Disarmament Documentation

Back to Disarmament Documentation

'We Should Never Get Into The Situation Again...We Got Into With Iraq': US National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, interview with foreign correspondents, May 29

'Interview of National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice by foreign print journalists, May 29, 2003'; The White House, Office of the National Security Advisor.

Question: ... How would you characterize, now, US-Canada relations, particularly Ottawa-Washington, try to political eyeball it? Are we in a bit of a trough, and do you see some light at the end of the tunnel?

Dr. Rice: Well, I would certainly not say that we are anything that resembles a trough. This is a relationship that's important to us, it's a good relationship. We have been through some difficult times. I think there was disappointment in the United States that a friend like Canada was unable to support the United States in what we considered to be an extremely important issue for our security. The American motives in doing what we have done in Iraq, or what we had to do in Afghanistan, or in the war on terrorism, have to do with trying to make the world more secure because a disproportionate responsibility falls on the United States for the security of the international community, and to try and spread freedom. These are values that we share with our longtime friends. And so, yes, there was some disappointment that there seemed to be some questioning of American motives, and some lack of understanding that we were simply trying to do this in support of our own security, in support of everyone else's security. And that disappointment will, of course, not go easily. It will take some time, because when friends are in a position where we say our security's at stake, we would have thought, as we got from any of our friends, that the answer would havebeen, well, how can we help. That said, we continue to have very fruitful relations with Canada, particularly in counterterrorism. We made a lot of progress on border security. The homeland security directors have been constant companions these days. I think that all of North America is safer because of the work that we have been able to do about - given our common border. ...

Question: Switching over to Germany, how would you evaluate German-American relations eight months after you described them as poisoned? ...

Dr. Rice: ... [We] will always have an important and good relationship with Germany. ... Again, I think there was disappointment in the response of the German government to what the United States was doing, because we've come to expect so much of our alliance and of our friendship. But, that is done. We've had good cooperation in getting Resolution 1483 through in the Security Council. I think very few people would have expected a 14-0 resolution - victory in the resolution. It's a victory for the Iraqi people that allows us now to do what we need to do on the ground in Iraq. We've been through some difficult times. We're getting through those times, and relations between Germany and the United States will continue. I can't answer the question of whether personal relations between the President and the Chancellor [Gerhard Schroeder] will ever be the same. We will have to see.

Question: Dr. Rice, very soon President Bush will meet with Vladimir Putin, and certainly there will be a two - among others - two important issues on the agenda in St. Petersburg. One is Iraq - one is Iran, and also is Iraq. Are you expecting that Moscow can make a step forward to US position, and to share your concern about nuclear program in Iran? And the second part of this question, do you see any role for Russia in postwar reconstruction in Iraq, especially in oil sector?

Dr. Rice: I am quite certain that, as to the last question about the role in postwar Iraq, that we are going to welcome, as I think the Iraqi people will, all interested countries that want to help in the reconstruction of Iraq. ... I see no reason that Russia should not have very strong relations with a new Iraq, and important economic relations with a new Iraq. In terms of Iran, the United States has long said that there was a problem in Iran, that the Iranians were, perhaps, using peaceful - what they called peaceful nuclear research, and nuclear development of civilian nuclear reactors to mask a larger program...that was leading to a nuclear weapons program. And I think very disturbing things have been found by the IAEA. We will see what the IAEA report says about what Iran has been doing. But there are very real reasons to be concerned about Iran. Now, we've been in discussions with the Russian Federation about Iran for some time. I think we've made some progress in a better understanding about how to make certain that Iran cannot use its civilian nuclear programs for the advancement of its military goals. And we're going to continue to have those discussions with the Russians. [Atomic Energy] Minister Rumyantsev and Secretary Abraham have had particularly fruitful discussions in this regard, and I think those are going to continue. ...

Question: ... [D]o you expect that with an Italian presidency you will have closer relationship with the European Union? ...

Dr. Rice: We certainly will have a good relationship with Prime Minister Berlusconi because we have had one from the very beginning. And it is a strong relationship. The President and the Prime Minister have a close, personal relationship. They see the world much the same way. ... Now, when Italy is in the EU presidency, we expect to have close relations. But let me do - let me say that we've had good relations with the EU presidencies that have - with every EU presidency that I can remember during the time that we've been in office. We've had a fruitful one with the Greek presidency which will be ending. I think the real issue is for the United States and the EU to get moving on the common and somewhat difficult agenda that we have ahead of us. For instance, on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, we mentioned Iran as a concern, and what the IAEA may come up with there. I'm sure we will, during this session, have something on North Korea, where we have a proliferation concern. We need to be able to do something about weapons of mass destruction. We should never get into the situation again in which we got into with Iraq, where you had a very firm set of resolutions against the Iraqis that said, do this, they refused to do it, and nobody was willing to do anything about it for 12 years. You can't have bad actors who are violating all kinds of international obligations that they've voluntarily undertaken, and have the international community do nothing about it. And so I think with bodies like the EU, we will want to develop a common agenda on questions like on nonproliferation. ...

Question: Dr. Rice, would the administration like to see a change of regime in Iran?

Dr. Rice: We'd certainly like to see a regime in Iran that is responsive to the Iranian people. The Iranian people have had an opportunity to voice their preferences. And every time they have an opportunity to voice those preferences, they look to a regime that is - that protects the rights of women, that is forward-looking and modern. That has been the preference freely expressed by the Iranian people. What they've gotten is, instead, a regime that has done everything that it can to thwart those aspirations, because they elect one part of the government, and the unelected part of the government, then, makes certain that the aspirations of the Iranian people are not carried out. Instead, the Iranian regime pursues a program to support terrorism around the world, to support terrorism - to support Hezbollah, to support terrorism in the Middle East, to ship arms into the Middle East. It supports a program that is using - that is in violation of its international agreements to try and build a weapons of mass destruction program, a nuclear weapons program. It is a program that seems intent on harboring al Qaeda leaders on Iranian territory, and not dealing forthrightly with that problem. So what we'd like to see in Iran is a regime that is responsive to its people, and we believe if you have a regime that is responsive to its people, it would be a regime that would be more concerned about the declining prosperity of the Iranian people, about the isolation of the Iranian people, than about pursuing an aggressive agenda based on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.

Question: So the policy of the administration would be regime change?

Dr. Rice: The policy of the administration is that the Iranian regime should start to act like the elected regime - like an elected regime that is pursuing the aspirations of the Iranian people. That's the American position. And we have a long list of things with the Iranians that they clearly are not doing in that regard.

Question: Can you just explain what the difference is between that and regime change?

Dr. Rice: I've made American policy clear.

Question: May I have a very quick follow-up to that one? Isn't the danger coming out of Iran not bigger than the danger of Iraq and of Saddam Hussein, relating to the support of terrorists and the nuclear program?

Dr. Rice: There are dangers coming out Iran, and there were dangers coming out of Iraq, and I don't think you need to rank order them. These are - the regime in Iraq, in terms of its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, in terms of its support for terrorists, in terms of its - of what it said to the international community that it was, for 12 years under international sanctions, under resolutions that it refused to live up to - what that said about the ability of the world to actually deal with bad regimes, I think that in itself was a huge threat because it gave support and succor to other bad regimes that watched this regime violate the obligations that it undertook, watched this regime simply fly in the face of its international obligations, watched this regime defy the United Nations under Chapter 7. I think that, in itself, was an enormous danger. And an important lesson has, perhaps, been given to those who are bad regimes that that can't be tolerated by the international community. The other thing I have to say is that if you look at what is being found in Iraq, you see a regime that took great wealth and squandered it on a few while it impoverished its people at a level that I think nobody fully understood; and that brutalized its people at a level that - and with an efficiency, if I can call it that, that probably hasn't been seen since the totalitarian regimes of Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler - mass graves of this kind, torture chambers of this kind, a Baath Party that was intimidating and terrorizing the Iraqi people, a regime sitting - a modern regime sitting in the middle of the Middle East with aspirations that were such that it started wars with its neighbors twice in the last 15 years. This is a very, very dangerous regime. And the world is a lot better off without it.

Question: Going to France, and not about regime change - (laughter) - it is difficult to understand what is the assessment in this administration of the situation with France. Is still France an ally, as the rhetoric goes? Or is it viewed as being kind of on probation, and with a kind of question mark to, as regards to the level of cooperation in the fields where cooperation is still possible with France?

Dr. Rice: Of course, France is an ally. It's a member of NATO. It's a part of the transatlantic alliance. Of course, it's an ally. What was particularly disappointing about the situation in which we've just been through, the episode in which we've just been through, is that there were times that it appeared that American power was seen to be more dangerous than, perhaps, Saddam Hussein. I'll just put it very bluntly. We simply didn't understand it. What was to be checked? The United States and France stand for the same things. We stand for liberty. We stand for freedom. We stand for human rights. We are a people who have been prosperous, and benefited from liberty. We have been allies in great struggles in world wars. The United States gave its blood to liberate France. And perhaps Americans couldn't understand why it was not considered a worthy cause to liberate Iraq. So, yes, there is a lot of consternation about the way that this was posed. We also thought that we had a common understanding that there was no conflict between a European identity and a transatlantic identity. And so we couldn't quite understand why the East Europeans were told to behave themselves, and that they shouldn't somehow choose to support the United States, it would somehow undermine their European identity. We just couldn't understand it. So, these things happen, and what's important now is how we move forward. 1483 was a good start because rather than getting into theological discussions about the role of the UN and so forth, we got down to a practical discussion about what we needed to be able to do on behalf of the Iraqi people. So that was a very good start. I'm sure that there are important things that we can do to advance the agenda in the Middle East. There are important things that we can do to advance the agenda on nonproliferation. And if we can now focus on these common tasks and these common goals, remembering that we share values, I think the relationship will be just fine. If we fall back on, somehow, a debate about whether the United States needs to be constrained, then, no, America's not going to understand that argument. ...

Question: May I ask about North Korea? ... [E]scalation over the situation with North Korea would require tougher measures, or further steps... Could you please clarify or explain the meaning of the tougher measures? Is it including the military option, economic sanction...

Dr. Rice: Well, I don't think it would take any options off the table. But the President has said that he believes the peaceful resolution of this problem is completely possible. ... [T]he North Koreans seem to believe that the way to enter the international community of states is to blackmail their way in. And it's not going to work. It's simply not going to work. The North Koreans were doing relatively well last summer when they were - the North-South dialogue was accelerating, real links, and the like, beginning to come into being. The Japanese Prime Minister [Junichiro Koizumi], of course, went to North Korea to talk about a pathway to normalization. Secretary Powell met with the North Korea Foreign Minister in Brunei. And the North Koreans take that fruitful course, and somehow, instead, turn it into making declarations about their nuclear weapons programs, and their willingness to do all kinds of horrible things. And somehow they believe that's the way they're going to get people to take them seriously? It's not going to happen. And so, we will see what steps are needed when. But the key now is that all states, particularly the states in the region - Japan, South Korea, China, Russia, and others - make very clear to the North Koreans that this is not the way out of the box in which they find themselves. We have offered, we are not afraid to talk to the North Koreans, we've offered to have multilateral talks with them at any time. But they have to be fruitful, and they can't be a forum for the North Koreans to continue to grandstand and try to blackmail. So we'll be discussing as time goes on what steps we, as an international community, may want to take. But the most important step right now is to have a unified position of interested states in the world community that - saying that they're going to - to blackmail the world into accepting them simply isn't going to work. ...

Question: Russia was criticizing for quite a long time US national missile defense. But now, somehow, Moscow wants to participate in this program. What's your reaction? What's your position?

Dr. Rice: We're obviously delighted that Russia wants to participate. We want Russia to participate, because missile defense, we have always seen as, literally, defensive. It didn't threaten anyone to have - it doesn't threaten anyone to have missile defense. The whole purpose of missile defense is to deal with exactly the kinds of elements that we've been talking about here - the rogue element, or the hostile state with ones, and twos, and threes of weapons of mass destruction, and the ability to deliver them by ballistic missile. And so, it is a part of - the missile defense is a part of the response of the civilized world to the threats of the 21st century. What we had to go through with Russia was to break out of the mind-set of the Cold War that believed that large offensive forces and missile defenses led to an instability in the relationship. Well, the instability in the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union was not because we had large numbers of nuclear weapons and might, or might not, have had missile defenses. It was because we were adversaries. That was the instability. When the United States and Russia were no longer enemies, where was the source of instability? I think with the decision to move beyond the ABM Treaty with the Treaty of Moscow, which reduces dramatically American and Russian ballistic missile forces, nuclear forces, we have a new start on how to now create a stable relationship for the entire civilized world that takes advantage of all of the possibilities that we have, and the technologies that we are working on on missile defenses - just one of those possibilities. And it will be, I think, when we and Russia are working together in that regard. ...

Back to the Top of the Page

© 2003 The Acronym Institute.