INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
C-SPAN’S “NEWSMAKERS”
Guest:
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Zalmay Khalilzad
Reporters: Gerard Baker, Times of London &
Warren Strobel, McClatchy Newspapers
Moderator: C-SPAN
TAPE DATE: Thursday, September 27, 2007
AIR DATE/TIME:
SUNDAY, September 30, 2007 at 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET
Please use with attribution to
C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers”….*
* NOTE: C-SPAN should appear in all-caps because it is an acronym for Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network
Please contact
Amy Spolrich in C-SPAN's Media Relations Department at
202-626-7958
or aspolrich@c-span.org for questions
© NCSC
Copyrighted
material: use with attribution only
PETER SLEN, HOST: The U.N. General Assembly is meeting in New York City currently.
And here on “Newsmakers” this week is the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Zalmay Khalilzad. He’ll be here to discuss Iran, Burma, Iraq, global warming, Afghanistan and other issues that are currently being debated at the General Assembly.
Here to question him, Gerard Baker, U.S. editor of the “Times” of London, and Warren Strobel, McClatchy Newspapers’ senior international correspondent.
Gerard Baker, if you would like to start the questioning.
GERARD BAKER, U.S. EDITOR, “TIMES” OF LONDON: Thank you.
Ambassador, you’ve had a very distinguished and rather controversial guest in New York this week, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. He spoke, of course, at Columbia University and at the U.N. General Assembly.
The rest of the world is watching him very closely – watching what he said very closely – and in particular for some clue as to what Iran’s real intentions are with its nuclear program.
Was there anything you heard this week, either from him or from your colleagues at the U.N. and the U.N. Security Council, that suggests to you at all that there is likely to be progress in the international community – real, serious progress – in stopping Iran from becoming a nuclear power?
ZALMAY KHALILZAD, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS: No, I did not hear anything encouraging. There was no indication that Iran intends to comply with the Security Council resolutions – two of them – that Tehran should suspend its enrichment program. And the tone, the substance on the nuclear issue was very defiant.
So, now it’s up to the Security Council and the individuals members of the international community, or groupings of them, to increase pressure on Iran to additional sanctions, to incentive it to cooperate and suspend its enrichment program.
BAKER: Can you just very quickly explain to us what progress you’re making on those sanctions? Because the problem everybody that we keep hearing is that, of course, as far as the U.N. Security Council is concerned, Russia and China still seem to be very reluctant to back any serious, tough sanctions against Iran.
Are you getting progress, either with them, or, if you’re not getting progress with them, what is the rest of the U.N., or what is the U.S. doing with its allies generally? And what are you likely to get that will represent a real serious – serious measures to stop Iran from going down this course?
KHALILZAD: Well, what’s happening right now is that discussions are taking place, and what we say, in national capitals, between Washington and the other P-5 members, and also with Germany, which has a lot of economic ties to Iran. The action on this issue has not yet moved to the Security Council.
Tomorrow, Secretary Rice will meet with her counterparts here in New York from the Security Council, and will discuss the issues of sanctions and next steps in the Security Council.
My expectation is that, in the coming weeks, action will be transferred to the Security Council, and that I will take then the lead in convincing my colleagues here in New York with regard to next steps.
Clearly, we need additional pressure. Iran is defiant on this issue. And we will do what we can in the Security Council, but at the same time, sanctions by national states, by groupings of states, in addition to the measures by the Security Council members, will be pursued.
WARREN STROBEL, SENIOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT, MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS: Ambassador, everything we’re hearing is that the Chinese and the Russians still oppose tougher sanctions on Iran. And in fact, the Germans are somewhat wobbly.
The original – the third resolution was supposed to be passed this month, if I’m not mistaken.
Are you now shifting gears away from the Security Council to sort of a “sanctions of the willing” kind of process?
KHALILZAD: Well, sanctions are, of course, actions by willing participants. We have not given up on the Security Council. No, indeed.
We will, as I said, pursue sanctions within the Security Council, additional sanctions. But at the same time, the two are not mutually exclusive; meaning, unilateral sanctions and sanctions of a group of willing countries outside, or in addition to, the Security Council.
STROBEL: And could you perhaps give us a little more specificity about what type of measures are under consideration? I understand some of it’s sort of diplomatic, confidential discussions you’re having.
But as you said, there are two previous resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran. What further steps are you looking at?
KHALILZAD: Well, there is a lot more that could be done in the economic domain in terms of targets that one can focus on inside Iran, elements that are involved in the nuclear process. So, it can be a number of measures, both in terms of what you focus on and the breadth of the sanctions involved.
I don’t want to be too specific, because we are still in discussions with people from the P-5 and from Germany. And in addition, of course, as I said, the action has not yet been transferred to the Security Council.
BAKER: Ambassador, one thing you could do that’s obviously been under discussion, but a lot of people in Europe, in particular, are nervous about is, you could take a tougher sanctions line, if you like, by sanctioning not only Iran itself by cutting it off from a lot of international economic activity, but by actually punishing companies in the West, in Europe and – obviously, it would exist, more or less, in the United States – but more aggressively pursue companies in Europe that help Iran to pursue its kind of global ambitions.
Now, this has been controversial in the past, but I’m wondering if you’re hearing from your European counterparts any more willingness to go down that route.
KHALILZAD: Well, thank you for the suggestion.
We, as I said before, have not started yet here in New York in engaging our colleagues on specific issues. The action is still between Washington and the capitals of the other P-5 and Germany. And I think we’ll have to wait a couple more weeks before we get into the details of that here in New York.
SLEN: Mr. Ambassador, is the U.S. standing alone on the issue of Iran right now?
KHALILZAD: No, not at all.
A number of other countries, both outside and inside the Security Council, are concerned about Iranian nuclear program.
I mean, this is one of the defining issues of our time. We’re concerned about proliferation generally, as you know. But the case of Iran is particularly of concern, given the regime’s policies in Iran, given the situation in the region. The future of that region is geopolitically the most important challenge that the world faces.
So, we have – you have heard statements from the president of France. You’ve heard statements from the United Kingdom. You’ve heard statements from, as I said, members of the international community outside the Security Council, as well.
No, we’re not alone. We have got quite a lot of support.
I think the issue will come to what kinds of additional measures. I think there will be, in my own judgment, support for additional action. But the issue will be timing and how much of what kind of sanctions.
BAKER: As you said, the French have been sounding a much, much tougher line in the last few months under the new government of President Sarkozy, and including saying quite explicitly that the world might have to prepare for war against Iran.
The British seem to be much – perhaps oddly in historical terms – much more reluctant to go down that route. And in fact, at times, British officials have explicitly ruled out the use of force, and the Germans, too.
Are we in danger of sending mixed signals there? The U.S. has obviously said it reserves all options, and can’t take the military option off the table.
But if we – if these mixed signals are coming to Iran, are we in danger of actually undermining the diplomatic process that you and your colleagues are going after?
KHALILZAD: Well, it’s very important that loud and clear messages are sent to Iran. It is possible that, if the message of resolve is not and broadly from the international community, with regard to unacceptability of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, that could lead to Iranian miscalculation and undermine the effectiveness of non-military means, diplomatic and economic means, the effectiveness of these measures.
I think it’s very important that we all be as strong and as clear, because only in that set of circumstances, Iran might reconsider.
Because if Iran does not reconsider, there is the situation that we could face, that political and diplomatic and economic means will not suffice, and one would have to consider other options. And those who are sending weaker signals would have to bear a responsibility, in part, to creating those set of circumstances.
So, I think it is very important that we solve this issue diplomatically. And the way we can do it is through stronger, united and strong signals that Iran faces two options: cooperation with the international community, or not only risk of additional pressures, isolations, politically and diplomatically, but perhaps even more than that.
So, the role of the key players in the international community, at this time is extremely important in terms of what happens with regard to the future options.
STROBEL: Ambassador, among those who are sending weaker signals, would you include Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief of the IAEA, who has, of course, cut his own – not his own – but cut a sort of separate work plan with the Iranians?
KHALILZAD: Well, ElBaradei heads a technical agency. And he has had a number of questions the agency has had with regard to past Iranian activities – the questions that have not been answered yet.
And if Iran answered those questions and implements the work plan, that is fine.
But the risk is, and what he has done will not be fine, if that is used as a cover or as an excuse not to take additional measures to incentivize Iran to cooperate on the enrichment part, which is ongoing.
And at times he has used the discussions that he has had – and we have no problem with that – to get answers to questions, to say, well, there is no need for additional pressure on the enrichment part, the Iranian violation of the U.N. Security Council resolutions that they must suspend enrichment.
And that has been the nature of sometimes what has looked like a disagreement between us and Mr. ElBaradei.
STROBEL: And a few minutes ago you mentioned that you thought the debate in the coming weeks and months would be over timing of sanctions.
We’re hearing that some of the countries – including, perhaps, Russia and Germany – would like to delay further U.N. Security Council action until after the work plan is – we see if Iran lives up to the work plan or not.
Is that your understanding of their position?
KHALILZAD: Well, I think that, without getting into specifics of different countries’ positions, the point is that Iran is in violation of the Security Council resolutions, two of them. And this agreement on the work plan to answer questions about past activities should be implemented, and Iran should comply and respond, clarify with regard to issues that are unanswered, and also cooperate with inspection.
But that is one path.
The other path – which is a critical path, important in terms of weapons program for Iran – is enrichment, because once Iran has mastered the enrichment technology and has a significant capability, it will get very close to a weapons capability.
And if Iran has plans to use the work plan agreement as a shield against pressure vis-a-vis its enrichment activities, and others cooperate with that, they would be cooperating with Iran’s efforts to get closer to a nuclear weapons capability.
We need to move with implementation. Iran must answer questions and cooperate with safeguards, but also, it must suspend enrichment. And there is clearly the need for additional pressure to affect the Iranian calculations, because they are not cooperating.
And so, that’s our approach.
BAKER: Mr. Ambassador, just very quickly, are you confident, by the time President Bush leaves office in 15 months’ time, that Iran will be on a track away from its current track, either under the force of U.S. sanctions or perhaps some other force, that Iran will, in 15 months’ time, by the time the president is out of office, will be moving away from this path of confrontation?
KHALILZAD: Well, I’m not in the business of speculating. But it’s very important for the future of the world and for the security of the vital region of the world, the broader Middle East, that everything that can prudently be done is done to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
This is not a typical, ordinary issue, given the record of this regime, the rhetoric of this regime, the policies of this regime in Iran which seeks regional hegemony, supports extremist groups, that the world does what it can to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
And what it will take, how long it will take – those are issues that we will have to come to grips with in the coming weeks and months.
But time is not on our side on this issue as the Iranian capabilities grow.
SLEN: This is C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers” program. Our guest is the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Zalmay Khalilzad.
Questioning him, Gerard Baker of the “Times” of London, Warren Strobel of McClatchy Newspapers.
A final question on Iran, Mr. Ambassador, before we turn to other issues.
What are you hearing from the other Arab states about Iran?
KHALILZAD: Well, the Arab states in general are quite concerned about Iran, because of Iran’s nuclear program, the Iranian desire for regional hegemony that I talked about, but also, specifically with regards to Iranian policies.
When you look at the situation in Iraq, when you look at the situation in Lebanon, when you look at the situation in Israel and the Palestinian territories, there is a polarization that is taking place in that region between Arab governments in general and Iran
And there is a struggle going on, if you like, between extremists and moderate forces. Sometimes people even talk about sectarian increased tensions across that region.
SLEN: Other topics, gentlemen.
STROBEL: Burma. For the first time in, I believe, 20 years, since 1988, ambassador, there are serious anti-government demonstrations in Burma. It’s one of the places that Secretary Rice called an outpost of tyranny in her confirmation hearings to become secretary of state.
Is there much that the international community, whether it’s the United States or the U.N. Security Council, can do to pressure the regime there to allow more democratic freedoms?
KHALILZAD: Well, I’ve been focused on this since I’ve come here, because I agree with the secretary’s assessment. And I raised the issue a number of times in the Security Council. We have worked closely with the secretary-general.
In recent days the tensions have increased as monks and other people in Burma have demonstrated. The regime has used brutal tactics, beating, arresting, even reports of killing. And the situation there is unacceptable.
The regime poses a threat not only to the people of Burma, but also to the region. And therefore, we have dispatched – the secretary-general has dispatched his envoy, Mr. Gambari to go there.
And I made the statement yesterday that the government of Burma must receive him immediately and let him do his job, which is there has to be an end to use of the kind of means that we have seen by the regime. There has to be a release of political prisoners. There has to be discussions about the future between the various forces.
And if Gambari is not allowed to get in, we will have another Security Council meeting, and the United States and a number of other countries will push for additional measures, strong measures, sanctions, on this regime.
Time is not on the side of this regime. And the sooner they realize that and change course, the better it will be for the people of Burma, and even for people in the regime, ultimately.
BAKER: Ambassador, realistically speaking, what can the international community do? This is, as you say, a despicable regime, the pariah military regime.
But it’s already been isolated by the international community. I mean, it’s one of the most universally despised regimes around the world. It has very few friends. There are already regimes of sanctions in place against it.
I mean, what – it’s kind of like, you know, it’s almost like increasingly like a kind of hermit state, which is able to do more or less what it wants.
What can you do, what can the world do, to stop this behavior?
KHALILZAD: Well, there is a lot of economic relations between Burma and several countries. There is the Chinese, the Indians, the ASEAN states. Burma is a member of the ASEAN.
Each of those countries, and together they can do a lot more. And there is, because of the economic activities that are taking place, Burma is substantially a rich country. Economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council under Chapter 7, which will make it mandatory, would have an impact.
Then there is – things could be done against the leaders – individual leaders. And so, we have things that we can do, if there is good will and resolve on the part of the members of the Security Council, particularly our Chinese friends and Russia. But we’re working also with other countries that have influence, neighbors, including India and the ASEAN states.
A lot more could be done, in my judgment.
STROBEL: One more on this, if I could, ambassador.
There were some reports in the newspapers this morning that some of the Burmese military are giving signs that they may not follow the regime’s orders to fire on crowds, and so forth.
Have you heard any – have you seen any reports along those lines, that maybe the military is split or hesitating?
KHALILZAD: I’m not in a position to confirm that. But it will be welcomed.
I think that the people who are in the regime must think about their own future. There is a way that this issue could be resolved through peaceful means. Prisoners could be released – should be released. There could be discussions of reconciliation, a road map with regard to the political future that will be broadly supported by the international community.
And that, I think, will have – also be positive for those who are involved, many of them who are involved in the government right now, including this regime.
So, there is a choice that the regime can make. It can go down the route of kind of the past record or brutality and repression and not engaging with the opposition, or to turn a new page.
And we hope that it will do the latter. And if not, we are prepared to put additional pressure both inside and outside the Security Council.
BAKER: Ambassador, just a quick question, if I may, on global warming.
The U.N. was hosting a global warming conference this week. The White House – the president has been hosting a conference, as well, in the latter part of the week.
There’s a suspicion in Europe that the U.S. efforts are an attempt to sort of divert attention away from the U.N. efforts and to go down the route of a more voluntary, less binding process towards tackling global warming.
I mean, are you in an awkward position here as the ambassador to the U.N.? Is your administration actually undermining the efforts that are being made at the U.N. to tackle global warming?
KHALILZAD: Well, the U.N. is not a sovereign entity. The U.N. is made up of member states, and with the United States as one of the key members of the United Nations.
On global climate issues, global warming, our approach is that there has to be an agreement among the major emitters, both from the Third World and industrial countries. That if you do not have an agreement among the major players, you’re not going to get successful results.
You can’t impose it on countries such as, let’s say, China or India. They would just simply walk away.
So, we have – we recognize that this is a serious issue. We support the approach within a U.N. framework, based on agreement among major players. And, in fact, everyone that I have talked to has welcomed the president’s initiative to convene the major emitters in Washington, to get an agreement.
We think it’s very important to look at technologies that can reduce emission, but at the same time allow for economic development, provide for energy supplies.
We also think, while we work on this very important issue for the future of the world, there are immediate issues like malaria, like AIDS, that need to be addressed as well. I think we have got a good approach, and we’ll be working with our colleagues here and in Bali in December, to make progress towards reaching an agreement in a timely manner.
SLEN: Warren Strobel, final question.
STROBEL: Since the word Iraq hasn’t come up yet, I have to ask a quick Iraq question – the incident on September 16th with Blackwater that is being investigated by several committees, commissions.
Are you, having spent time as ambassador in Iraq, are you confident and comfortable with the way the private military contractors have done their jobs there? Or do you think it needs to be looked at closely?
KHALILZAD: Well, it needs to be looked at. Of course, Blackwater protected me when I was there and protected my colleagues who worked with me there.
But the secretary of state has said that she will conduct a review. In fact, that has been launched. A good officer has been put in charge of that review. We’ve had good discussions, and I’ve had them myself with Prime Minister Maliki, who has been here, on the issue.
I think it is timely to take a serious look at this issue.
SLEN: Zalmay Khalilzad is the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Sir, thank you for joining us for “Newsmakers.”
KHALILZAD: It was great to be with you. Thank you very much.
BAKER: Thank you.
STROBEL: Thank you.
(BREAK)
SLEN: Gerard Baker, Warren Strobel, he called Iran the defining issue of our time.
What did you think about that?
BAKER: Well, that is clearly – that’s the Bush administration’s approach. And I think, to be fair, it’s increasingly the view of other countries, too.
The Europeans, who are often criticized for dragging their feet on this – rightly, on any issues that are difficult in international affairs – have actually been quite tough, especially, most recently and most strikingly, the French. The new government of France has been making some very, very hawkish sounding noises about what to do about Iran.
The British government has been less hawkish, but is also – it’s still basically on the side with the Americans.
So, but the real – my sense is that we’re obviously entering a critical phase here as to whether or not the U.S. and its allies can get real agreement on really tough sanctions.
And the problem is – and as Warren’s question put it – we know that the Russians and the Chinese, in terms of the U.N. are not prepared to go very far down that route. And so, without Russian and Chinese support, can whatever the U.S. says, and whatever tough language you’re getting out of the Europeans, can you really get anything meaningful that is actually going to stop the Iranians from doing this? I think people are skeptical about that.
STROBEL: I agree with Gerard. I think it’s certainly – Iran is also the defining issue of the remaining 15 months of the Bush presidency.
Say what you will about Iraq, but the die is cast. President Bush has decided to keep a certain number of troops in Iraq through the rest of his presidency. It’s been proven over the last three or four, six months. A Democratic Congress is not going to change that.
And so, I think in some sense, the administration has already moved on to look at – to focus on other problems. And Iran is the number one problem out there.
And I’m struck by the fact that the ambassador said that, if economic – he put it, economic, political and financial – I’m sorry, and diplomatic – measures don’t work, then he sort of hinted, going to have to look at something else. We all that the something else is military. He didn’t quite go there, but he was heading in that direction.
BAKER: Yes. I thought that was striking, too.
And he actually also said, those countries that are sending weak signals right now – which, let’s be honest, we’re obviously talking about Russia and China, but even, to some extent, Germany, which has not been sending the strongest signals – they will bear responsibility if we go beyond, as he put it, economic, political and military measures.
So, that’s really kind of upping the ante, I think, upping the rhetoric between the U.S. and its allies.
SLEN: Burma. Is there unity in the world against the current regime in Burma?
STROBEL: I am not an expert on this issue. But everything I know and have read is that China is not willing to do anything serious. There’s a lot of linkages between the militaries of the two countries, and economically and so forth.
Gerard, perhaps you know better than I.
BAKER: No. But I do – one thing I think we can – you know, Warren is absolutely right. China is the country that is, in so many of these instances – whether it’s Iran, whether it’s Sudan over Darfur, or whether it’s Burma – China is the country that has sought strong relations as a way of essentially improving its standing in the world.
One thing I really do think the U.S. should consider doing. China is going to be hosting those Olympics next year, 2008. We really – it’s an opportunity for the world to get some leverage over China, which sadly it lacks in many respects at the moment.
I’m not necessarily saying the U.S. should threaten to boycott it, but we should start reminding the Chinese that they are going to be in the focus of world attention in the course of the next year, in a way that they have never been – for a very, very long time, anyway.
And it’s a real opportunity to force the Chinese to come and play fair by the rules of – you know, by international rules.
STROBEL: It’s something that they deeply care about – the Olympics, I mean – both because of their desire to be seen as a modern country, but also because it’s sort of the traditional Asian thing about showing face and how you’re perceived in the world.
So, there is a – I think there’s a lot of leverage there.
BAKER: That’s right.
SLEN: President Ahmadinejad’s visit to New York this past week – successful or a failure?
STROBEL: I wasn’t there this year, but I was last year. He was sort of the star of the show. It was him and Chavez of Venezuela, who just got an amazing amount of press attention. It really was like a circus.
Seeing it from the distance of Washington this year, I get the sense that people are tiring a little bit of Ahmadinejad’s theater, and that he obviously had a lot of protestors and negative publicity and Columbia and elsewhere.
BAKER: I think Ahmadinejad is the best walking, talking commercial for U.S. policy in the world.
I mean, he is clearly – you know, the speech at Columbia and his remarks about gays and the role of women, and all of this kind of stuff – he is clearly, he clearly leads what by any measure – whatever people think of America – and there’s a lot of anti-American sentiment around the world – he clearly leads both a dangerous and a deeply, deeply unattractive regime.
And every time he comes out and speaks about it, I think he – frankly, he makes people realize that, whatever they think of America and the West, they really, really don’t like the idea of a country like that.
SLEN: Gerard Baker, “Times” of London, Warren Strobel, McClatchy Newspapers, thank you for being on “Newsmakers.”
STROBEL: Thank you.
BAKER: Thank you.
END