09 June 2004
Powell Hopes U.N. Resolution Changes Political Dynamic in Iraq
Interview June 9 on MSNBC Live with Lester Holt
Secretary of State Colin Powell hopes the new United Nations Security Council resolution on Iraq passed June 8 "will change the political dynamic in Iraq."
In an interview on MSNBC Live, Powell said increasing numbers of Iraqis are choosing to serve in the new Iraqi government's armed forces and police. After the June 30 turnover of sovereignty, those who want to use violence to return to the Iraq of the past "will now be attacking their own people, their own government."
Discussing the meaning and effect of the new resolution, Powell said that while it may help draw additional aid and perhaps police trainers to Iraq, "we shouldn't expect to see a huge infusion of troops."
The "real guts" of the resolution, he said, "is returning sovereignty to the Iraqi people, authorizing a multinational force, giving the UN specific jobs to do in Iraq, and endorsing the plan to move forward to full elections and a representative government for the people of Iraq."
The secretary of state also responded to several questions regarding the late President Ronald Reagan.
Following is the State Department transcript:
(begin transcript)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
June 9, 2004
INTERVIEW
SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN L. POWELL ON MSNBC LIVE WITH LESTER HOLT
June 9, 2004
Washington, D.C.
(2:04 p.m. EDT)
QUESTION: Secretary Powell, you with me?
SECRETARY POWELL: Yes, I am.
QUESTION: Gee, we're only a mile or so away. We had a little trouble getting contact with you. But thank you very much for taking the time to talk to us.
I mentioned in the introduction a moment ago you were National Security Advisor for President Reagan. What are your memories of those days?
SECRETARY POWELL: I was privileged to serve with the President for two years as his Deputy National Security Advisor and National Security Advisor for the last two years of his Administration when, frankly, he accomplished great things in our relationship with the Soviet Union. It was during those last two years that he and then-President Gorbachev did so much to end the tension between the United States and the Soviet Union and really put in place the mechanism to move forward and see to the end of the Soviet Union a couple years later.
And he was a great man who had a vision. He didn't try to defeat the Soviet Union; he was just persuaded that if he stayed with it, if he showed that America was strong, but if he also showed an open hand to the Soviets, then we would bring the Cold War to an end. And he was absolutely right.
QUESTION: He also called the Soviet Union, of course, the "Evil Empire." Did he tend to see the world in black and white in terms of good and evil?
SECRETARY POWELL: He did see the world in terms of good and evil. He had a clear understanding of good and evil. But, at the same time, he went about the execution of his policies with a great deal of nuance. He knew that if he started out early in his tenure by calling the Soviet Union an "Evil Empire," he was putting them on notice, and, in some way, he knew he was helping them to realize the nature of the regime that they actually were.
And the same gentleman who could call them the "Evil Empire" was the same man who could sit down in the room with President Gorbachev and work out a peaceful solution to problems, enter into arms control agreements, help them with their economic problems and help them bring to an end this terrible chapter in Russian history. And he felt that only if he could stake our position out that clearly, that what you are doing is evil and we will be strong enough to deal with you, therefore now let's find a way out of this problem.
QUESTION: And, Mr. Secretary, all of us were mindful of the nuclear missiles that were pointed at the two nations, and there's a fine line between pushing and provoking. Did you two ever have discussions about that fine line and how far you could push the Soviet Union given the atmosphere at the time?
SECRETARY POWELL: Yes, we did. And President Reagan understood perfectly the consequences of such a confrontation, a nuclear confrontation. Not many people know it, but he was really against nuclear weapons in any way, shape, fashion or form. That's why he was so anxious to enter into arms control negotiations to get rid of nuclear weapons. And that's why he was such an advocate of the Strategic Defense Initiative. His simple proposition was, and this is simple but not simplistic, was that if we both had adequate defenses then we would make our offensive weapons useless. So he used to say it all the time: "I want strategic defenses and I want the Russians to have strategic defenses so we won't fear their missiles and they won't fear our missiles, and then both nations will be safe."
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, President Reagan's legacy was -- part of his legacy, of course, was rebuilding the U.S. military, which had been drawn down in size and the spending of money. How do you think President Reagan would view this current state of our military? As you know, it is stretched thin, answering the commitments of Iraq, Afghanistan and other commitments around the world.
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, he did do a great job in building up our military when he came in in 1981, he and Secretary of Defense Cap Weinberger. I think he would be very proud of the force we have now. In many ways, it is the force that he helped recreate in 1981 and through the end of his two terms in office.
Yes, the force is stretched but it is meeting all of its commitments, and I think he would be proud of the job that it was doing; and he would leave it up to the professionals in the military to determine what size the force should be and whether it needs more troops added to it. And he would leave it up to the military and the Secretary of Defense to make those kinds of judgments.
QUESTION: And, Mr. Secretary, if I could turn to the events of yesterday, I guess congratulations are in order to the Administration, also to the Iraqi people. The United Nations Security Council, that 15-nothing vote, essentially approving the plan for the multinational force in Iraq.
I think it was the Chilean Ambassador to the UN who said the U.S. essentially did a u-turn with regard to involving the UN. Do you see it as that way?
SECRETARY POWELL: Not at all. I mean, we have had, I think it is four UN resolutions since the war, all of which moved us in the direction of helping the Iraqi people. This one was a very, very important resolution because it not only said let's help the Iraqi people but it endorsed the plan to do that. It endorsed the new interim government, it endorsed the holding of elections by the end of the year and then a transitional government and then the preparation of a constitution and final elections, it endorsed the presence of a multinational force and it endorsed full sovereignty going back to the Iraqi people.
The United States has always said that the UN had a vital role to play and we have been shaping and structuring that role. And I think this resolution does make it very clear what the UN is going to be doing in Iraq, and it is consistent with the policies that we have been following since the end of the conflict.
QUESTION: Many would say that vote certainly lends diplomatic legitimacy to the mission there. What does it mean though in the practical sense in terms of getting an even broader multinational force and other aid from other countries?
SECRETARY POWELL: I think it helps us get additional aid, perhaps police trainers, other forms of aid. I don't think it opens some door that has been previously locked, and suddenly thousands and thousands of additional troops are suddenly available. But some countries might reconsider whether or not they can send troops now that sovereignty has been returned and there's a UN mandate for it, but we shouldn't expect to see a huge infusion of troops.
But, you know, there are a lot of countries involved now. It's a good coalition. Many nations have pledged large sums of money to help the Iraqi people. If this resolution allows us to get more money or additional troops, that's fine. But the real guts of this resolution is returning sovereignty to the Iraqi people, authorizing a multinational force, giving the UN specific jobs to do in Iraq, and endorsing the plan to move forward to full elections and a representative government for the people of Iraq.
Saddam Hussein is gone. A terrible regime will never return. Now the international community has come together to help the Iraqi people build a new nation resting on a solid foundation of freedom and democracy, the individual rights of men and women, and no more tyranny of the kind we got rid of last year.
QUESTION: And, Secretary Powell, the Administration has been quick to offer reality checks along the way that the violence will likely increase now as we march from this point, the sovereignty, to the point of the elections. But acknowledging it and -- and don't you then have to also acknowledge the continuing threat to this fledgling government, and where does the corner turn on that? You obviously can't put a date to that, but what gives us hope that that will end?
SECRETARY POWELL: We are seeing more and more Iraqis stepping forward to serve in the armed forces of the new Iraqi government and to serve in their police forces. The solution to the problem will be when Iraqi forces are able to manage the security problem, and we are doing everything we can to build up those forces. And as those forces are built up, there will be less of a demand on our forces and we can start to draw down again.
The difference now is that after the 1st of July, the folks out there who want to return to the past and are going to continue to use violence to go back to the past will now be attacking their own people, their own government. Yes, they may also attack coalition forces, but we're not there as the occupier anymore, we're there to help their sovereign government.
And I hope this resolution will change the political dynamic in Iraq so fewer people will see that it is in their interest in any way to participate in such kinds of violent activity, and we can start to turn this corner and get back to a peaceful Iraq that rests on a solid foundation of the rule of law and democracy.
QUESTION: And as you have acknowledged along the way, there have been some surprises for the U.S. with regard to what's happened in Iraq: the weapons of mass destruction that have yet to be discovered, the ferocity of the insurgency. This is a week, Mr. Secretary, we're looking back and we look at legacies and we look at lessons. What will be the diplomatic lessons that 20 years from now folks will be talking about with regard to the way this Administration dealt with the UN, dealt with the whole idea of using military force in Iraq?
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, I hope 20 years from now when people look back, they will see a democratic Iraq. And, yes, I am sure that there will continue to be debates 20 years from now in the literature about whether or not we should have gone to war last year. But the one thing that will not be debatable is that a terrible regime was removed, a regime that oppressed its people, filled mass graves, and, yes, did use weapons of mass destruction, was working on weapons of mass destruction, is no longer in power. And, hopefully, this new democratic regime, as the President has said many times, will be a model for the rest of the region and will be an anchor for democratic reform throughout the region.
QUESTION: Well, Secretary Powell, we honor a President today and honor a man that I know you worked closely with. Our thoughts are with you and all those who knew him. Thank you very much for taking time and speaking with us today.
SECRETARY POWELL: Thank you very much, Lester.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
This page printed from: http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2004&m=June&x=200406091810151CJsamohT0.6789209&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
