The war no one wants
In an interview with Ibrahim Nafie, US Secretary of State Colin Powell unpacks the argument for war in Iraq and shrugs off the imperialist label
Click to view caption |
"If Iraq truly wanted peace, and did not want to see war in the region, they would be saying: here are all the documents, here are all the facilities. You don't need a U-2, here it is, we'll show it to you. You don't have to take a picture from the sky, you can come take a picture right up close. We would not be playing this game of detective, we would be playing the game of: You wanted to know; here it is, come look. But they are still hiding and deceiving, they are still are not showing their willingness to comply"
|
Nearly all regional powers have openly expressed their opposition to war at this particular time. Why isn't the United States taking these views into consideration?
We are taking all views into consideration. Nobody wants war. The United States does not want war. Egypt does not want war. The solution to the possibility of war is very straightforward: Iraq should disarm. The international community came together in New York [on] 8 November at the Security Council and passed a strong resolution -- 1441. And in that resolution, everybody acknowledged that Iraq has been guilty of hiding weapons of mass destruction (WMD); that Iraq was being given one more chance to come into compliance [and] get rid of these WMDs; that inspectors would help Iraq, but that if Iraq once again failed to answer the international community, then Iraq must face serious consequences.
We can't have an international system that functions when you have a nation such as this that continues to develop weapons that [Saddam Hussein] has used against his own people and against his neighbours. He has invaded his neighbours. The United States did not invade Iran, Iraq did. The United States did not invade Kuwait, Iraq did. Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and chemical weapons against its own people, and fired missiles at neighbours during the Gulf War. So, the problem is not with the United States, the problem is with Iraq.
We would be pleased at a peaceful solution, but [President Bush] is determined and, I think, the international community is determined that Iraq must be disarmed of its WMDs. And if it is not done peacefully, the president believes strongly, and I think many other nations believe strongly, that a coalition would then have to use force to disarm Iraq. There are many nations that believe as we do. The United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, a group of eight [European countries] put out a statement last week. And we hope that people will understand that if force is used, it will be done in the most measured way, and it will be done not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of dealing with a regime that is simply irresponsible. And in the aftermath of such a conflict, the United States and its coalition partners will do everything we [can] to help the Iraqi people, to give them a better life, to help them use the 20 billion dollars a year that they get from oil revenue to build hospitals, schools, roads, to improve agriculture, to take care of poverty, to do all the things that are possible in Iraq if Iraq was not spending this money on WMDs.
What about the stance of France, Germany and Russia? They have expressed strong opposition to war.
They have a strong view. Russia and France voted for Resolution 1441, which calls for serious consequences if Iraq did not comply. Iraq has not complied. Russia, France, and now Germany, which is a member of the Security Council, and many others believe that there should be more time given, and that there should be more inspectors added. We are sensitive to those concerns and we listen to them. They are friends. They are allies. But it is not [a question of] 'How many more inspectors should be put it in?' It is, 'Will Iraq comply?' And if Iraq complies, then you don't need more inspectors. There are more than enough inspectors. But if Iraq does not comply, if it is not cooperating, if it is not turning over documents, if it is not allowing people to speak freely about what they know, if they are not bringing in missiles we know they have, if they are not telling us what they did with the anthrax and the VX, then more inspectors does not solve that problem. The problem is that Iraq is not complying, and not cooperating, and more inspectors is not the answer to the absence of Iraqi cooperation and compliance.
But the heads of the weapons inspection teams, Hans Blix and Mohamed El-Barad'ei, declared after visiting Iraq that they have started seeing a change of heart on behalf of the Iraqis. And on Monday, Iraq announced it was ready to accept, without conditions, U-2 flights. Doesn't this change your position?
The U-2s [American spy planes] are not the answer if they are still going to try to hide everything on the ground. The U-2s might be able to assist in the disarmament, but the U-2s in themselves are not the answer, nor are more inspectors. We are pleased if they are letting the U-2s fly, but what happens is, every time the inspectors go and visit, Iraq gives a little bit more, a few more documents. Okay. Why didn't they [offer] the U-2 on Saturday or Sunday? Why wait until Monday, [so] maybe they can start Wednesday?
So, the Iraqis are playing a game that we are all familiar with. We have watched this game for 12 years, and the region will be better off if this game comes to an end one way or another. If Iraq truly wanted peace, and did not want to see war in the region, they would be saying: here are all the documents, here are all the facilities. You don't need a U-2, here it is, we'll show it to you. You don't have to take a picture from the sky, you can come take a picture right up close. We would not be playing this game of detective, we would be playing the game of: You wanted to know; here it is, come look. But they are still hiding and deceiving, they are still are not showing their willingness to comply.
Would you be ready to receive an Arab delegation to seek a last-minute compromise that could avoid war?
I think the Arab nations have been playing a very important role by supporting the position that Saddam Hussein must disarm. President [Hosni] Mubarak, especially, has been playing a very, very active and important role in suggesting to the Iraqis that they [should] comply and avoid a conflict, and, in his position of leadership within the Arab world, making that case to other Arab leaders. If the Arab leaders wanted as a group to approach Saddam Hussein, certainly that is their prerogative, and we would welcome such an approach. But it has to be an approach that says to Saddam Hussein: 'You must comply.' And, of course, I would always be willing to receive any delegation from the Arab world, or from any representative of the Egyptian government.
Would Saddam's resignation be enough, or do you have other demands?
What we need to see is a regime that is changed, or an [unchanged] regime that is gone. And it isn't just one person. We need to see a change. The United States has no desire, in [the] event of conflict, of going in and pulling Iraq apart, or breaking all of its institutions. Those institutions are needed to take care of the people, to run the systems; it is the regime that's at the top that is causing all of this trouble in the region and for the Iraqi people, and for the world. And if that regime, down to some level -- I don't know how many -- were gone, and responsible leaders stood up and said to the world: 'Look, they are gone. We are now here, we are in control of this country, we invite the UN to come in, would invite others to come in, and a coalition to come in to work with us on finding where all these weapons are. We will tell you everything we know, we will give you all the documents, you can interview all the scientists, here is what we know about what happened to the anthrax, here is what happened to the VX.'
We should not take lightly the dangerous nature of these weapons. And it is not the United States accusing without evidence. Iraq admitted -- they admitted years ago -- that they had anthrax, that they were working on nuclear weapons. But they admitted it only after they were caught [when Hussein's two son-in-laws fled to Jordan in 1995], not voluntarily. So, we have got to see a changed attitude where they are now voluntarily telling us everything they have done. And if a new leadership would do that, and would work with an international coalition to come in and help peacefully, then that would be a significant step.
Why does the United States refuse to even consider the reported German-French proposal to deploy UN peace-keepers in Iraq?
Because there is no proposal yet. The only thing we know about is additional monitors and some technical material.
But there is [such] a proposal to deploy UN troops in Iraq?
Nobody has proposed that. Where did you see that proposal?
In press reports.
In a magazine, in a German magazine called Der Spiegel. It was immediately discounted by both the French and the Germans. I know of no proposal for peacemakers or blue helmets, except in this magazine article.
But the proposals [being] circulated now, being reported in the press, amount to virtually ending Iraq's sovereignty. Isn't it possible to even consider such proposals?
What [French] President [Jacques] Chirac said today [Monday] in his news conference with [Russian] President [Vladimir] Putin, was more monitors and technical means, which is pretty much what [French] Foreign Minister [Dominique] de Villepin was talking about at the UN last week. So, if they were just talking about an additional number of inspectors, and maybe some additional technical means, that is interesting. The United States proposed that when we first passed 1441: Let's have three times as many inspectors -- if he is going to cooperate, let us do it fast. But now, it is not for the purpose of helping them, it is for the purpose of slowing down the momentum to deal with this matter once and for all. The issue is not more inspectors and more technical capability. The issue is Iraq's compliance, and Iraqi cooperation, and Iraq coming forward in the way I described.
How would you calm serious fears in the Arab world that Iraq is first on a US 'hit list' of Arab and Muslim nations?
The US has no hit list. The US does not look for countries to hate, the US looks for friends and partners, and most of the nations in the Arab world are our friends and partners. Most Muslim nations in the world are our friends and partners. And I must say that if you look at our history, our record of the last 12 years, when Kuwait, a Muslim nation, was invaded, by a neighbour, Iraq, who came and restored Kuwait to its legitimate government? Did we make Kuwait the 51st state of the United States, or did we restore Kuwait to its legitimate leadership? We did what we always do. We gave it back to its people. We are partners of Kuwait. Do we have troops there? Yes. For our purposes? No. For security in the region.
When the Muslim population of Kosovo was in danger, who led the coalition that went and fought for those Muslims? Kosovo is now moving forward. It still has a difficult road ahead. And in Afghanistan, when Afghanistan became the centre of terrorism, with the Taliban supporting Al-Qa'eda, and something had to be done about it after 11 September, the United States did that, working with Muslim nations like Pakistan, our partner and friend. We went and we removed the Taliban regime, and we are now searching [for] remaining elements of Al-Qa'eda. And what are US troops doing in Afghanistan now? Going after the terrorists and helping [to] rebuild the country.
Our Congress is putting billions of dollars into helping the Muslim population of Afghanistan. We have helped [Afghan] President [Hamid] Karzai go back to a position of authority. We help with the creation of institutions in Afghanistan. Are we a new imperialist [power] who wants to run Afghanistan? No. We want to help the Afghans determine their own future and help them. We are building schools; we created conditions so that a million Muslims have been able to return to their homes in Afghanistan. So this suggestion that the United States has nations on its 'hit list' is just ludicrous. We want friends and partners around the world, and we have shown ourselves, over the years, to be a friend and partner of every nation that wishes to be a friend and partner with us in the region.
So, once you achieve your goals in Iraq and force Saddam Hussein out, will you leave?
Of course we will leave. We want to do what is necessary. If conflict comes -- and we hope conflict won't come, we still hope for peace, a peaceful resolution. But if conflict comes, and we have to go into Iraq, it is our goal, our simple goal, to find a solution quickly. We want to help Iraqis put in place a government in Iraq that would be responsible to the needs of all the people of Iraq, that will keep the country together, and will dedicate itself to the elimination of WMDs, to proper standards of human rights, and we will help fix all the systems that are now broken, with respect to health care, education. We want to see institutions with responsible leaders, and then, we want to go. We have lots of demands on the United States.
What do you ask from Egypt?
We ask, as always, from Egypt their support and their friendship. President Mubarak is a strong leader; he is a leader whose wisdom we value, and we stay in close touch with [him]. President Mubarak is also a leader of his own nation, who has to be responsible to the needs of his own nation, and to the will of his people. These are difficult times, and we will find ways through these difficult times. There is also a time when there is [a] need for all of us to be respectful of each other's religion. This is the time when we see hatred coming forward. Those of us in positions of leadership should speak against that hatred, whether it is hatred manifested by anti-Semitism, or hatred manifested by anti-Muslim comments or activities.
We can leave this room right now, and I can take you, within five minutes, to a mosque, a temple, a synagogue, a Catholic Church, an Orthodox Church. We know what diversity is; we know what the strength of all the religions of the world are when they are harnessed together in peace, in a manner which we have done here in the United States.
Are you going to respond in kind if Iraq uses WMDs?
We never discuss that. Why don't you worry about Iraq using WMDs, rather than, 'Would you respond if Iraq uses WMDs?' Will you scream bloody murder if Iraq uses these terrible weapons that [it] says it does not have? How could they use them if they don't have them? Now, if they use them, the United States has no intentions of doing anything that would hurt the people of Iraq. But we will do what is necessary to defend ourselves. But I hope before everybody asks what the United States would do, somebody would say: 'My God. They did have them. They were lying.'
Within the present conditions, do you still believe that we can meet the deadline set in President Bush's vision to establish a Palestinian state by 2005?
It remains our goal. It is an ambitious goal, and it will be a difficult goal to achieve. But the president remains firmly committed to the vision that he laid out in his speech on 24 June last year, which also captured the vision of the Arab League and the vision of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah. That still remains our position, we have been working with our Arab friends, and we're working with the EU, the UN and the Russian Federation through the Quartet to develop a roadmap. Now that the Israeli elections are over, and a government is being formed, and we'll see what happens in Iraq one way or the other. I have been in constant conversation with the president about this, and he remains as committed as ever to his vision to find a way forward in the Middle East along the line of his speech last year.
The Washington Post reported recently that the views of [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon and President Bush were identical. Have Sharon's views changed?
Mr Bush's views are well known. He gave a powerful speech on 24 June. It captured the needs of both sides, the need for the end of terror and violence on one side, the need, on the other side, for a Palestinian state, and for the end of settlement activity. It will be difficult to get there, these are not issues that are easy to solve, but the president remains committed to the vision of his 24 June speech, and he will listen to leaders from both sides. He is very mindful of the views of President Mubarak, and King Abdullah [of Jordan] and Crown Prince Abdullah, and of all the leaders of the Arab world, as well as listening to Palestinian aspirations, and the wishes of the Palestinian people, and listening to the desires of Prime Minister Sharon. He cannot leave any party out and just say I take that party's position, and I ignore the other party's position. The president remains committed to his 24 June vision.
