|
DIPLOMATIC LICENSE
U.N. Passes U.S.-Backed Resolution on Iraq.
Aired October 17, 2003 - 21:00:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you think you will get a majority? Am I happy this morning that we've got 15? Of course I'm happy.
COLIN POWELL, U.S. SECY. OF STATE: We succeeded, especially in the last 24 hours, of slowly adding to the number nine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RICHARD ROTH, CNN ANCHOR: I could say like two bruised fighters entering the ring, but I won't. The United States, represented by John Negroponte, and the United Nations, led by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, entering the Security Council ring for the climax of another rough resolution battle over Iraq.
This is DIPLOMATIC LICENSE. I'm Richard Roth, at ringside.
The United States, you might say, scored a diplomatic knock-out, getting a 15 to nothing on the score card when the Security Council voted for Washington's post-war Iraq resolution. The United States worked hard on the telephones and in meetings with other Security Council members to achieve the result, but the unity on the vote was barely dry when frustration flared.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SERGEY LAVROV, RUSSIAN AMB. TO THE U.N. (through translator): The result achieved is a compromise which does not solve all the problems.
GUNTER PLEUGER, GERMAN AMB. TO THE U.N.: We would have wished for clearer guidelines also with regard to timing.
JEAN-MARC DE LA SALLE, FRENCH AMB. TO THE U.N.: We, as France, would have preferred to have in the text of the resolution the idea of a provisional government council established.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: Thus, not so fast on that resolution and in Baghdad, says another permanent Council member.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EMYR JONES PARRY, BRITISH AMB. TO U.N.: The resolution we have adopted is quite clearly about giving control of Iraq to its people as quickly as possible, but quite rightly, the resolution does not prescribe to the Iraqis artificial schedules for this transfer.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: OK, say countries such as Pakistan, we'll vote for your resolution, but the security situation in Iraq is too dangerous to send troops, among other reasons.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MUNIR AKRAM, PAKISTANI AMB. TO U.N.: Pakistan has consistently advocated that the multinational force which was to be created should have a separate and distinct identity from the occupation forces and that its deployment should be the result of an invitation from the Iraqi people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: Pakistan, overall a major U.N. troop contributor, is not eager to send Muslim soldiers to fight under an American commander at the helm of this multinational force called for in the resolution.
U.S. leaders are resigned to not being overrun by troops headed to the front from abroad, despite the unanimously approved resolution.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD RUMSFELD, U.S. SECY. OF STATE: It certainly is a plus, not a minus, but I couldn't draw a connection line between the resolution and security. It's a tough situation there, yes.
POWELL: Don't see this resolution as opening the door to troops.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: What's the plan in Washington then to break down resistance on troops and financial aid for Iraq?
Joining us with that answer, hopefully, from Washington, Kim Holmes, assistant secretary of state, Bureau of International Affairs -- Kim.
KIM HOLMES, ASST. SECY. OF STATE: Hello, Richard. How are you doing?
ROTH: Your answer?
HOLMES: Well, my answer is this resolution, which was unanimously supported by the members of the Council, is a victory for the Iraqi people. It brings the international community behind our efforts to bring stability and democracy to Iraq, but.
(CROSSTALK)
ROTH: They're going to feel safer if there are more troops. I know you have to put that diplomatic framework down, but have you had early calls, indications, anything?
HOLMES: Well, I think as Secretary Powell said, you know, this will make it easier for countries who want to contribute troops to do so. We need to give back to some of these countries who have expressed an interest and see what kind of issues they have so we can talk to them about it.
There is no doubt that this U.N. mandate will make it easier for countries to contribute troops. We must look, in the long-run, what the framework will be, not just what's going to happen in the next couple of days.
ROTH: Is the United States upset at Russia and France speaking out critically about the resolution? It's not perfect. You know, we still would have liked this. Did it shatter the unity a bit, take the gloss off it?
HOLMES: You know, we're very happy that Russia, France and Germany supported this resolution. We had some very interesting discussions with them over the last few days. They certainly are entitled to their opinion, but at the end of the day, they voted yes.
It's important for all members of the Council who voted yes for this resolution, in four minutes (ph), both to the letter and in the spirit.
ROTH: What was the secret to getting everybody onboard? Was it China jumping first? What happened to get that 15-to-nothing vote?
HOLMES: Well, we believe we had nine votes already last week, and over the weekend we worked very hard. Secretary Powell worked very hard to try to bring the other countries onboard. Certainly, Russia played an important role. So did China.
I think at the end of the day, you know, we went the extra mile to bring these countries onboard. They appreciated that, and as a result, we have the international community.
ROTH: What was that extra mile? Because a lot of people say the wording was really cosmetic. I mean, the United States still calls the shots. There's no big handover day. Some say there shouldn't have been. What was it? What's the big deal? Is it on Chechnya? Is it on Ivory Coast? What's it on?
HOLMES: I think what it was on was trying to workout a role for the secretary-general's special representative in Iraq, that they will have a role, both in the constitutional process and the entire political transitional process.
It was certainly important for some of the countries to have clarity on the role of the Security Council and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) of the multinational force.
There's a lot of issues there. We went the extra mile and we're very happy they came onboard.
ROTH: What about Secretary-General Annan? He said this resolution was going in the wrong direction and then, like a good solider and as a servant of the Council, he said he's going to follow along. But the security situation is pretty dangerous still and he's not going to put his own people back.
HOLMES: I would just take him at his word. After the resolution was passed, he says this brings the international community behind this effort. He was very happy about that. It puts the worst of the past behind us. We move forward.
We need to get together and concentrate on something positive and constructive here. That's what's absolutely important for the Iraqi people and I think that should be the message that comes out of this resolution.
ROTH: Did the United States really need this resolution? I mean, this is the only arena, the United Nations, where a lot of the countries can take on the United States on some of these issues. You didn't really need this again, did you?
HOLMES: We felt that the Iraqi people needed it. We felt that it was important for the international community, both in terms of future financial as well as troop contributions, that the international community come behind this effort and really show the Iraqi people that we are all behind them. That's what I think is most important in this whole debate.
ROTH: You're a U.N. point man for the State Department. What about President Bush allegedly telling the Japanese leader upon arrival there in Asia, we've got to change the United Nations, we've got to reform it. Yes, it's a message he'd said before, but what's the United States really going to do to back up its word? How are you going to change it?
HOLMES: Well, I mean, the United States has always been interested in making sure that the United Nations functions as well as it possibly can. We've always had an interest in reform. We will continue that interest, and that's what the president was expressing when he made these remarks.
ROTH: Kim Holmes, thank you, assistant secretary of state Bureau of International Organizations there at the State Department, thank you very much for a debut appearance on DIPLOMATIC LICENSE.
HOLMES: Thank you.
ROTH: What's the secret to making a good resolution on Iraq? Martha Stewart -- I mean Richard Boucher, the State Department's chef -- spokesman -- explains.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RICHARD BOUCHER, STATE DEPT.: We're making sausage here. It's not always pretty, but this is the way resolutions get worked.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE LIEBERMAN, U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm sorry to say that the resolution simply papers over the disagreements that exist. There's no money in it. There are no troops in it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: That's one of the Democratic U.S. presidential candidates, Joe Lieberman, who will not be having lunch this week with the Malaysian prime minister to discuss world affairs.
No troops, no money, he says. But what about guests to discuss what happened this week? We've got them.
With us, Felicity Barringer, "New York Times" U.N. correspondent, in her final hours there before reporting from Washington; William Luers, president of the United Nations Association of the U.S., a nonprofit group boosting Americans' interest in global affairs and doing a lot of other things; and in Washington, from the Heritage Foundation, James Phillips, research fellow, among other titles.
Bill Luers, what's the good of this resolution if countries are not going to contribute troops, they're too scared, among other issues?
BILL LUERS, U.N. ASSOC. OF THE U.S.: Diplomacy at work. Countries come together, recognize what's practical about what happened. This is one of the most practical things the United Nations has done in ten years.
ROTH: Do you think it involves the U.N. more?
LUERS: I think it involves the nations who are members of the United Nations in saying the United States is there, they're going to remain there. If we try to get them out, the Congress won't support the money to keep them in. And they're going to have to pay for it, and we'll help the way we can.
I think it's a very practical decision.
ROTH: James Phillips, do you think it's a good idea to have more U.N. involvement. The role of the secretary-general is increased slightly. There's already a time schedule under this resolution for the Iraqi governing council to come up with another schedule for elections and a constitution.
JAMES PHILLIPS, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: I think the United States was looking for more international help, but did not want to turn too much power over to the United Nations, which has a spotty track record in previous interventions in Somalia and the Balkans.
I think the important part of this was, although differences were papered over, it's the beginning of a healing process, I think, between the U.S. and European powers, but the real way of building a stable government in Iraq and building legitimacy in Iraq, is by empowering the Iraqi people, not by empowering the United Nations.
ROTH: Felicity, is the United Nations involved more, or did the United States win so big that it's still allowed to call the shots for months?
FELICITY BARRINGER, "NEW YORK TIMES": I think it's no question the United States is going to call the shots as long as it wants to at this point.
The United Nations has a little more flexibility to get involved if, basically, at the sufferance of the coalition powers.
I sort of felt like the last changes involved drawing the outline of a door a brick wall and saying eventually we may have a door here.
ROTH: James Phillips, I mean, you wrote some articles. You were critical of the United Nations involvement. The United Nations paid a price at its building, for the bombing there. Do you think that the U.N. presence will lessen terrorist attacks there and the situation will calm down with a increased international role?
PHILLIPS: No, I think as the August 19 bombing showed, the United Nations is itself a target for bombing there, and that the Iraqi people aren't necessarily impressed with the U.N. record since the U.N. Security Council did not choose to enforce the 17 resolutions that Saddam Hussein violated.
I think.
(CROSSTALK)
LUERS: Let me suggest there is another angle on that.
One of the reasons I think everybody thinks the United Nations was attacked is because they'd become so closely identified with the occupying force and the United States and United Kingdom, which had gone to war. And I think one of the issues that was discussed was the degree to which the United Nations, which is a legitimizing body, has to be seen as independent, even from its major member.
BARRINGER: I think -- if I can interrupt just a second.
ROTH: Oh, yes.
BARRINGER: If you look at what the United Nations has been doing in Iraq during Saddam Hussein's last years, they -- in recent months, there were weapons inspectors in there, but for years before, they were controlling the entire Iraqi economy through the oil for food program. The United Nations was very much identified with the powers who wanted to see Saddam's government comply with international norms.
LUERS: That's not really right in the sense that the United Nations didn't control the economy. The United Nations provided the vehicle through which food was provided for the oil, but the management of all of that was the Iraqi government, and it was that position that the United Nations was put in by the member states, you remember, that has probably resulted in some of the downside that you feel about the United Nations.
But fundamentally, in the region, all of the nations of the Middle East would like a U.N. role because it replaces the United States as the occupying power, which is the really offensive aspect of this whole situation.
ROTH: I mean, James, wouldn't it be better if there was a U.N. operation now? The war is over. You can just fight about whether it was good or not, but now perhaps a U.N. flag elsewhere might be something that would stir progress there, down a democratic road? Or is it just too unstable?
PHILLIPS: I think if you put the United Nations in charge of Iraq, what will emerge will be much worse from the point of view of U.S. national interest. What could emerge is a government that's very anti-American. In fact, some of the United Nations diplomats were calling for the inclusion of Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist Party in a post-war government, and that's just unbelievable to me.
LUERS: By the way, I don't think there was any proposition that suggested the United Nations should take over Iraq. The United Nations can't do it. They didn't want to do it, and nobody proposed it.
What was proposed was a rapid movement to an Iraqi Authority which would receive, like they do -- like Karzai does in Afghanistan, support from the United Nations and other nations.
So it's not turning it over to the United Nations as opposed to the United States. It's turning over to the Iraqis a strong international support with the United Nations at the center of it.
BARRINGER: I think Bill's absolutely right about that. It's a red herring to say the United Nations was going to be running Iraq. It was going to have a -- the idea was that it have a leading role in the political transformation and in creating the institutions, not that it be the executive power.
ROTH: But the United States does not want to have the United Nations play that role, right -- Felicity?
BARRINGER: No, absolutely not. They resisted amendments that would hae allowed for that in this resolution.
ROTH: This Council vote still, there's a lot of things to analyze. First, I'll ask myself, so why did Russia and France decide to support the United States resolution on Iraq?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SERGEY LAVROV, RUSSIAN AMB. TO U.N.: Not because a rift in trans- Atlantic relations, which Russia is not part of. Not because it's Europe vis-…-vis North America or Eurasia. It's because the situation in Iraq is dangerous and concerns our security interest, all three of us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: Felicity, we saw all three ambassadors -- Germany, France, Russia -- come out together. We've never seen that before. Is there a changing dynamic at the Council because of Iraq? What does this vote mean, the United States also getting these three onboard? I'm asking you that in a big grab bag question, the kind I hate when I'm sitting in your chair. Go ahead.
BARRINGER: I think -- well, it is a big grab bag, but I think it's safe to say that it would be very important to watch from now on whether the dynamic is changed.
Germany, France and Russia have been aligned on this issue going back to well before the war, so that in itself is not a change. But to see them continue to stay aligned and to form in essence some kind of countervailing power to the United States, that's certainly been something that France has wanted to develop over time as the United States became the hyper-power in the world.
LUERS: Let me tweak that just a little bit, Felicity.
I think what happened just this week was in a sort of deal with the United States, Russia pulled Germany and France together and said we're going to vote for this, we're all going to stand behind it because my friend George wants it, and then we'll come out right afterward and say we're not -- this doesn't change our policy at all.
And that's what happened. They all three stood out there and said this means nothing to us, but we voted for it because we thought it was important.
ROTH: James, we heard President Bush say something we don't often hear, to cheers. He applauded the U.N. Security Council, but does the president continue to play to domestic politics (AUDIO GAP) and spinning it every which way and not wanting to give in and giving the U.N. officials a bit more of a role there? Is it politics that's driving the U.S. policy on Iraq?
PHILLIPS: I think it's more than politics. I think it's a policy vision of what the United States wants in Iraq, and the way to get there is through a U.S.-led initiative.
I maintain that too many cooks spoil the broth and when there's no consensus, you end up with the United Nations diluting the goals and pursuing lowest common denominator policies, which undermine the effectiveness of the over-arching policy.
So I think he played it just right.
ROTH: All right, and I think both men wouldn't mind if I give the lady, Felicity Barringer, the final comment, briefly, on your tenure at the United Nations, a memory that you'd like to pass to the viewers before you depart the scene there.
BARRINGER: Be very careful when you say United Nations exactly what you're talking about.
When I came here, I had some preconceptions of what the institution was like and how it worked, and I found it was much, much more complex than I ever dreamt of. It is a fascinating place. It doesn't always work. It doesn't always work well. But it sure is an example of what can happen when major powers get together and try and fix what's happening in the world.
ROTH: OK. Thank you very much, Felicity Barringer, the final word, the "New York Times" correspondent there. We will miss her at her post. In the middle there, James Phillips, of the Heritage Foundation in Washington. And with me in the studio, William Luers, of the United Nations Association of the U.S. and we're going to hear more from that group in a moment.
It was a big week for China, as we've talked about, on the world scene. It became the world's third country ever to put a man into space orbit. Yang Liwei also carried two United Nations flags as a commitment to using outer space for peaceful purposes.
Upon return, the astronaut proclaimed it the greatest day of his life.
Down on earth, China's U.N. Ambassador Wan Gon Li (ph), calm but happy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WAN GON LI (ph), CHINESE AMB. TO U.N.: It certainly was a big event in China, as in the world, but this prove that after many years of effort, that China is making progress in the development of science, especially this space scientific and technological development in China, has made tremendous progress. But certainly I think we'd like to have more cooperation with other countries, so this is a big event and we are very happy with that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ROTH: It was like manna from heave for people who work at the United Nations. Members of the famous Mexican rock group Manna (ph) were named goodwill ambassadors for the Food and Agriculture Organization. They plan to donate a dollar from every ticket from their latest U.S. tour to FAO and a wildlife group. It seems some of these women would pay more than $1 for an autograph from a band which has been dubbed the Mexican U2.
The lead singer of U2, Bono, was in New York last week to draw a crowd with money and influence and also deliver with style and humor a lecture on the amnesia people get in high places when it comes to AIDS.
The event was orchestrated by the UNA of the U.S. and the Business Council for the United Nations. Global leadership awards to people who are playing roles in the fight against AIDS.
DIPLOMATIC LICENSE is your exclusive international ticket to the dinner.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BONO, HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST: It's an emergency. 7,000 Africans are dying every day of a preventable, treatable disease. This is madness. This is jumbo loads of people falling out of the sky every day. And we have the drugs.
KOFI ANNAN, U.N. SECY.-GEN.: We have all seen how much can happen when presidents, corporate chiefs and band leaders, like my good friend Bono, whom I delighted to see here tonight, seize an issue and single- mindedly identify themselves with it.
BONO: I've got this song that I'm singing, and I keep thinking that if I sing it loud enough and insistent enough, well, then popes or presidents, bankers, bureaucrats, heads of extraordinary corporations, will join the growing chorus.
DR. ALEX COUTINHO, AIDS SUPPORT ORGANIZATION: I dedicate this plaque to all people living with HIV and AIDS, the 17 million Africans who have died already from this pandemic, and the 30 million Africans still living with HIV and AIDS.
TOMMY THOMPSON, U.S. SECY. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: In a quarter-century, ladies and gentlemen, this awful plague has killed more people than all of the wars of the 20th century combined.
BONO: You can't get it out of your head. It's haunting. You hear 6,500 Africans die every day of a preventable, treatable disease.
ALAN SCHWARTZ, PRES. OF BEAR STEARNS: We are citizens of one world, and those of us who live in the developed world have a responsibility and an opportunity to bring the know-how and the resources, the financial and other to the parts of the world that have been ravaged by poverty and disease.
BONO: If we're talking about public diplomacy, these pills are like diplomats. They are an embodiment of global good will in 50 or 100 milligrams, and imagine if they reached the poorest part of the world in that red, white and blue.
Cocoa-Cola and Elvis used to represent America around the world. Maybe they still do. But in this new century, in this time of crisis, these drugs, these live-saving drugs, are how America should be known.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROTH: The women of the 2003 Global Humanitarian Action Award, Dr. Alex Coutinho was shown in that report -- his sister, Stella, died of AIDS in 1999. She was unable to get the drugs that would have extended her life.
Dr. Coutinho himself had tested his sister for HIV a decade earlier and had to give her the results. He now cares for three of her orphaned children and says her death haunts him still.
Dr. Coutinho dedicated the award to his sister as well as the millions of others who have lost their lives and are now fighting on for others.
That's DIPLOMATIC LICENSE for this week. I'm Richard Roth in New York. Thanks for watching.
END
TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE THE SECURE ONLINE ORDER FROM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
|
