#7
From: "Vershbow, Alexander R" <...@state.gov>
Subject: Ambassador Vershbow on Ekho Moskvy
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003

Attachment includes a few corrections to typos and a couple of transcription errors

Alexander Vershbow
U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation

This message is UNCLASSIFIED within the definitions of EO 12958

---------

Federal News Service www.fednews.ru
RADIO INTERVIEW WITH US AMBASSADOR ALEXANDER VERSHBOW
[EKHO MOSKVY RADIO, 15:00, MARCH 20, 2003]

Anchor: This is Ekho Moskvy radio. The war in Iraq. We have more guests in our studio. And I turn it over to my colleague Alexei Venediktov. And I would like to introduce the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States to Russia Alexander Vershbow. Good day, Mr. Ambassador.

Venediktov: Mr. Ambassador, we know that you spoke on Channel 1 today. I think my colleagues and our listeners have seen it. And when we were preparing for this talk we received a lot of questions from our listeners. And one thing that they fail to understand is this. Everybody says and that includes the Russian President who has just spoken -- that the United States has acted bypassing the UN Security Council in violation of international law, it has violated all the Security Council resolutions that envisage a peaceful disarmament of Iraq. Do you think this is a justified criticism and if it is not fair, why and if it is a fair reproach, then why did you decide to go ahead?

Vershbow: Well, first of all I would like to say that we are sorry that we did not manage to solve the crisis peacefully and of course we are sorry that there are serious differences between our countries. But still we think that the military operation is entirely justified. It is based on Resolution 687 adopted by the Security Council in 1991. At that time it was a very simple deal. We, the coalition accepted a ceasefire on condition that Iraq disarms. And of course, we all know that after twelve years Iran has not disarmed itself. It means that the original mandate of 1991 is still in force and it can be said that the war in the Persian Gulf continues.

Venediktov: Did we understand you correctly -- and this is very important and it shouldn't be missed -- that you believe that it is practically not a new military operation but the continuation of Desert Storm.

Vershbow: From the legal point of view, yes. Of course, it is a new operation and there is a new coalition. But the legal basis is Resolution 687 of 1991.

Anchor: Mr. Ambassador, you must be aware of the statement by the Russian President. In fact, he made four serious points why this war is unjustified. I would like to present to you each of these points because they are very important and I would like you to comment on each of them.

So, President Putin says that nothing can justify a military action -- neither accusation of Iraq of supporting international terrorism, because we have never had and do not have information to the effect. How would you comment on this statement of the Russian President?

Vershbow: I have just explained our position on the first question. On the second question, I think it is clear to everyone in the world that Saddam Hussein supports terrorism in the Middle East. One confirmation is that he often paid the families of suicide terrorists who kill Israeli citizens. And there is a lot of evidence to the effect that he supports other groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and we are convinced that there are clear links to al-Qaeda. One can argue about each individual fact but we believe that the picture is very broad and that Saddam Hussein has been backing terrorist groups for twenty years.

Anchor: And the second charge made by Putin is, he thinks that the political regime of a country cannot be changed from outside because it contradicts international law and it should be decided only within that state. In fact, America has set itself the goal of changing the regime in Iraq.

Vershbow: Well, this is a special situation and perhaps I should continue in English.

First of all, the real reason why we are taking military action is Saddam Hussein's violation of the UN resolution and has failed to disarm his country over 12 years. He had his chance not only for 12 years, but for more than four months since the passage of 1441 to disarm peacefully. And he could still therefore be ruling Iraq.

(Inaudible)... But this is not something we set up as a model. This is a special case, an extreme situation. And it's the necessary thing to do.

Anchor: Alexei Venediktov has a question regarding what you have just said.

Venediktov: Mr. Ambassador, when President Putin spoke about a change of political regime from outside many commentators described this as criticism of the position of "export of democracy". And there is a sense that the United States is beginning to export its vision of political system, it is to the Middle East in this case, but then it can go on and on. Is that so? Does you country have the concept of export of democracy?

Vershbow: Well, I think we have long been of the view that it's in the interest of any country to have a democratic political system and we have done a lot to help encourage democratic forces throughout the world, including in the former Soviet space. Certainly, doing this through military means is not the normal method, but in this case we believe that as we eliminate the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, we now have an opportunity to give the Iraqi people a chance for freedom and democracy. And we intend to make good on that opportunity.

Anchor: About the destruction of WMD in Iraq, and this was the key point in President Putin's statement. You remember his objections to military interference. And I go on to quote. "And finally, there was no need to military action to answer the main question that had been put by the international community, namely, does or doesn't Iraq have weapons of mass destruction and if so, what should be done and within what time-frame in order to liquidate it?" And I remember the ironic remark made by Mr. Blix who said before the start of the military operation, "I would like to see what they find there". In other words, the military operation was launched without the consent of the international community. Specialists have not been told about any weapons, which is supposed to be the main reason for the intervention. I think this is a vulnerable position that the Russian President has mentioned.

Vershbow: (In Russian) We are convinced that such weapons exist. It is a fact that the Security Council unanimously passed resolution 1441 which writes that Iraq is in material breach of its obligation to disarm. This means that in November everybody was in agreement that such weapons existed. It's also a fact that Saddam Hussein's report in December did not say anything about the data that was already in the hands of former inspectors with regard to the existence of chemical and biological weapons.

In our view there is no doubt that such weapons exist. It is due to deception and lack of cooperation on the part of Saddam Hussein that the inspectors found very little proof of that. They found some shells, but Saddam Hussein unfortunately did not show his readiness to cooperate with the inspectors.

Anchor: Alexei Venediktov, please.

Venediktov: Very often my colleagues and politicians call the US an aggressor. In Russian the word "aggression" has a negative connotation, it's worse than an interventionist. Our colleagues on First Channel and their guests proposed to convene a session of the UN General Assembly, raise the question of expelling the countries participating in the anti-Iraqi coalition from the UN. I think you might have heard all these proposals. What is your reaction to the fact that you represent a country that people call an aggressor, that they propose to expel the US?

Vershbow: Well, we absolutely reject any notion that what we are doing is aggression. What we are doing trying to uphold the authority of UN resolutions and to eliminate a serious and immediate threat to the security of the region and the world.

And we believe that it would only deepen the damage to the UN Security Council to engage in a lengthy debate about what went right and what went wrong. I think we need to now join together and think about how to bring stability to the Middle East after the war is over.

The United Nations will have important responsibilities in the post-war period and we need to end the divisions and to come together again.

Venediktov: Is the US going to leave the UN or the Security Council?

Vershbow: No. While we were disappointed that the UN Security Council was not able to exercise its full responsibilities this time around, we still hope that after these lessons are learned that the Security Council can perform better in dealing with future crises.

Venediktov: I want to clarify something. Does the US think that the Security Council is the body, as President Putin has said, a body of collective security that should decide whether military pressure or military operations should be used in the world?

Vershbow: Well, we continue to believe that the Security Council has the overall responsibility that President Putin has stated. At the same time we have always reserved the right to take action to protect our security if the Security Council does not exercise its responsibility.

Anchor: Well, you know, I am saying this to Alexei, when there are two anchors in the studio, there are two different points of view. There are things that surprise me. I am saying this to you, Alexei. Mr. Ambassador has just said that it would be good if the Security Council lived up to the high standards. But here comes my question to Mr. Ambassador. Aren't Blix and ElBaradei authoritative people? Aren't their conclusions about Iraq authoritative? And yet the attack was carried out. Hence my question. What if some other country, maybe not Russia, although President Putin used a very strong tone, but a weakened country like Iraq, and it will seem to the US again that it has something, Blix and ElBaradei say once again that it does not have anything, there will be another attack, and Mr. Ambassador will say again that the UN has not really lived up to these high standards. Who determines these standards? What is the criterion for an attack? The opinion of the US President? Or the opinion of representatives of the international community?

Vershbow: Well, first of all, Blix and ElBaradei themselves always remind people that they are the servants of the UN, they are not the authorities in this matter, they are working for the Security Council which has to take decisions.

At the same time, I think you need to study very carefully the last report of Blix and ElBaradei, which lists dozens of violations by Iraq and dozens of contradictions between what Iraq claimed in its report in December and what they have actually discovered through the inspections.

What we really regret in this recent situation is that some members of the Security Council, and especially France, seemed to take away all the pressure on Saddam Hussein to fulfill his obligations by categorically excluding approval of the second resolution and virtually ruling out the use of force. So we had a situation in which the Security Council, through its own divisions, basically made it impossible to resolve the crisis through peaceful means.

So as much as we would have preferred a united front, it was a situation where we felt we had to act because paralysis would have been worse than taking the military steps that we have begun today.

Anchor: A question to our listeners for interactive voting. What arguments seem logical to you? First, the arguments of the US Ambassador, Mr. Vershbow, which he has just announced on the Ekho Moskvy. In this case dial 995-81-21. Or the arguments of President Putin, which he stated in his televized address. I think you have heard this address. If you choose President Putin's arguments, dial 995-81-22. All calls are absolutely free for Muscovites. People from outside Moscow will only have to pay for the connection to the Moscow telephone line. The voting has begun.

Alexei, your question, please.

Venediktov: Mr. Ambassador, we have just heard in the news that one small country supports the United States politically and another small country does not support it. What do you think, does the military operation that began yesterday have the sanction of the UN Security Council or doesn't it?

Vershbow: Not totally. We proceed from resolution 687 of 1991, as I have said earlier. In 1993 the UN Secretary General reaffirmed our interpretation of this resolution. When there was a military operation to protect the no-fly zone the UN Secretary General said at the time that the 1991 mandate was still in force. And this has been the position of the American administration, both the Democrats and the Republicans since 1991 and until now.

Anchor: Let me remind you that our interactive voting is still going on. And I can tell you, Mr. Vershbow, we would like you to come to us as often as possible because it increases our radio station's rating and the radio listeners are heating the phones because they are eager to vote. I remind you of our question: Which arguments do you consider more logical regarding the Iraq war, the arguments cited by the US ambassador and then you have to dial 995-8121 or the arguments of President Putin enunciated just 40 minutes ago in the TV address, in which case you have to dial 995-8122.

Venediktov: The Iraqi ambassador Mr. Abbas Halaf Kunfuth, went on the air on Ekho Moskvy this morning and he said it will be a long and grueling war, a bloody war. As a diplomat and a representative of the United States, do you have any idea of the possible duration and of the tasks that the Americans and their allies set?

Vershbow: (In English) Well, we certainly hope that the war will be short. President Bush cautioned the American people that it may take longer than experts predict, but we are confident that we have the means to end this rather quickly. And we certainly want to do everything we can to minimize the suffering and the bloodshed on the part of Iraqi people who have already suffered enough under the oppression of Saddam Hussein. But it's still not too late for the Iraqi regime to do the right thing for its own people and to see off Mr. Saddam Hussein and begin to cooperate with the international community, get rid of the weapons of mass destruction, and work with other nations to build a more peaceful and democratic future for their country.

Anchor: The final seconds of voting, please vote what arguments do you find more logical, the arguments of the US ambassador Mr. Vershbow being presented now on the air (995-8121) or the arguments of President Putin in his TV address (995-8122).

Venediktov: A question about Saddam Hussein. On the eve of the ultimatum or in the ultimatum that you have referred to you have suggested that Saddam Hussein and his closest allies leave Iraq and then the situation, as the American president said, would be peacefully resolved. There is a list of people who form the inner circle of Saddam Hussein, you have it. Does it mean that if Saddam Hussein openly leaves, he still has time, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia offer him a haven, does it mean that the Americans will not persecute Saddam Hussein and let him live in happy retirement or will you persecute him and hand him over to the international tribunal like Milosevic?

Vershbow: Well, I am not in a position to make any guarantees. That's, as we say, for people in the higher pay grade than me, namely the president. But we have consistently said that this would be a fair exchange -- for Saddam to go to some country that's willing to have him in return for peaceful disarmament and the eventual democratization of Iraq.

Anchor: Voting has continued until the final seconds. And during this time we have had calls from 7,069 people. This is a new record for our radio station. So, welcome again and again. Now, the arguments presented by the US ambassador got 29 percent of the vote, the arguments set forth by president Putin in his TV address got 71 percent. These are the results. How would you comment on them, very briefly? Is that what you expected?

Vershbow: Well, I am pleased that I am doing better than I might have expected. I appreciate the opportunity to lay out my point of view. So, it's the toughest competition to be up against the president of the Russian Federation.

Venediktov: And now look, Mr. Ambassador. This is of course not a sociological survey, but nevertheless more than 70 percent disapprove of your position. How will the relationship be shaping up after this statement by Mr. Putin and after the actions that are likely to be taken to condemn the military operation? In an interview with Izvestia on the eve of the operation you said very firmly that it would harm this and that, it would harm the Jackson-Vanik amendment, it would harm our economic relations, it would harm our partnership in the wake of September 11. Can it be said that the partnership that took shape after September 11 has been destroyed?

Vershbow: Well, first I have to say that there was a lot attributed to me that I did not in fact say to Izvestia. Yes, I did say there was a danger of damage to our relationship, but I made no specific threats, I made no linkage of any one issue to this crisis. And I believe in recent days both of our presidents have been doing the maximum to emphasize their determination to minimize the damage to the relationship and to maintain the cooperation that we've established based on our many-shared interests in today's world. And I think that there is no doubt that we have a very serious disagreement here, but we've been able to overcome other serious disagreements over the past few years and I think we ultimately will overcome this time again.

Venediktov: Today the Chairman of the International Affairs Committee Mr. Rogozin called on his colleagues, deputies of both houses of parliament, not to go to the United States and to the allied countries saying that such trips "make no sense". My question is, will President Bush come to Russia in May as he has been invited and as he was going to? Is there going to be a revision of his schedule?

Vershbow: I have every confidence that President Bush will come as planned and he very much looks forward to seeing his friend President Putin. I think that at times when we have our differences it is all the more important to keep open all the channels of communication, including between our parliaments. So I hope Mr. Rogozin reconsiders.

Anchor: One more question. We have talked to Veniamin Popov, Ambassador for liaison with the Islamic Conference. He forecasts that anti-American sentiments will grow. But this time it will be pan-Islamic growth because the invasion of an Islamic country -- there is no proof that it has weapons of mass destruction -- will have the most negative consequences for the US. What is your forecast? What may be the consequences not for Iraq, which in your view will become a democratic country with new good leaders, the export of democracy, as Alexei Venediktov has said, but for the US? What do you expect? That it will be calmer or there will be new terrorist acts?

Vershbow: Well, I don't underestimate the potential for greater anti-Americanism in the short term and for the possibility that there may be an upsurge in terrorist acts. Some of these terrorist acts might well have occurred anyway but they will be linked by the terrorists to the Iraq crisis. But I think that in a longer term the net impact on the opinion in the Islamic world will be positive. I am genuinely optimistic about that because I think it's not trivial to say that if we succeed in liberating the Iraqi people, establishing freedom in that country, we will I think prove wrong the many skeptics, just as we did in Afghanistan.

Venediktov: Mr. Ambassador, there has been a question from our listener on the pager. He asks why the American and British soldiers must die for the freedom of the Iraqi people? They don't understand this here. Even if we follow your logic, what will one, twenty or one hundred and fifty people die for?

Vershbow: I think American soldiers are prepared to give their lives, and I think the American people support this, because we believe we are making an important contribution to the safety and security of the entire world. We believe that acting now will potentially save thousands maybe even millions of lives that could be lost if Saddam kept his weapons of mass destruction and gave them to terrorists to use against our people and other countries in the world.

And the American people believe that they have that kind of responsibility in the world and support sacrifices.

Anchor: Mr. Ambassador, we have received questions through the Internet. We will hand all of them over to you. These are very different questions. People condemn what the US is doing, others support it. There is a very interesting message from a person who I think is an emigre by the name of Igor Strots in Toronto. He writes, "I have no questions to Mr. Ambassador. It's all very clear to me as far as America is concerned."

Venediktov: But it's not clear to me, and I have a question. But you go with your question first.

Anchor: It's a very serious question. Do you remember, Alexei, that Mr. Ambassador said that America is sure that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Vasily Larionov is asking a terrible thing. "Let's imagine that Iraq does not have the weapons that Bush is so eager to find there. What political, juridical and moral punishment will Mr. President face in this case? I believe it will be a purely criminal case. The Milosevic trial will be the examination of innocent pranks compared to Bush's crime. Thank you for your answer."

Venediktov: It's a mistake, as the President said, and not only a political one.

Vershbow: Well, first of all we have no doubt that the weapons exist. And it will be rather bizarre if Saddam Hussein brought this kind of suffering on his own people because he was too embarrassed to simply tell the truth. It's a simple fact that he violated Resolution 1441 in the very first step that he took when he gave a report in December that was clearly false in many respects.

So the issue is Saddam's compliance with UN resolutions. He has clearly not complied, and no one in the Security Council meeting in the last couple of weeks has said that he has complied. So this intervention is based really on defending the rule of law in the world against a criminal who violates UN resolutions.

Venediktov: And my last question. You gave an interview to our colleagues from First Channel, Svetlana Sorokina and Vladimir Pozner, today, and you said a phrase that has been commented on by all Russian media, and not only Russian, I think that North Korean media too.

When our colleagues asked you about North Korea, which is developing nuclear weapons, building ballistic missiles, and if the US could use force to disarm it too? At least that's how I understood the question. And you said, or so it was translated, "we do not rule out anything for ourselves." I want you to elaborate on this phrase and tell us what exactly you meant as far as North Korea is concerned?

Vershbow: Well, in that phrase I was only repeating what had been said recently by Secretary Powell and other American leaders. What I also said is that we still see the possibility of a peaceful solution, a political solution to the North Korean situation, and that's what we are trying to achieve.

This is another challenge for the UN Security Council. Recently the IAEA submitted this issue to the Security Council because of North Korea's violations of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. But thus far the Security Council has been unable to take any action.

Venediktov: The Security Council is busy dealing with Iraq.

Vershbow: The Security Council is a busy place but they can deal with more than one crisis at the same time. Because the North Korean nuclear program and the provocative actions of recent weeks are a threat to the international community, and should be addressed by the Security Council.

Venediktov: And the last question. Do you personally have an explanation why in 1991 there was a very broad coalition against Iraq, against the Saddam Hussein regime and as the war has continued because as you have said it did not end then and it continues, that coalition shrank? This despite the fact that the Berlin Wall has fallen and we are now partners and friends. How do you account for the fact that some states, including Russia -- we had Mikhail Gorbachev on the air today -- which then backed or did not object to the coalition, is not this time around a member of the coalition and sometimes, like France, is even throwing spanners in the works?

Vershbow: Well, first of all, we have a large coalition and it's growing. Yesterday we counted 30 nations and this morning I am told that the number is 35 and it's growing. But obviously, the situation 12 years ago was a case of clear international aggression already carried out by Iraq against a neighboring state. This time we are dealing with a potential threat, but a potential threat that we think is very immediate and even more dangerous because it threatens the whole world and not just the region.

People perhaps think that, because the threat is only potential, if we play along with this dictator he maybe won't threaten us. But I think experience shows that if you encourage dictators they eventually will use the weapons that they have at their disposal.

Anchor: Thank you. Our time is up. We have even exceeded our allotted time. And I thank the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States to the Russian Federation, Alexander Vershbow.

BACK TO THE TOP    #249 CONTENTS    NEXT ARTICLE