Posted on 02/09/2003 3:13:48 PM PST by MadIvan
Rumsfeld interview
PLANS by France, Germany and Belgium to block the transfer of Nato equipment intended for the protection of Turkey were “breathtaking”, Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, told The Times, the only British newspaper present at an interview in Munich.
Mr Rumsfeld insisted that Turkey would get whatever protection it required, regardless of policies in Paris and Berlin, and he predicted that while Nato “will survive”, the consequences of this increasingly poisonous dispute would “reverberate”.
“They (the three countries) will be judged by their own people and they’ll be judged by other Nato countries,” he said.
“I think it’s a shame because Turkey is an important country. Not to help would tell more about those countries than it would about Europe.”
Emphasising that war was imminent but still avoidable, Mr Rumsfeld said his preferred solution was for President Saddam Hussein and his close associates to flee Iraq and seek safe haven in a friendly country.
“The first choice has to be a solution that allows the international community to get in there and deal with the weapons of mass destruction. The only way that is going to happen is if he is gone, and the preferable way to get him gone is for him to go,” said Mr Rumsfeld, who granted the interview to editors from leading newspapers in ten European countries.
“The country that received him could promise not to extradite him,” he said. “And I am sure there are plenty of countries that would be happy to have him.”
While highlighting the possibility of the Iraqi leader leaving the country, Mr Rumsfeld showed impatience at the suggestion that the crisis could be solved by tougher sanctions.
“The sanctions are not working,” he said. “Things are pouring across that border. They bring in these big dump trucks. You can put trash in them, you can put baby milk in them. They put rockets.”
Mr Rumsfeld dismissed as “utter nonsense” the suggestion that a US-led war against Iraq would be about oil. “The country has a highly educated population. They are intelligent. They are industrious. They have got oil and the oil in that country is the Iraqi people’s oil.”
Edited extracts of the Rumsfeld interview
Q. The reasons for war seem to change. The conflict is being interpreted as a religious war.
A. As for this being a religious war, the reality is that the US assisted Kuwait, a Muslim country — spent a lot of money and a lot of time, a lot of effort, risked lives. The US helped Bosnia, a Muslim country. The US was the biggest giver of food to Afghanistan prior to September 11.
There isn’t any way that reasonable people can find anything in our history that indicates anything other than tolerance. The implication to the contrary is inaccurate and unfair. It is the constant chant of dictators like Saddam Hussein attempting to rally the world to his side by turning an unwillingness to disarm into a religious war.
“Why are you doing what you are doing?” Some people say because of oil, which is utter nonsense. Oil is fungible. People that have it will want to sell it and it doesn’t matter who they sell it to. Some people say it’s a religious war — that is Saddam Hussein’s favourite whipping boy . . . the reason for doing what we are doing is to disarm him.
The President and General Powell mentioned human rights. That’s a perfectly legitimate thing to do. I will have to be honest with you. Europeans seem so disinterested in human rights — I shouldn’t say Europe ... much of Europe has agreed with the resolution.
Q. Is there an international plan to assist vulnerable economies if they are damaged by war?
A. I doubt it. I assume that international lending institutions are sensitive. I am not an economist, but there are any number of economists and people who watch these things carefully who argue that markets tend to discount things well in advance and it seems very likely that a possible war has already been discounted by the markets.
If Saddam Hussein were to flee today, or if force has to be used, it could have a positive effect on markets ... I am way out of my lane here.
Q. What was your reaction to the news that parts of the British dossier were copied from work of a US academic?
A. I have not seen that. I am not knowledgeable about it. The information General Powell laid out was very careful. Where there needed to be a qualified word he included a qualified word.
Q. What is the plan for Iraq after war?
A. It should remain a single country. It should not have weapons of mass destruction. It should not try to destabilise neighbouring countries. And they should get themselves on a path away from dictatorship towards something where the elements of the country, religious and ethnic, have confidence that they have representation, involvement and protection. What does all that mean? My guess is that it would be an Iraqi solution just as Afghanistan has an Afghani solution.
I was listening to an English translation of Mr Fischer’s remarks (Joschka Fischer, the German Foreign Minister), so don’t take what I say as accurate, but the English translation said something to the effect that Afghanistan is not done and it will take decades and that Iraq will take decades. I just don’t agree. In fact, there is a danger in thinking that. I will tell you why.
Foreign forces in a country are unnatural. They create a dependency in that country. To the extent that there is a dependency, the natural growth and development of capabilities and structures and institutions don’t take place. If you are teaching your youngster how to ride a bike and are running down the street holding the back of the seat and you don’t let go, you are going to end up with a 40-year-old who can’t ride a bike. What happened in Bosnia and Kosovo in the early period was too little effort was put on the civil side — on the police, on the court system, on the rule of law. The theory was that forces would be out by Christmas. That was unrealistic. It takes time. What you need is what is being done now in Bosnia and Kosovo. This new high commissioner, I think his name is Paddy Ashdown, is working hard to develop the civil side.
My guess is that it would be like the bicycle. The Iraqis would figure out a uniquely Iraqi solution and the coalition forces would get the weapons of mass destruction out and make sure the systems were working. The country has a highly educated population. They are intelligent. They are industrious. They have got oil, and the oil in that country is the Iraq people’s oil. Unlike Afghanistan, they have resources.
There are a lot of people prepared, in the event force is used, or in the event that he flees, which is my first choice. Goodness knows, the first choice has to be a solution that allows the international community to get in there and deal with the weapons of mass destruction. The only way that is going to happen is if he is gone, and the preferable way to get him gone is for him to go.
Q. Could you promise him an amnesty?
A. The country that receives him could promise not to extradite him. I am sure there are plenty of countries that would have him. I am not a lawyer, but my impression is that there clearly would be a country that would try demand it (extradition) but if he goes to a country that agrees before the fact not to extradite him, then he is fine. There are plenty of people like that around the world ... Idi Amin Dada is in Saudi Arabia ... “Baby Doc” Duvalier is in France.
Q. Has the US failed to sell a war?
A. Pretend that it is September 10 and you are dealing with a shadowy network that is getting ready to kill 3,000 innocent men, women and children. How do you connect the dots in a way that is persuasive? That is hard. This is hard stuff.
You can say we have done a bad selling job. I don’t think we have been trying to do a selling job. I wouldn’t characterise General Powell’s presentation as a selling job. People are used to a different century. People are used to Pearl Harbor. They are used to being attacked and then responding.
Q. Would containment work? Has it worked?
A. The sanctions are not working. Things are pouring across that border — they bring in these big dump trucks. You can put trash in them, you can put baby milk in them, but they put rockets. They are ordering unmanned aerial vehicles. What can you do with those? Well, you can go and spray crops if you want. You can use them for intelligence gathering. Or you can use them to spray biological weapons.
Q. You said you can calculate (the coming of war) in weeks, not months or years
A. I really don’t know. That’s up to other people really. The accepted construct is that it takes time for two handfuls of inspectors to cover a country the size of France — and say, therefore, that we should give them another 12 years ... and yet if you watch the television at night, you’ll see press people crowding into the site, and there are also more Iraqi minders around the inspectors than there are inspectors.
(From a related question) Time is running out ... there isn’t anyone on the face of the earth who knows how long a war will last.
Q. You talk about resolutions not being respected, what about resolutions relating to Israel and Palestine?
A. I was Middle East envoy for President Reagan and anyone who thinks you can drag those two sides (Israel and Palestine) by the scruff of the neck and shove them together and make them live together ... (from a related question) I would not characterise the US position as unqualified support for anybody. The difficulty is that Mr Arafat did not accept the agreement that had been worked out by the previous Administration. It was very close.
Q. What about the Nato conflict over Turkey?
A. Nato will survive, but if the partners announce what they are intending to do (if France, Germany and Belgium block the transfer of defensive equipment) ... they will be judged by their own people and they'll be judged by other Nato countries. I think it’s a shame because Turkey is an important country ... my guess is that Turkey will survive. It will work with other countries in Nato. It would be such a surprising and breathtaking event that I suspect it would reverberate for a while.
Papers present at the interview: The Times; Le Figaro, France; Suddeutsche Zeitung, Germany; ABC, Spain; La Repubblica, Italy; Politiken, Denmark; Die Volkskrant, Netherlands; Aftenposten, Norway; Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland; Kapital, Bulgaria
Regards, Ivan
He only has one? ;)
Ouch! That oughta get our European "allies" going. These hypocrites in the UN blather on about human rights but do nothing about it. They turned a blind eye to Hitler till the killing was done, turned a blind eye to Tito and Milosevic till the killing was done, now they're doing the same with Saddam , then preach to us about human rights. Gimme a break.
Rumsfeld is on the warpath, gotta love it.
There was some talk on the Sunday shows here about how Bush's budget lacks an item for the costs of the Iraq war.
Does somebody know something?
Regards, Ivan
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.