on all the cities, and as we remove this regime,
we immediately have responsibility for security of the people,
security of their property, security of the assets of the nation and
for ensuring the stability of the country and the territorial
integrity of the country.
And there's no one else who could do that. You can't give that to
anyone. You can't give that to the UN or the EU. It is the
responsibility of the force that went in. It shouldn't surprise . . .
Wait a minute, I have to answer the question.
QUESTION: No, no. How long will it take?
SECRETARY POWELL: You re interrupting my answer. I'm going to get
there.
This is not a responsibility that can [not] be given to anyone else,
because we have the forces and we have the authority to do this. Now,
we are anxious to, as quickly as we can, establish security and
stability, make sure people are being fed, make sure we are rebuilding
the infrastructure to deliver water, food and medicine to the people.
As quickly as we can, we want to begin shifting responsibility from
the military to civilian ministries again that have now been reformed
with our assistance. We have civil administrators and people who will
be coming in to help these Iraqi ministries start to function again,
without Ba'ath party leaders and without the tyranny of Saddam
Hussein. And then we will create, as you heard, an interim authority
which, as soon as it demonstrates its capacity to act and to handle
authority and responsibility, we want to shift more and more to them.
Meanwhile, the U.N. will have developed its role and, under
appropriate Security Council resolutions, will be performing a role.
Now, to your question, sir, I wasn't trying to dodge it, but I can t
give you a precise answer. I can t tell you today that stability will
occur in a week or in a month. It is event- and situationally driven.
Yes, ma am?
QUESTION: What's going on again between you and Mr. Rumsfeld, I mean
your colleague and you on the future of Iraq from an economic, a
business point of view? And do you think you can get anything in a
future Iraq? I mean, contracts for companies or Mr. Rumsfeld, or
everything will happen as he wants, I mean, only U.S. companies get
everything?
SECRETARY POWELL: That is not our position. The initial inflow of
money going into the country will be coming, in the first instance,
from the United States, through our Agency for International
Development. Contracts are being let now, as quickly as we can, to
companies that have the capacity to deliver what we need, run the port
at Umm Qasr and things of that nature. As we get further into this,
there will be European Union funds that become available, and the
European Union will decide how those funds are spent. And then, in due
course, as we get the oil system up and running again.
QUESTION: Energy system as well?
SECRETARY POWELL: Yes, but I'm thinking in terms of exported oil,
which provides revenues. This is a wealthy country. And so as that
revenue stream starts to come back and provides funds for the Iraqi
government, then it will be up to the new Iraqi government, the Iraqi
authorities to determine how they re going to spend their money and
where to award contracts.
So we are in the process of determining how we can make it clear to
the world that there is no -- as some have suggested in some press
accounts that there is a blacklist of companies that cannot get
contracts or awards. We are making it very transparent as to what
needs we have through the Agency for International Development and how
to place a bid against those needs for those contracts.
QUESTION: Talking about contracts and reconstruction, do you
anticipate any difference in access to these contracts and projects
for reconstruction of Iraq to the countries which supported American
policy towards Iraq and others?
SECRETARY POWELL: I think what we will have to do is make sure that,
as we use the money that belongs to the Iraqi people that we generated
through the use of oil revenue, we put in place a transparent system
and ultimately these are decisions that will be made by the Iraqi
authorities.
QUESTION: (unintelligible)
SECRETARY POWELL: Yes. For the initial workup, we do not have any
blacklist. Now how the contracts will be awarded and to whom, I'm not
in a position to say because I'm the Secretary of State and all I own
is AID.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, will you try to repair the damage done by the
(unintelligible) and invite European companies between [sic] France
and Germany.
SECRETARY POWELL: Nobody has not invited European companies. This is a
process that is just getting started and so we will have to see how it
develops as we go forward.
QUESTION: Sir, how surprised, if at all, are you by the lack of a
popular uprising or showing of support for the incoming forces?
SECRETARY POWELL: I think we will see more of that. There were some
reports today, from Najaf I think it was, once people realized there
that the grip of the Ba'ath party and the grip of the regime had been
broken, they were very welcoming and expressed their welcome to
coalition forces.
What we're seeing in the South is that once Ba'ath party leadership is
broken and once people are no longer fearful, they are coming out and
they are starting to cooperate with the coalition forces. Coalition
forces have started to hire them for jobs, are providing a secure
water source of a kind they have not seen in years. I think they have
been uneasy. They have been anxious -- are the coalition forces really
here to stay? Or is it going to be something similar to what happened
unfortunately in 1991? So I think confidence will develop once they
realize that the grip of this regime has been broken forever, and a
better life awaits them. Then I think that you will see a level of
cooperation with coalition forces and other international
organizations when they arrive.
MR. BOUCHER: We have five minutes and I think two people who have not
had the chance to ask questions yet.
QUESTION: I still don t understand the role of the United Nations.
What will be exactly the role you foresee for the United Nations? Will
it be only reconstruction or aid for the people or ...
SECRETARY POWELL: It will certainly be that and it will also be the
organization that has to provide an endorsement to the authority and,
hopefully, an endorsement as well to what coalition efforts will be to
support the authority.
But it's premature to try to answer the question today of exactly what
will the UN be doing. Kofi Annan was not at any of these meetings
today. So this was a way by which we could discuss with our European
colleagues what their views are. The real discussion, the real debate
as to the exact role of the UN will take place at the Security Council
in New York, not in Brussels.
QUESTION: This is a war against terrorism, but the list of countries
that support terrorism is quite long. North Korea, Syria, Iran. What
will you do when the war in Iraq is over? Should we expect other wars?
SECRETARY POWELL: This was a war against weapons of mass destruction.
This was a war against a rogue regime that is also a terrorist regime
that for twelve years had violated its obligations under a total of 17
UN resolutions. Once again, even after the whole Security Council came
together last November, fifteen to zero, and said, Stop. Stop now.
Immediately. Unconditionally. Without hesitation. No more fooling
around. You re guilty. You re in material breach. Stop it. And they
still played games. And they tried to stretch it out. And they tried
to break the will of the international community. And so we saw
Operation Iraqi Freedom.
There is this perception in many parts of Europe, frankly, that now
that the United States has done this, we're just looking around for
another place to go to war. It's as if you don t know our history. We
don t look for wars to go to. We do this reluctantly. You perhaps
should look at European history first, for a preemptive action and
nations that enjoy going to war.
And so we are not looking for wars to go to. We are looking for place
that we can work with to solve the problem of HIV/AIDS, to solve the
problem of famine, to solve the problem of economic growth, to solve
the problem of sustainable growth. That's what we really want to do.
But we will not turn away from those regimes that are supporting
terrorist activities, not after 9/11 we won't. So we will say to the
world Syria supports terrorist activities. Iran supports terrorist
activities. Iran is developing weapons of mass destruction.
It doesn't mean, as the night follows day, that there is going to be a
war with Syria, Iran or North Korea. In fact, what has been driving me
to some distraction the last couple of months, is that we've been
working so hard to have a multilateral approach to North Korea, and to
engage the neighbors of North Korea, China, South Korea, Russia and
Japan in finding a solution. And the criticism I get all the time is
Why aren't you unilaterally saying to the North Koreans, let's talk
right away? And the other question I get is, If you're invading Iraq,
why aren't you invading North Korea? It's almost as if you're
disappointed.
There are many ways to deal with the problems that face the world. We
want to deal with this problem here and now, put in place a better
society for the people of Iraq. We will try to solve the other
problems that exist in these rogue states and these states that
support terrorism.
We also don't want to lose sight of our broader agenda: the expansion
of NATO, the expansion of the European Union and therefore the
expansion of the transatlantic family. Going after HIV/AIDS, which is
killing more people every month than any conflict that is taking place
on the face of the earth. Famine, drought, horrible human
circumstances that we need to turn our attention to. Making sure war
does not break out between India and Pakistan. Making sure that the
community of democracies grows and thrives around the world. Making
sure we have stable relations with China and with Russia, two major
other powers on the face of the earth. These are all part of our
agenda. We re not looking for places to go invade.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, here at NATO, what kind of role would you
hope for NATO in peacekeeping in Iraq?
SECRETARY POWELL: We don't have an answer. We've made some
suggestions. Could be stability operations, peacekeeping operations.
We've also suggested it might be helpful in the search for weapons of
mass destruction. What I'm pleased about today is that no one spoke
out against such a role in the meetings that I was in. There was a
willingness to consider a role for NATO in Iraq. Also, there was
further willingness expressed today to consider a role for NATO in
Afghanistan. We'll see how that develops. Ambassador Burns will be
following up on those ideas.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)