Taming the beast
In an exclusive interview, US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice talks to Ibrahim Nafie about the countdown to war, the two-state solution and the war against terrorism
Click to view caption |
"How sad for the Iraqi people to have the international community say: you should live under sanctions, because we can't deal with this brutal dictator. The Iraqi people deserve better than that, the world deserves better than that."
|
What is the United States planning to ask the United Nations for in the coming days? Will you seek a second Security Council resolution, or issue an ultimatum on Iraq?
We are entering a period now, in the [coming] weeks -- a diplomatic window, in which the United States needs to consult with the Security Council, needs certainly to consult with our long-standing friends in the region, like Egypt, to talk about our responsibilities, and to deal with the fact that Saddam Hussein is not disarming. We have to put in context the fact that this problem did not begin three months ago, when the resolution [1441] was passed in the United Nations. This problem began in 1991, when Saddam Hussein lost a war of aggression [and] agreed to a number of obligations -- to disarm from weapons of mass destruction [WMD], to stop threatening his neighbours, to stop repressing his people. And he has done nothing but defy the international community since. So that is the context for what Secretary Powell will do on 5 February. It is to remind everyone that this is not something that just started.
Saddam Hussein has no one to blame but himself for the situation in which Iraq finds itself. He needs to, as Dr [Hans] Blix said, to account for what happened to chemical agents; account for what happened to enough material to make tens of thousands of litres of anthrax and botlinum. He is a grave threat to the region, to the world. The Secretary will talk about his ties to terrorism, and he will show that Saddam Hussein has continued to deceive, and is indeed, trying actively to deceive the inspectors.
At that point, we have to look at our responsibilities. We will consult about how to do that. We don't believe that we need a second resolution, because resolution 1441 said that when [Hussein] is in material breach, there should be serious consequences. We will have to talk about how we move forward now in our responsibilities. But this is a critical moment, for the United Nations, for the Security Council. I hear people say that maybe we can just contain [Hussein]. He isn't containable. We know that. People say he can't build his programme while we have weapons inspectors there and while we have sanctions. How sad for the Iraqi people to have the international community say: you should live under sanctions, because we can't deal with this brutal dictator. The Iraqi people deserve better than that, the world deserves better than that.
We are seeing heightened tensions between the United States and its closest allies, like Germany and France. Is this a transformation in alliances, globally and in the Middle East?
France and Germany and all of Europe are long standing allies, and will continue to be. This is a difficult issue, and a difficult set of decisions, because no one likes the prospect of war, least of all the president of the United States.
But we also understand the cost of inaction, the cost of letting this brutal dictator who has acquired WMDs, and continues to try to acquire more -- this man who has invaded his neighbours and who has put in place a dictatorship that can only be compared to that of Joseph Stalin -- [to remain]. We know the risk of leaving that situation unaddressed. Of course, this is going to be a difficult discussion, and, of course, peoples' concerns should be taken seriously.
We have great respect for our regional partners, and there is no better regional partner than Egypt. President Mubarak is a wise and experienced statesman in the region and in the world. [He is] someone to whom the president [Bush] reaches out, and will of course be talking with again, we hope very soon -- I'm sure very soon. He plays an important role in Arab opinion; he plays important role in world opinion. We need to spend more time talking about our responsibilities. That's the kind of thing that we will be doing over the next several weeks.
What do you mean by several weeks?
We don't mean months. Saddam Hussein wants to do what he has done for the last 12 years. He wants to continue to defy while he pretends. He opens a few doors, where he has already gotten rid of whatever is there. And yet at the same time, as Dr Blix catalogued, he refuses to allow reconnaissance flights with the U-2, he refuses to have scientists interviewed privately, he refuses to file a declaration that is fair and complete. We have the answer to the question 'Is Saddam Hussein prepared to disarm voluntarily?' The answer to that question is no, he is not. And the question before us now is do we allow him to continue to deceive the world in this way, and to threaten the world and the region in this way? The Middle East is a region that deserves better.
When you speak of Saddam's tactics of hide and seek, Arabs respond that we have seen the same game played by Israel for years, actually for 50 years now. And what about other dictators?
Saddam Hussein started a war against his neighbours, against other Arabs. The United States came to the rescue of Kuwait. And then he signed on several obligations, and he has done nothing to fulfil them. In fact, he has done just the opposite. There are other dictators in the world, but there are few other dictators who are as rich. He has $3 billion in illegal oil profit that he is spending, not for the benefit of his people, but to build palaces and to acquire WMD. He is the only dictator to have used WMD against his people and against his neighbours. He is the one who tried to assassinate a former American president. He is the one who has incredible ties to terrorism. He is in a kind of class by himself. We have to deal with him as an outlaw in the international system. And let us just go back again to the Iraqi people, they deserve better than this ...
Don't the Palestinian people also deserve better than what they are getting now?
I want to come to that. But for the world to say, 'Live under the sanctions because we can't deal with him.' Is that fair to the Iraqi people? No one has worked harder on Middle East peace than the United States, and not just this president, but also the president before him. No one worries more, and is more concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people, than this president. When he talks to the Israelis, when I talk to the Israelis and when Secretary Powell talks to the Israelis, we say: you have to do something about the humanitarian situation. The president said in his 24 June 2002 speech: no one should have to deal with the humiliation that the Palestinian people deal with daily. He is the first American president to say clearly, loudly, there should be two states: one Israel, one Palestine. He even called it Palestine, something that American presidents had been warned not to do. So, he is someone who values every life in the Palestinian and Israeli situation.
Now, we need help from the Israelis, and nobody has a stronger stake in a Palestinian state that is viable and democratic than Israel does. We need help from the Palestinians, because one man [Palestinian President Yasser Arafat] should never be able to decide that 97 per cent of the territory is not enough. That was the case in 2000 [during the Camp David talks]. We saw a portrait of what courage is and how it can lead to peace with [late President] Anwar El-Sadat. We have not seen that portrait of courage with the Palestinian leadership. But we believe that the Palestinian people have the same aspirations for dignity, and for prosperity, and to raise their children without fear, that everyone else has, and the president keeps that in mind everyday.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has said that he does not recognise the Road Map, and the ruling Likud Party voted with a substantial majority against the Palestinian state. Do you have in mind some specific mechanism to persuade him and his party of your vision about the Palestinian state?
The president is committed to the Road Map. We believe it still needs revision and discussion. We haven't received, for instance, [any] comment from the Palestinians. And we recognise that Israel was in an election campaign, and now has to form a government. But once there is a government in Israel, we think it is extremely important to get Israel's response to the Road Map, and to get on this path, because the president was absolutely serious about his 24 June speech, absolutely serious about a two-state solution, and everybody has to exercise responsibilities for that two-state solution. The Arab leaders have responsibilities, the Palestinians have responsibilities, and the Israelis have responsibilities, and the United States will press everyone to carry out those responsibilities.
Using which mechanisms exactly, because persuasion may or may not work?
We think persuasion has a real chance.
In the case a war starts against Iraq without making significant progress in peacemaking between the Palestinians and Israel, what assurances could you give Palestinians and Arabs that their cause will not be delayed for several more years while settlements swallow up more of the occupied territories?
The best assurance that I can give about the continuing importance and priority that we place on the Israeli- Palestinian situation is that this president has made two major speeches, and has designed a Road Map to try and get us there, and has committed himself to the two- state solution. We work on it everyday. We have worked, for instance, with the Israelis on making certain that the tax revenues gets transferred to the Palestinian Authority, because there is reform going on in the Palestinian territories, and we think it is extremely important. So we work at this everyday.
We are not waiting for Iraq to be resolved. We want the Palestinian state to come into being as soon as possible, for it is something that we will work at, we will work harder at. It would be helpful if there was less support for terrorism from the outside, and one of the supporters of terrorism is Saddam Hussein. So that will be helpful. But we do need to press everybody, all of us who will favour peace, and Egypt is certainly in this category. All of us need to divide this into those who want peace, and those who do not want peace. And those who don't want peace try to blow it up every time we make a little progress.
What is Israel's expected role in the possible strike against Iraq?
Israel is a member of the neighbourhood, and we are concerned that Saddam Hussein may try to go after members in the neighbourhood, not only Israel, but also Kuwait, in a major way. And his henchmen said the other day they will attack Kuwait. So all the members of the neighbourhood need to be concerned. But the United States is the principal force here, although we expect contributions from others. We would expect possible contributions to come from states that wish to join the coalition. We don't expect that Israel would be part of any war course.
We have heard so many post-war scenarios for Iraq from the American standpoint. Do these scenarios include direct military American and British rule? Have you already settled on a specific political structure for post-war Iraq?
The first thing that I want to make very clear is that we want Iraq to be for Iraqis as soon as possible. We believe that the Iraqi people, when they are freed of this terrible regime, will be perfectly capable of running their own affairs, of finally having the benefit of the resources and whatever wealth the country has. It is an educated population; it is a population that wants more than it has. So, our goal will be to get the Iraqi people to that state as quickly as possible. Clearly, there will be a period of time in which the United States and the allies, whoever is there, will have to provide security, to make sure that sectarian violence doesn't break out, to make sure that the country remains unified, to make certain that the Iraqi people can get whatever humanitarian assistance and aid that they need. Those tasks we want to be involved in, because the president has always said, if we have to go to war, we will not just go to war, we will also provide humanitarian assistance.
What about the US military rule of Iraq?
Military rule is certainly not the right way to think about this. There will be a period of time, undoubtedly, when military operations are still continuing, and to produce order in the country, the United States military will play a key role.
But will there be a parallel civilian government?
So much depends on the situation on the ground, and how this unfolds. But we are planning, for instance, for a group to deploy from here that would have experts to help the ministries get back up and running as quickly as possible. But we want to be sure that we are providing for security, for humanitarian assistance and for keeping the country together.
Are you going to be following the Afghanistan model?
Afghanistan does not provide an ideal model because there was less in place in Afghanistan even in the way of administration. ... The Iraqis are like the Egyptian people: an educated population that wants prosperity and good things for the people. The American people are like this.
These are shared goals and aspirations of all people. The Iraqis, I think, are no different. And the goal will be to, as quickly as possible, establish order, security, [so] that everyone can be safe, that supplies [can] get to people and to establish that sectarian violence does not take place. Clearly, we will hope that the Iraqi civilian administration will be up and running quickly. In terms of the political peace, we have to recognise that Saddam Hussein has been in power for 30 years. It has not been normal politics in Iraq, and you will want to give some time for political people to emerge -- maybe they emerge quickly, we don't know.
How do you view the relationship to your regional allies, particularly Egypt and Saudi Arabia?
We view it as very close friendship and cooperation for security in the region. We view it, therefore, as essential to peace and security in the world, because the Middle East is such an important region. But we feel it is more than that, as partners not just in security, but partners in trying to bring prosperity to both our people. We have been active within the US-Egyptian business council, in talking about what trade arrangements might be possible. When President Mubarak is here, we don't just talk about security and the Arab-Israeli issue. We also talk about bilateral issues like the Egyptian economy, and how to support it. So, it is a broad relationship, as well as one with deep historical roots.
There is a notion in the Middle East that the United States has a sort of "hit-list" for after Iraq -- that once you finish with Iraq, you will go to Syria and onwards.
The United States finds itself in a position of doing what it has had to do many times, but perhaps now even more so. There is a chaotic international environment, [out of] which we, and our friends, have to try and produce some sense of order, some sense of diminishing the threat, so that we can all get about the business of what we really want to do: which is to create businesses and to create commerce. You know what your region looks like, and you know the effects that it had on the Egyptian economy. You know the effect that 11 September has had on our economy. The American people demand essentially what the Egyptian people demand: that we find a way to create an orderly and secure environment.
Why not do that through constructive engagement rather than war?
With Saddam Hussein [she laughs]. We save our constructive engagement for when parties are constructive, when it is possible to have constructive engagement.
But the United States was also accused of dealing with terrorists, including Osama Bin Laden at one stage, and others who resided in Afghanistan.
I'm sorry. The United States of America does not traffic in terror. No, we don't. Terror is meant to take innocent life to stop the political conversation. That is what terror is meant to do. Let us be very clear. When the United States helped the mujahidin, it was against an occupying army in a military fight. ... To fight an occupying army, that is not going after innocent civilians. Trafficking in terror means that you blow up a bus and you don't care who is on it. It means that you want to blow up a theatre in Moscow and you don't care who is in it. It means you drive an airplane into towers in New York, and the Pentagon, and into a field in Pennsylvania and you don't care who is on it.
Sometimes after you deal with the monster and abuse it, you can't control the monster forever.
We will get control of the monster, and we have to, because countries like the United States and Egypt and our other friends in the region, and our friends in Europe will not live in fear, and we have to get control of the monster, and we will.
