22 February 2008
State’s Welch Briefs on U.S. Policy, Developments in Mideast
Assistant Secretary reviews United States' key concerns in the region
(begin transcript)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
WASHINGTON FOREIGN PRESS CENTER BRIEFING WITH C. DAVID WELCH
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS
THE WASHINGTON FOREIGN PRESS CENTER, WASHINGTON, DC
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2008, 10:30 A.M. EST
U.S. POLICY AND DEVELOPMENTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST
MODERATOR: Good morning. We have with us Ambassador David Welch, who is the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, who will discuss with us this morning U.S. policy and developments in the Middle East. Please remember to turn off any pagers or cell phones that you might have with you and we’ll begin.
Sir, Ambassador Welch.
AMBASSADOR WELCH: Good morning. Thank you. I will make a few brief remarks and then we will take questions. Thank you all for coming this morning. I thought it would be useful for us to get together partly to take a look back at 2007, but more importantly, to take a look ahead at 2008.
2007 was an important year in terms of progress on a number of issues of key concern to the United States: Arab-Israeli peace in particular, building – rebuilding the effort at negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis, building a stronger, more secure, more stable Iraq, continuing to elevate international attention on Iran, especially for its nuclear misbehavior, trying to support freedom in Lebanon and the desire for Lebanese people to build a more secure future for themselves. And of course, there are many other issues, but maybe I should just indicate, broadly speaking, that across the area of our responsibility and my responsibility in the Near Eastern Affairs Bureau, we’ve also worked very hard to expand and warm bilateral relationships with all those countries who share, broadly speaking, our goals for a more secure, more prosperous, more free area.
Now let me mention a few things going forward, looking at 2008. A key concern of the President is to promote the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians for the achievement of a Palestinian state. President Bush has set clear and ambitious goals for that, ideally to achieve agreement between the two on the establishment of a state by the end of 2008 or during his term in office. In Annapolis, we succeeded in bringing the international community together to support the launching of negotiations. Those negotiations are underway. They’re addressing all the core issues in the conflict. There have been and will continue to be regular meetings at several different levels of the leadership of Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
After Annapolis, President Bush undertook a trip to the Middle East to lend his personal support and his authority as President to these and other objectives. As you know, he went around not only to Israel and the Palestinian territories, but also to some other places in the Gulf and Egypt. The United States is also supporting the effort of negotiations by marshaling support from the international community. This includes but is not limited to the Blair mission, which is designed to help Palestinians build institutions, to bring economic support to bear on improving the lives of Palestinians.
Finally, the United States has its own assistance relationships with the Palestinian Authority and that includes, for the first time, security assistance so that the Authority can have the security tools over time it needs to bring law and order to the areas under its control and to work against violence and terror. There are several U.S. military missions now working with Israel and the Palestinians. If it is of interest to you, I can describe the objectives of each of those in the question-and-answer session.
On Iraq, where, in the past years, the news has often troubled all of us, 2007 was also a year of momentum. Early this year, we saw that one result of the military reinforcements that had been put in place both by the Iraqi Government and by the coalition led by the United States has been to broaden the space in which the political dialogue could occur. The – just recently, the Iraqi Council of Representatives passed new pieces of legislation which we believe are important to national reconciliation: a provincial powers authority, an amnesty law, and a budget. As you know, they also had previously passed what’s commonly known as a de-Baathification law. These are key steps, not the only ones necessary, but important ones toward national reconciliation.
The second element of work that we’re concentrating on now in Iraq is to enable them to continue their economic reforms and particularly so the government itself delivers stronger performance in providing basic services to the Iraqi people. And we’ve been doing this for some time, but this is now stepped up because the security environment has improved. We’re also trying to bring other allies in the international community into involvement as well.
It’s important, we believe, that Iraq be strongly represented internationally and within the region and that the region represent itself to Iraq. For this reason, we have, in 2007, organized meetings of the Neighbors Conference on Iraq and we are going to continue that this year. The United Nations has strengthened its own mission in Iraq. The Arab League intends also to beef up its efforts inside Iraq. And happily, some countries in the area, in the region, are now considering establishing their own diplomatic missions in Baghdad.
The situation with Iran greatly concerns us. In view of their unwillingness to respond to the international offer for negotiations premised on a suspension of their dangerous nuclear activities, the United States, the European Three, Russia and China have organized an effort to put further pressure on the Iranian Government so that it will make a different assessment of the risks and benefits of this course in action. Two Security Council resolutions have already been passed and another is now before the Council. We intend to press hard for the expeditious passage of this resolution. As you know, this will increase sanctions on Iran, again, so that it will understand there is a cost to not answering the legitimate requests of the international community about its nuclear misbehavior.
We’re also providing greater assurance for the security of our friends in the region who remain troubled by what they see as aggressive Iranian behavior. We think that there are legitimate self-defense needs on the part of our friends and we are happy to help in providing for those needs.
Let me say a word about Lebanon. This is a very, very important agenda item for the region, for the international community, and for the United States. The Lebanese people would like to elect, through their representatives in the parliament, a new president. We think that that moment is long overdue. Efforts to have this election have now been postponed a dozen times or more. And I think there’s a great concern on the part of many in the region that this should be done. The Arab League has dispatched its Secretary General several times to Lebanon for this purpose and is sending a mission there shortly, given the fact that another effort at election will be held next week.
The goals that the Arab League has for its effort are ones I think that the international community would support; that is, there should be an election of a president. There is a consensus candidate available. The Lebanese agree on this. There’s no reason it should not go forward. Then after that, a government can be composed and that government, the parliament, and the other responsible people in Lebanon can deal with issues like their election law and other reform measures that a country needs.
The – unfortunately, the election hasn’t happened and I think we all know and understand that beyond the political disputes that are normal to any democratic process, including the Lebanese one, there is an unfortunate pattern of outside interference designed to influence the political process in a very negative way in Lebanon. This concerns us because I think that all responsible governments should be lending their support to an election now. That’s what the Arab League decided and that’s what it has so far failed to convince one of its member states to do.
In keeping with that concern, we have passed a number of measures here, American measures designed to increase the pressure on Damascus to take more responsible decisions. Today, for example, the Treasury Department announced that pursuant to the Executive Order that the President put forward in the last few days regarding official corruption in Syria, we have decided to designate an individual whose name I’m confident will be broadly known in Syria and throughout the region, who has used his family and regime ties to enrich himself and others in the regime, a gentleman named Rami Makhluf. We do this because we’re convinced that unless there’s a very clear understanding from everyone in Syria and outside it that there is a cost to these actions, then they may be tempted to continue to pursue them.
Finally, let me say a word about our bilateral and regional agenda, broadly speaking. We continue to promote responsible efforts at reform – political, economic, social – throughout the area. We have Middle East Partnership Initiative programs underway with many in the region and throughout the region, including in some places where they had not been able to work before. Economic reform is proceeding well in many countries. Partly, this is helped by the better economic situation in the region as a whole due to higher oil prices, but also due to responsible economic decision-making in many countries.
We continue to support the expansion of political participation throughout the area. There are elections that have been held safely and responsibly in many places, bringing new life into political circles throughout the region. Our bilateral relations with most of the countries in the Near Eastern Affairs Bureau area of responsibility are excellent, with a high level of official interaction. The President's trip to the area, for example, was very good and he was very well received in all the places he went to.
With that, I'll pause, and you can ask your questions.
MODERATOR: As you ask your questions, please remember to wait for the microphone and state your name and your publication. Please, we'll start at the back and then come up and then go there.
QUESTION: Umit Enginsoy with Turkey N-TV television. Mr. Secretary, the Turkish Prime Minister said the other day that in the fight against the PKK, a ground offensive remained an option. Before this intel-sharing thing started several months ago, the United States was saying that a land incursion was not the best way to deal with that. Does this position remain in place?
AMBASSADOR WELCH: Well, Turkey has suffered from terrorism at the hands of the PKK. The Turkish Government has a responsibility to defend the Turkish people. How it exercises that responsibility is a matter that we pay very careful attention to. Iraq is a sovereign country and it, too, has the responsibility to control activities from within Iraq that might affect the security of others. I believe that we have a good discussion between the Government of Turkey and the Government of Iraq and the Government of the United States to try and get at all these objectives. It's a very difficult situation. You know, I've worked on this issue for some time, including with the Turkish authorities, and I understand the public and official concern in Turkey about the dangers posed by PKK terrorism.
It's -- you know, very, very important to pay careful attention to the means that are used to combat this problem. We don't prejudge any action. That said, we caution everybody to take care to make sure that the most responsible ways are chosen to deal with the problem.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Hoda Tawfik, Al-Ahram newspaper.
AMBASSADOR WELCH: Hi.
QUESTION: Sir, you spoke about progress in 2007 for the Palestinian problem. And now we hear contradictory comments from the Prime Minister of Palestine. When he came here he said there is no progress at all and he doubted that there will be a solution by the end of the year. Yesterday, the State Department -- there was confirmation that there is progress. So what is the truth?
The other thing, in every peace treaties, like in Egypt and in Jordan, always the Americans interfere and get it concluded. Are you going to do the same for the Palestinian problem?
AMBASSADOR WELCH: Well, let me say three things. First of all, when we began 2007, not only were there no negotiations underway between Israel and the Palestinians, there was a sense of great division. The national unity government of the Palestinians was not succeeding. There was no intention on the part of -- one part of that government to even pursue negotiations. So what we did throughout the year was try to rebuild confidence so that each party would have a stake and a commitment to negotiations.
Now, second, I respect the judgment of Prime Minister Fayyad about what he would like to see from any negotiating process. On the Israel side, there will be similar judgments about what they would like to see. Everybody's impatient to work on this problem and would like to see progress. So I don't expect that if you ask them the question on any day, they're going to say they're very happy with the result, especially when this is just starting. As you know, every one of these negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians have been difficult, detailed, intensive each time it's happened. That's what they're working on now.
Another difficulty we have with this is that each side has pledged to keep the conversations secret, not to go to the media and tell everybody. So I think they are hesitant to say too much because it might complicate the negotiation rather than help it.
But we, and this gets to your second question, we, the United States, believe that we can play a role in encouraging this. It's not sufficient only that we should do so, we believe the international community has a role, we believe other states in the region have a role. The examples of past negotiation are that, first and foremost, if two countries -- Egypt and Israel -- wish to resolve a matter, they can and will. Just as when Jordan and Israel wished to resolve their issues, they did. Everybody else supports that. It does not make it happen. So it's not the role of the United States to, as you say, interfere. It's the role of the United States to encourage, to build confidence where there hasn't been such confidence so that the negotiations can move forward.
I do believe that this year we have an opportunity, but I don't think that that opportunity will depend only on the role of the United States. I think it is necessary that other countries in the region think about what they can do to help also. If the issue of Israeli-Palestinian peace is so important, as I understand that it is to everyone in the region, then each should be asking themselves what is we can do to help that. I think if they do take steps it would help the process.
MODERATOR: Thank you. We are connected to New York by digital videoconference. New York, would you please ask a question.
QUESTION: Thank you. This is Kahraman Haliscelik from Kanalturk TV of Turkey. Sir, one report that comes from Iraq indicates that Muqtada al-Sadr is about to end the ceasefire. There's also a question that my colleague Umit Enginsoy asked you on the ground operation by Turkish forces and another (inaudible) information is that the UN has not stated that Iraq is secure enough for its broader involvement. In this context, how secure an Iraq are you expecting in the coming months? Thank you.
AMBASSADOR WELCH: Security has improved in Iraq. I would be the last to say it is perfect, but it has certainly improved dramatically. And partly that's due to the Iraqi Government's efforts itself to extend its authority over all parts of the country. I think when you look at the decisions of Iraqi politicians, if they are taking responsible decisions in the interest of their country, it would be to support the efforts of their government to bring law and order. In that sense, we would hope that all, including the person you just mentioned, would back up the rule of law in Iraq. It's not a question of ceasefire; it's a question of what the people themselves want for their security and what they expect from their government.
I already answered a question about Turkey, I'll leave it there. I don't know what additional I could add that would help that questioner.
MODERATOR: Thank you. We're going to go to this side and then we'll come right here in the middle.
QUESTION: Thank you. I'm Nathan Guttman from Israeli TV. Ambassador Welch, Israel seems to be considering once again a ground operation in the Gaza Strip in reaction to the Qassam rockets being fired at Sderot. What is the U.S. position about that? Would the United States try to stop Israel from carrying out this kind of an operation?
AMBASSADOR WELCH: You know, I ask myself two questions about the firing of rockets and mortars from Gaza into Israel. One question is: How -- what's the appropriate response to this kind of terrorist action? The second question is quite a bit different. You know, in terms of Palestinian interest, of what use is this to Palestinian interests? There is not one single thing that this achieves except for harm innocent people, either on the Israeli side or on the other side. Look, Israel has the right to defend itself just as any other sovereign nation does. How it exercises that right is important to Israel and to the United States and to everyone else. We urge caution and proportionality. We believe that if the people in Gaza are to enjoy a better life, then it is incumbent on those who claim they control the situation in Gaza to stop these actions, which actually bring no benefit and only harm.
QUESTION: Good morning, sir. Ron Baygents with Kuwait News Agency. I would just like you to address the idea that so many of the problems that you are talking about are, even in the best of times, seen as very difficult, often intractable even. And how do you respond to those who feel that so many key players in the region, unfortunately, are just waiting until the end of the Bush Administration, that there is even more paralysis than usual. And how -- can you acknowledge this at all and does this not make your job even much more difficult? Thank you.
AMBASSADOR WELCH: Well, I like my job. I like working with you all. (Laughter.) I -- it's true that many of these problems are serious, they're longstanding, and they're not easy to solve. But that doesn't mean you give up trying. I think also that -- as you know, I've spent considerable time in this area and work with the leadership on a daily basis. I think there's a pretty clear understanding of everybody out there that these are serious issues. They understand that there's an American national interest in addressing them. And I believe they're sophisticated enough to see that that bridges administrations -- Democrat and Republican.
For example, many of the leaders of the region have been around for some time and have worked with successive American presidents, including on the same problems. Actually, when you look at the Middle East and you step back from it and you examine American policy historically, there's remarkable continuity. The interest of nations do not change all that much. It's an unfortunate fact that many of the threats that we perceive in this region have probably grown or changed in recent years in ways that's disturbing to this country and to our friends in the area. But I don't think that freezes people into inaction; quite the contrary. I think, when President Bush was out there on his visit, he went to some traditional American friends, talked about all these things, and found support for different ways to address each one.
We don't expect everybody would agree with us a hundred percent. That doesn’t happen in any normal relationship. But what we do feel is that people agree with us more than they disagree with us. And they certainly feel that on these issues that I’ve mentioned at the beginning, that there should be a common effort and it should take place now. You know, maybe some would have liked it to happen yesterday and they don’t want to postpone it until tomorrow. I think if we can work on these areas in 2008, then we will do the responsible thing for the next President of the United States, whoever that is, and that -- turn over things that are improved. It will be nice to even solve one or two. And some, I do believe, could be solved.
QUESTION: Roula Ayoubi, BBC Arabic Service. If you can talk please about the frozen assets and designatings surrounding Makhluf on this list. And then there was a threat to the Kuwaiti embassy in Beirut this morning, if you have any information about that.
AMBASSADOR WELCH: Yes. On the latter, the threat to foreign missions in Beirut, I don’t have any specific information about this threat. I believe there’s a security concern on the part of many there that foreign missions or others might be targets. As you know, it’s an unfortunate fact that many in the political establishment, even in the security services in Lebanon, have felt threatened recently. You know, I think this is all part of the environment that I was speaking about earlier about the political crisis there. And if the Government in Damascus were serious about its intention to see political progress in Lebanon, I think it would be much more directive and forceful to some of its friends inside of Lebanon about what their obligations and responsibilities are.
With respect to Mr. Makhluf, he’s a businessman. He has lots of interests. It’s interesting that his uncle[1] is the president. His father commanded the Republican Guard. He comes from a certain family. I think this business establishment that he heads wasn’t created by the Harvard School of Business. And it’s not unusual that people should be focus their attention on people like that who serve the interests of the regime.
MODERATOR: Thank you. We’ll take a question from New York and then come back to one, two, and three.
QUESTION: Thank you, Ambassador. This is Sylviane Zehil from L’Orient le jour and (inaudible), New York. Ambassador, you express concern about the situation in Lebanon. And also the United States, United – EU and some Arab states advised to stay out of Lebanon. And a general statement announced today that “Either a consensus candidate or I will quit.” There are also – you talk about the Arab initiative, but this initiative since – seems to stall. What’s really at stake now for the United States and Lebanon? And is there any need for internationalization of the crisis in Lebanon? Another thing; do you have any plan to go to visit Lebanon or Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will go and visit, soon, Lebanon?
AMBASSADOR WELCH: Thank you for asking these questions. I’m not sure I can answer all of them. It’s quite a number.
Look, we have a very high interest in this. The people of Lebanon elected a parliament freely, without any interference from the outside for the first time in many years not so long ago. There’s a majority in that parliament. That majority has, together with the opposition, come up with the idea of a consensus candidate. There appears to be no difference on the consensus candidate. So why is it they cannot elect a president? If a president is not elected, the executive authorities of the government rest with the current government under Prime Minister Siniora. We and others in the region and outside it will continue to support that government and, through that government, the people of Lebanon. I don’t think there’s going to be any difference about that.
I think the regional concern has grown about this. It is a highly interesting and unusual development when the Secretary General of the Arab League takes several missions to Lebanon to discharge an Arab League mandate to bring a solution. That’s an Arab decision. It’s an Arab decision that is influenced by the fact that these are the only two members of the Arab League, Syria and Lebanon, that do not have diplomatic relations with each other. It’s quite an odd circumstance, one would think. And I think it’s a responsible thing to do to try and move this process along so that they can have the election already. The people of Lebanon would be better off with that.
I didn’t answer the question about this, it’s – despite the concern about security there, the United States has sent high-level visitors to Lebanon. We have an Under Secretary of Defense who was just there recently. And I expect that we’ll continue to send high-level visitors to Lebanon. I like visiting there myself.
QUESTION: Good morning. Kim Ghattas from the BBC. I was hoping to be able to ask you a question not quite related to Near Eastern Affairs. It’s got to do with information about rendition flights. David Miliband this morning said that there had been two rendition flights which had stopped on U.K. soil. We were just wondering, is this new information that the Brown Government has requested? There were requests for information under Blair. Is this come about --
AMBASSADOR WELCH: I can save you your breath and I don’t mean to be rude; I – actually, I’m completely uninformed on this. I’m sorry, but -- excuse me. I’m certain Sean McCormack may have something to say later on today about it if you ask him.
QUESTION: Samir Nader with Radio Sawa. Talking about Syria and the sanctions today, Syria is expected to host the Arab summit next month. Are you going to encourage your friends to boycott the summit? What’s your stand on it?
AMBASSADOR WELCH: The Arab meetings are the business of the Arab League and its membership. You know, I don’t see how there can be a successful summit under the circumstances that prevail now in Lebanon if it’s hosted by Damascus, when there is no solution to the political crisis in Lebanon and many Lebanese blame it on Syria. Syria has a very heavy and important responsibility in this situation. However, it’s not the business of the United States to decide where Arab summits are held, who should go. That’s up to the membership of the Arab League. I’m confident they will take the right decision.
MODERATOR: I believe we have time for just two more questions if you’ll come up to the front here and then we’ll go back to (inaudible).
QUESTION: Mounzer Sleiman, Al-Mustaqbal Al-Arabi. In light of the assassination of Imad Mughniyeh in Damascus and the tension that has been created in the region, what is your reading of potential conflict whether -- between Lebanon and Israel, Israel and Syria? And especially with the threat that – of open war in the region? And what kind of steps the United States is taking to protect its interest in the region (inaudible) of that threat?
AMBASSADOR WELCH: I don’t see any intention on the part of Israel to attack Lebanon or, for that matter, any of its neighbors. I doubt the Government of Lebanon has any interest in conflict with Israel.
With respect to the passing of Imad Mughniyeh -- well, let me say this about that. This gentleman has a long, very violent history. His organization was responsible for many attacks on innocent people from Argentina to Kuwait. Unfortunately, included among the victims of those acts of terrorism were many Americans. We have – we understand there’s a threat that faces official American interests in the region. Sir, I wish it were not so, but it’s part of the job unfortunately. We know that there are criminals such as these who would attack us and others. As you know, somebody is attacking and killing innocent Lebanese, including members of the security forces there for who knows what political purpose.
I think we need – when – at times like this, to take a deep breath and understand that the – if we show any nervousness or fear in the face of this kind of terror, then those who are pushing that action will benefit. This is why we would support the desire of the people of Lebanon, for example, to make progress politically. It’s in the interest of all Lebanese, including those who are represented by some of the political organizations that we’re speaking about. Their interests are not harmed by having a friendly relationship with their neighbor or disarming the illegal groups within their country. That’s in the interest of all people, so that they can have a safe and secure future. You know, in terms of American interests throughout the region, we’re going to be there. We’re not leaving. We’re not moving. We’re going to continue to protect and advance our interests every place, including where it’s dangerous.
MODERATOR: Last question.
QUESTION: Yes. Hi. Joyce Karam with Al-Hayat newspaper. Good to see you, Mr. Ambassador.
AMBASSADOR WELCH: Hello, Joyce.
QUESTION: I wanted to ask you more about Lebanon. In your talks with your European counterparts, would they be willing to take, with the U.S. perhaps, more measures to pressure Syria similar maybe to what we saw today coming from the White House? And with a regime like the Syrian – like the one in Damascus, we’ve seen assets frozen for Assef Shawkat, others – others, a whole list of names. I mean, what’s really at stake for them there for measures like this to say, oh, maybe we should reconsider?
AMBASSADOR WELCH: Well, I hope there are responsible voices there. I’m an optimist. And I think people can weigh the risks and benefits of their decisions and make a responsible choice. Now, unfortunately, the choices have not been good ones on their part and that’s why we see some of these consequences. The concern in Europe is growing. I think it’s a frustrating thing when the international community gathers together and says, well, what we’d like to see in Lebanon is security, political progress, economic prosperity. This has not been merely an American interest. It’s a regional interest. As I said, the Arab League has banded together, decided that that’s what it wants. Europe shares the same feeling. And they’re trying to communicate that in every which way to the government in Syria.
You know, we don’t expect, as I said earlier, that every government in the world would do exactly what we’ve done. But it’s not important to see, right now, the differences. What’s much more important is the common sense of purpose, the objective here. And that objective is shared, I can guarantee you, with every member state in the European Union. They have declared it so. I think the presidency of the European Union made a statement last week about Lebanon. Everybody is united in the proposition. They want to see a president elected. If there is no president elected right now, then they’re going to continue to support the Lebanese people through their government. If a president can be elected, good, then we’ll move on to the next issue and help the Lebanese to get a better future. We would ask the Syrian Government to reconsider its choices, to think about its responsibilities under these circumstances, to listen to the voices of every other member of the Arab League so that this can happen.
MODERATOR: Thank you for joining us this morning, ladies and gentlemen. Sorry we couldn’t get to all the questions, but we do appreciate your attendance today.
AMBASSADOR WELCH: Thank you all very much.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
