Question of Palestine home || Permalink || About UNISPAL || Search

Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter

"As is" reference - not a United Nations document

Source: United States of America
17 February 2006

Roundtable With Arab Print Journalists

Secretary Condoleezza Rice

Washington, DC
February 17, 2006

(11:00 a.m. EST)


QUESTION: We heard some statements from Ismail Haniya, the Hamas leader, who said to compensate for the possible funding cuts, he might turn to Iran and he said these (inaudible) Iran. Are you going to discuss this with the leaders and what are you asking from them and -- sorry for that -- the second part of the question is a little bit open or related to Abu Dhabi and the issue of the deal of the ports, (inaudible). We have harsh statement, harsh language from the congressman and I would like some comment from you on that as well.



Hamas. The international community, I think, has an obligation to first be very pleased for the Palestinian people that they finally got an opportunity to express themselves in free and open elections. It's important. It's important what happened. It's important too, that the Palestinian people -- to understand the Palestinian people wanted change, that after a decade of -- more than a decade of corrupt leadership that did not address their needs, the Palestinian people wanted change.

Now, let me just say a word about Abu Mazen, because this is somebody who tried -- in the years that he was Prime Minister, he did try to change things for the better. He and his very good Finance Minister, Salam Fayad, did try to root out corruption in the Palestinian Authority. I remember that they published the budget on the internet so that people could see what money was going toward. They did such a good job of making the economic policies transparent that they were receiving the regular tax revenues back from the Israeli Government.

We shouldn't -- should not lose sight of the fact that Abu Mazen and his people did try, but they weren't able to fully transform Fatah. They weren't able to fully transform the Palestinian Authority. They were unable to deal with the security situation in Gaza after the Israelis left and the Palestinian people voted for change. But I am quite sure that the Palestinian people did not change their view that they want a good and peaceful life.

And the other obligation of the international community is to say that the only path to a good and peaceful life is to have a government that is prepared to seek a two-state solution, that is prepared to recognize the other party to that two-state solution. You can't say you want the destruction of Israel and be committed to a two-state solution. So, the -- Hamas needs to do that. They also need to renounce violence, because you can't have one foot in violence and terrorism and another foot in the political process. So, the international community is making, I think, what is just a very practical case. You can not be a responsible government and -- govern responsibly and call for the destruction of the Israeli state and resort to violence.

Now, I know that they have said all kinds of things about where else they might seek funding. I would hope that any state that is considering funding Hamas would -- a Hamas-led government would think about the implications of that for the Middle East and for the Middle East peace process. Most of the Arab states are committed to a peace process, including Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Egypt, Jordan -- all committed to a peace process. Now, if you're committed to a peace process, you also have to be committed to partners who are prepared to seek peace and I would hope that would be the case.

Iran is not committed to a peace process. That's very clear. They're committed to quite the opposite. But I would just put it this way. Iran has its own troubles with the international community and it might want to think twice about enhancing those troubles with the international community, because Iran is clearly not in a very good position right now. They're in the Security Council and unless they find a way to deal better with the international system, that situation is only going to get worse.


QUESTION: My name is Munir. I'm with Asharq Alawsat newspaper and I would like to ask you first about your trip. Is it going to be to only Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and United Arab Emirate or some other country? Are you going to stop in Israel, for example?

The second thing, how can you face the Iranian influence in the region, for example, in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon with Hamas, even in Yemen? Some people here in the U.S. say Iranian -- Iran is better off after Saddam. Now, we have information leaking from Syria that they get an offer from Iran to rebuild Syria military. They are going to get maybe a billion of dollars. Hamas, as Hany said, getting money from Iran. Even in Yemen and north of Yemen, the military conflict -- as journalists, we see Iranian influence.

How can you face the influence of Iran in the region?


Well, you are right about the negative impact of Iran's policies in the region and the fact that Iran is pursuing policies that are destabilizing in the region and in fact, that they are doing it in -- it appears in more places than before. But I would just make three points.

The first is, there has to be a consensus among the states and concerted action among the states that are worried about what Iran is doing in the international system to challenge Iran's aggressive policies. That means, for instance, challenging Iran to stop funding terrorists. It means challenging Iran on its nuclear weapons program. It means speaking up for the people of Iran who shouldn't be isolated from the international community. As you know, we announced that we're going to put forward some money for Iran democracy. People should be trying to reach out to the Iranian people

But I do believe that if the Iranians understand that their policies are going to be challenged, not -- people are not just going to turn a blind eye to what Iran is doing, that their policies are going to be challenged, that Iran itself will have to make some choices, which is, does Iran really wish to take on the international community to keep carrying out policies that are so counterproductive?

As it turns out, the -- on the nuclear policy, they are really almost all alone. I think their supporters in the IAEA were Syria -- which has, by the way, become their sidekick in their hostile policies in international politics as they both play all kinds of games in Lebanon, for instance. Syria has become their sidekick. But the countries that supported them were Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela.

Now, I would say perhaps Iran ought to look at where it is when the countries that support you are Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela; not the major Arab states, not any of the European states. This isn't just about the United States. This is about incredible isolation. And so, I do think that Iran needs to know that its policies are going to be challenged, but perhaps Iran should look at where it is and I don't actually see that Iran is in a very good situation.

QUESTION: And your trip will press on Iran issue?

SECRETARY RICE: No. I'm going out to -- I'll be -- the answer to your first question is Egypt, Saudi, and UAE. I won't go to Israel or to the Palestinian territories on this trip. But I just -- there are a lot of things to talk about. We need to talk about the future of the peace process and about Hamas. We need to talk about Iran. I want to talk to people about Iraq, where we're soon going to have the formation of a new government and where I would hope that Iraq's neighbors are ready now to support Iraq as it moves toward the establishment of a permanent government. The Iraqis are going to need the support of their neighbors. The neighbors have been very helpful, by the way, in working with the Sunnis to get them more involved in the political system and so, I think we'll talk some more about that.

It's a broad range of -- there are a broad range of issues to talk about and the only reason that I will not go to Jordan is that the -- His Majesty was just here, so we had extensive discussions when he was here.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, Hisham Melhem from An Nahar in Beirut and Al-Arabiya too. You spoke recently about Iran's meddling in the region and you mentioned that Syria now is its sidekick and you also talked about Hezbollah. Specifically, do you sense that your friends in the Gulf are concerned about that aspect, the Syrian and Hezbollah aspect? And you said that the Syrians have been emboldened by this recently and you have seen from Hezbollah, also, that they have been emboldened. I mean, will you be asking them for certain specific measures, because obviously, Iran is stronger than Syria and Hezbollah?

And on Hamas, specifically, if I may ask another question, because everyone is asking more than one question, will you be asking the Saudis and the UAE and all those states whether they have stringent limitations now on private groups sending money -- not government -- sending money to Saudis like Prince Turki al-Faysal said that we have those mechanisms on the ground now.

Are you satisfied by that and will you ask about that?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, clearly, Saudi Arabia has made a lot of progress in terms of tracking terrorist financing and in terms of these private groups. I think there's still work to do. It's hard. It's not an easy process to know what is happening with so-called or charitable institutions that are really not charitable. They're funding terrorism. But they have measures in place. I think we continue to work to make sure that those measures are getting stronger and that they are robust enough, but it is true that Saudi has taken on this issue much more strongly than they ever had before.

What I will say about Hamas is simply that those who are committed to an international consensus behind the roadmap and behind the peace process should be demanding of any Palestinian entity that it also be committed to the peace process and to the roadmap. You can't have it both ways.


SECRETARY RICE: And that is really the issue on Hamas. On Iranian influence and Iranian mischief-making in the region, yes, I would hope that those states that are worried about this -- and I hear from plenty of states that they're worried about it -- that they're prepared to really say to the Iranians this -- you're going to be isolated from us, too, if you continue down this road because, again, this is not the United States. We have not had relations with Iran for more than two decades. A lot of countries have relations with Iran and have watched as Iran's policies have gotten more and more aggressive, particularly on the nuclear front, and there's really now an obligation to let the Iranians know, in no uncertain terms, that this isolation is going to be complete if they continue down this road.

QUESTION: What about the Syrian-Hezbollah nexus in Iran?

SECRETARY RICE: Yes, yes, yes. Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, it is a nexus and it's clearly a problem for what the Lebanese people want to do, which is to get on with their multi-ethnic democracy and multi-religious democracy. And I think one thing we're going to have to do is, we need to go back the -- after Mr. Meles left, of course, it took Mr. Brammertz a little time to get up to speed. I think he's a very fine -- by all reports, a tough-minded prosecutor and investigator. And what needs to happen now is that we probably have to go back and review the questions about Syrian compliance with UN Security Council resolution.

We have to go back and review compliance with 1559. We have to do some of the things that the Lebanese Government is asking us to do; strengthen the Lebanese army, for instance, so that there is one security force that is actually capable of protecting Lebanon. And we shouldn't expect the Lebanese to do some things until they're actually able or they actually have the capacity to do it. And so, that's also important for the international community.

But there's no doubt that Syria is -- Syria, Iran and Hezbollah are a problem for the future course of Lebanon's development and also, therefore, the future course of the region, because Lebanon's democracy and Lebanon's independence and Lebanon's ability to chart its own course will be one of the most important elements of a changed Middle East. We were able -- the international community was able to get Syria out in -- its military forces out, but now, its negative influences also have to be out.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, the demands for Hamas is to recognize history and to abandon terror and bylaws. You are going to (inaudible) Egyptian (inaudible) -- Egypt, in particular, as being -- playing a very, very important role on mediating with Palestinian and Israel.

Is there any consideration that -- for any role or you are going to ask this government to have Hamas answer those demand? And the other part of my question -- this President is very concerned about the situation. He has a plan to have the two states being out there before -- and if the (inaudible) with this latest development, if that's what's we still -- you see it and we're going to work hard together, happen before he leaves office.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, we are prepared to work hard on the two-state solution, but it requires partners. We made considerable progress with the withdraw from Gaza and -- the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. The Palestinians then had territory. They had an international crossing for the first time. I myself did the Rafah agreement. And so, they had -- there was a real opportunity there.

We are still prepared to pursue that opportunity and pursue it fully. There is no reason that the Palestinian people ought to be denied statehood, a more peaceful life, an end to the kind of daily humiliations that -- to which they are currently subjected. There's no reason that that can't all come to -- that that can't come to an end and we can't have a two-state solution, if there is a Palestinian Government that is prepared to pursue it. And that if there is a Palestinian Government that is prepared to pursue peace, a two-state solution to renounce violence, to disarm militias, then they have no better partner than the United States in trying to push forward a two-state solution. But it goes without saying that you can't have a peace process if one of the parties is not committed to peace and that's certainly the choice that Hamas faces.

I'll be very frank. I hope Hamas makes the right choice. Nothing would be better than to have Hamas make the right choice, because if you had all of the entities of the Palestinian people united in the renunciation of violence, disarming of militias, the acceptance of Israel's right to exist, I believe you could move the peace process along really very rapidly. The last year or so, in particular, the Israelis have been talking more and more about the need to share the land. They've been talking more and more about the need for a two-state solution again with Prime Minister Sharon and has continued with Acting Prime Minister Olmert.

Everybody knows that Israel has responsibilities as well, that Israel should not try to prejudge a final status outcome, that it's important that Israel do everything that it can to make it possible for the Palestinian people to have a good life and a normal existence and to move freely. But you need, on the part of the Palestinians, a partner that's committed to doing -- to peaceful life. It's hard to imagine movement and access if you won't renounce violence, because then, you say, "Well, what is the movement and access going to be used for?"

So, what really is important here is that the lives and the future of ordinary Palestinians is really what's at stake. You know, we tend to talk about, the government must do this and the government must do that, and we talk about the diplomacy and we meet with leaders and so forth. But what's really at stake here is, what is life going to be like for the Palestinian people after their first free and fair election? And if they have a government that is prepared to meet their aspirations for a peaceful life, after having gone through this election, then I think the future could be very good.

Let me just say one thing on assistance. We've been very clear that there are -- that while we will not allow American assistance to go to a terrorist organization, we just won't allow it, we are aware of the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people and we want to try to do what we can to be responsive to those humanitarian needs, because we want the Palestinian people to not -- we don't want to see suffering among the Palestinian people. We want them to have a good life.

QUESTION: Just a --

SECRETARY RICE: Oh, sure. Yes.

QUESTION: Just as a part of the question, will you be asking -- considering any (inaudible) from the Arab countries to talk to Hamas to help them answering this demand that (inaudible)?

SECRETARY RICE: Oh. Well, the Egyptians are having those discussions and, I think, doing very good work to try and convince Hamas that there is an international consensus to which now, Hamas must respond. I understand that, you know, there may be others, but I -- what I would hope is that there would be a message that would be delivered and that if Hamas is not prepared to listen to that message, that there -- let me put it this way; I think there's only one reason for contact at this point. That's to make clear what the message is to Hamas and that's the point that we're making to anyone who might have contact with Hamas.



QUESTION: Sara Hussein, Saudi Press Agency. I have two questions, if I can speak them very -- a little bit fast. When you're in Egypt, will you be talking or addressing the recent cancellation or the postponement of the local elections? And what is it that you're going to have to say about that?

And then, back to the issue about the humanitarian need for the Palestinians. I just wonder if you could elaborate on what possible mechanisms or processes you might be looking at for, sort of, channeling money to the Palestinians with humanitarian need (inaudible) avoiding the government?

SECRETARY RICE: Yes. Well, we are reviewing all of our assistance programs. There were some assistance programs that we had contemplated a more direct relationship with the Palestinian Authority and had, indeed, for the first time in our history, a couple of times, actually -- or the first time in many years, actually directly transferred money to the Palestinian Authority.

If you have a Palestinian Government that is not committed to peace and to the international consensus, I just don't see how we could do that. We do have programs that are in support of refugee policies that the UN runs. We have policies that relate to food assistance through the World Food Programme. We have some projects through other nongovernmental organizations.

The United States of America is not going to stop giving money for the immunization of Palestinian children. It would be against our values to do that. So, for the most vulnerable and innocent populations, you know, we will find a way to respond to those humanitarian needs. And we have long established ties, either through the UN or through some nongovernmental organizations that I think will allow us to do that, but assistance that might help a government that is dedicated to the destruction of Israel, that's just not going to happen.


Let me take this opportunity to say something about what we've just been through, because I'm reading a lot in the papers these days about how -- "Well, you know, you made this mistake, you thought democracy could take hold in the Middle East, you supported elections and what have you done? You've supported elections that brought to power Islamists or extremists or in the case of Hamas, a group that you consider a terrorist group. Aren't you sorry that you supported these democratic processes?"

Absolutely not. It was the only thing to do. It was -- first of all, from the point of view of the United States, the only moral thing to do. The idea that somehow, it is better for people to lack the means and the chance to express themselves, that it's better to support that and to, therefore, support dictatorship or oppression or authoritarianism where people don't have a voice -- it's, I think, morally reprehensible. People have to have a way to express themselves or, if they don't have a legitimate way to express themselves, they express themselves through extremism.

Secondly, there is an assumption, somehow, that the Middle East was somehow a stable paradise; that the United States' policies disturbed, and if we had just not insisted on the overthrow of dictatorship in Iraq or that Syrian forces leave Lebanon or that the Palestinian people have an opportunity to express themselves, everything would have been fine. But of course, that's not the Middle East as it existed three or four years ago. The Middle East was a place that you had such a great freedom deficit that people were expressing themselves by flying airplanes into buildings. That was a lesson we had to learn, that the 60 years of turning our backs on democracy in the Middle East and favoring "stability" in the Middle East had given us neither stability nor democracy.

And the problem is that after 60 years, it's perhaps not surprising that civil society is not very strong. It's not surprising that parties that express the need for compromise, the need for overcoming differences are weak. Those parties have to be built and it's going to take a while to build them. And perhaps it's true that the most organized parties, in some cases -- they're the most organized entities, in some cases, were more extreme. But I firmly believe that this is a transitional matter, because in politics, you have to deliver for the people, particularly if you have to stand for election by the people, particularly if you have to stand for the people to reaffirm you in elections.

So, what the world community should do is not turn back from democracy in the Middle East; not say, "Oh, my goodness, we got a glimpse of democracy and it's rather scary what can happen with it." That's not the right approach. The right approach is to continue to encourage reform and democracy and openness, to work to establish parties that are moderate in their views, to work to establish civil society, to work to establish the institutions, to say to any who have been elected in these processes and comes from the extremes, "You now have a obligation, however, a responsibility, to work for the aspirations of your people. And your people, as far as we can see, don't want to turn their children into suicide bombers. They don't want to spend their lives trying to destroy Israel and therefore, living in circumstances as the Palestinians do."

And so, the international community has to stand firm for the principle that however you came to power by election, you have responsibilities and one of the responsibilities of democracy is that you cannot have one foot in terrorism and one foot in politics. And it has to be the international community that has to insist on that standard. Now, for anybody who gets into power through election, that's a standard we have to insist upon.

So, while we are building institutions of democracy, we can't let those who have been elected through democratic processes govern undemocratically. We cannot let those who have been elected to processes through democracy keep one foot in terror and one foot in politics.

But it would be a tragedy if we turned back from the insistence that people ought to have a right to choose their leaders. That would be a tragedy and it would be -- for those of us who are fortunate enough to live in countries where we have that right, I think it would be morally reprehensible for us to turn our backs on those who don't yet have that right.


QUESTION: Wow. (Inaudible) from (inaudible). I'd like to follow-up again on the Hamas issue, because there was this report that the United States is pushing for the ousting of the Hamas Government. I know you denied it, but what's the practical effect of cutting the money from Hamas, except doing this, and it fits with what you're saying, that this is a transitional period. So, if Hamas is now in power, maybe we can take some measures to oust them from power.




The United States is not trying to contemplate overthrowing or ousting -- doesn't have a plan for ousting Hamas. That's not the issue for us. As I said, it would -- there would be nothing better, from our point of view, if the Hamas could make the right choice. That would open up possibilities for the Palestinian people and for a Palestinian state that I think even couldn't have been delivered with the Palestinian Authority before.

So, we have every desire to have Hamas make the right choice. It's just a practical matter that the United States cannot provide assistance to a terrorist organization or to a government that's not committed to peace. It's just a practical matter. And by the way, our assistance, with the exception of humanitarian assistance -- all over the world, we have criteria for who we will assist and who we will not. When a country is pursuing policies that are antithetical to American -- you know, to peace and security, American interests, it wouldn't make sense for us to assist those countries either. But in this case, we have a very specific problem, which is that Hamas is committed to the destruction of Israel and that's got to change in order for -- and they have to renounce violence in order for us to be able to deliver assistance.


Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter