US's Richard Murphy discuss issues in roundtable meeting
Regional-USA, Politics, 4/5/2002

Herewith is the full text of the roundtable meeting former US ambassador in Damascus, former US under secretary of state for the near East and of the foreign affairs council Mr. Richard Murphy held with correspondents of Arab and foreign media in Damascus

Here follows is the Questiona and Answer session:
Murphy: I have been travelling in the area for the past three weeks, first attending a conference on "Islam and the Dialogue of Civilizations" that the National Library sponsored under the auspices of Crown Prince Abdullah in Riyadh, then visiting a number of the GCC states. I arrived in Beirut just after the Summit, and in Damascus the day before yesterday. It's a great pleasure to be back in Damascus. My wife and I first came to your country in 1960, before at least two of you were born, and served in Aleppo when we had a Consulate there, until 1963. Then I came back as Ambassador in 1974 and stayed until mid-1978.

I've been able to visit Syria since then as Assistant Secretary and now in my capacity at the Council on Foreign Relations which is a private institute. It does not accept any federal government funding or support. It carries out a program of independent studies; foreign policy is the core of its activities, but it includes work on international trade and technology transfer, refugee issues. It tries to cover a wide variety of programs with an international aspect, and make recommendations to improve American foreign policy. But, I emphasize again, it is not an organ, not a part of the U.S. Government at all, and our advice, if asked for, is not always followed. Thank you.

Q:): Mr. Murphy, as an expert on the American policies in the Middle East, do you see that U.S. foreign policy towards what's happening in the Occupied Territories, or towards what we hear about a possible military action against Iraq, do you think that this American position helps American interests in the long term?

A: Our long-term interest lies in playing a part in bringing about a general peace in the region. The partial peace that has been reached with Egypt and Jordan was never the American goal; it was to be a general peace, first starting with the countries in the immediate neighborhood of Israel and those two peace treaties were very important, but the business remains incomplete. The efforts are incomplete, and there are four potential partners who are far from a position to reach a full agreement. That is Israel with the Palestinians, with Syria, and with Lebanon.

We're not getting anywhere at this point in time given the tragedy that is unfolding before all of our eyes between the Israelis and the Palestinians. And I never thought there could be a further partial agreement, that is between Syria and Lebanon with Israel, until major progress had been made on the Palestinian issue. Whether those two countries would feel it necessary to wait on a full and final Palestinian agreement, one never knew. I couldn't predict. But, certainly in the present atmosphere, it's unthinkable that there can be any agreement of a lasting nature between Syria, Lebanon and Israel until a very different situation prevails on the West Bank.

I was very pleased to hear from President Bush in October the reference to his vision of a future state of Palestine side by side with the state of Israel, and with the more detailed speech made by Secretary Powell at the end of November, which included a word long taboo for American political leaders, the "occupation" of the West Bank and Gaza, which had to end to get to that state where a viable Palestinian state would exist in secure and recognized boundaries next to Israel.

So the direction of the vision is sound. Of course, I'm not satisfied with the way the state of affairs is today, or with the depth of involvement of the American government in trying to bring about the restart of political negotiations.

On Iraq, I can only tell you that the determination in Washington appears to be very firm that the Iraqi people, this region of the world, and the broader international community would be much better off were there to be a change of regime in Baghdad. And we can discuss that further, but I see no flexibility in the American position that the Iraq regime is one which has caused great damage to the Iraqi people and the region, and is pursuing a program of weapons of mass destruction, weapons which it has used in the past against its people and against Iranian neighbors. But exactly how that change of regime will come, again, I can't predict.

I did want to make it clear; I think that the change in rhetoric by the American Secretary of State, Colin Powell, last November in describing the situation in the West Bank and Gaza as one of "occupation," which may strike readers in this part of the world as a normal phrase, had never been used by a senior American official before.

Q: Yesterday (Tuesday), Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld made a statement in which he accused, or actually, warned Syria, Iraq and Iran about their support to what he called "terrorist groups." These groups are considered terrorist by Mr. Rumsfeld while they are considered liberation movements by these countries. What are your comments on that?

A: I don't know what prompted Mr. Rumsfeld's comments the other day. The American authorities have talked for some years about the activities of the Hizbullah militia in Lebanon, which they have described as terrorist. I think without getting into the debate of what is liberation, what is national resistance and what is terrorism, we should remember the experience of the Americans in the 1980's when the American Embassy was blown up twice, when the Marine barracks were blown up in Beirut, when the hostages were taken, and where the hand of Hizbollah was clear behind all of those events. So, any support for any activity of Hizbollah has been considered supporting terrorism. Now, when Hizbollah redirected its activities to focus on Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon, there's ground to argue that that was not terrorism. But American officials, and Mr. Rumsfeld was, as you know, in the first Bush Administration, has very dark memories of those times. And, to the extent that the organization (Hizbollah) has been assisted over the years by other parties, I think that may explain his view. However, I repeat, I don't know what brought him to make that particular statement about Syria, Iraq, and Iran. Iraq and Iran were labelled part of the "axis of evil" as the President used the term last January. But, I think this may be the first senior-level statement to include Syria.

Just to clarify again, some say that the shift in focus of Hizbollah, that that was not terrorism. (Question interjected: who are the "some?" Is it the leadership?) I don't think it's the top leadership, no. The top leadership tends to use the word terrorism as a very general charge, almost equating it with violence. I think there is an essential difference between violence and terrorism, but the prevailing view in the Administration is that is for intellectuals to say.

Q: Mr. Murphy, as a strategist, and following the September 11 attacks in New York and Washington, everybody thought that the intellectuals, the decision-makers, the U.S. Administration, would take new considerations into their policy making vis-?-vis the Middle East. Everybody thought that reaching a peaceful resolution to this conflict was imminent. Now, what we see is contrary, especially over the last week. I would like to have your comment in general. And, in your opinion, what criteria does the U.S. Administration adopt when classifying Syria as a member of the "axis of evil." Thank you.

A: The wound of September 11 is still very fresh in American minds. The anger is very strong. For a period of several weeks, to discuss anything but the horror of the attack and to ask why it had happened was considered as trying to justify the attack -- even to explain was to justify. You remember the incident of Prince Walid bin Talal presenting a check to Mayor Guiliani and having the check rejected because his press officer had distributed a statement at that moment that America should re-examine its Middle East policy. In September, that was considered an insult by the mayor, by many Americans who felt as I say that to ask such a question, make such a suggestion was to be party to approving what had happened. That has changed. There are many asking the question, "why are we hated as Americans?" There is a much broader debate on that subject today than I can remember in many years. Americans are accustomed to seeing their country, my country as well-meaning, benevolent, helpful, all of the nice words and not the opposite. But, September 11 never promised, and I don't think any in the Administration or those of us following American policy from outside, forecast a major change, a quick major change, in American policy towards the Middle East. The policy was to try to find a way to bring the level of violence down, start the process that would get the parties back to negotiations, Israelis and Palestinians, and that hasn't changed. That is a constant.

The American government has not classified Syria as the axis of evil. The Secretary of Defense made a comment the other day; I cannot explain his comment. The President of the United States is the ultimate shaper of American policy; I have not heard any such comment from the President or from the Secretary of State. But there is an uneasiness, there's deep uneasiness in Washington about the current level of violence, concern that it might spread, spill-over, that's why you've heard the statements of the last 24 hours about the worries concerning southern Lebanon once again. The Israeli Prime Minister made one of his stern statements about no-one being immune to Israeli retaliation. Is he serious? Do his words mean action? Not necessarily leading to a specific reaction, but it's a worrisome time.

Q: In the beginning you said that the Institute you represent makes recommendations to the U.S. Administration. I want to know what are the recommendations that you are making for the improvement of U.S. policies in the region. And what are the things that you talked about in your meeting with President Asad? And, for me, there is something which is unclear. It took the American Administration 54 years to acknowledge that there is an Israeli occupation of Palestinian areas. So, what does the U.S. want now? Is it to put an end to violence only? That's unclear.

A: First, we don't make recommendations as an Institute. We have sponsored studies, independent studies on issues such as the Development of Palestinian Governmental Institutions, how to strengthen them. That's done by what we call an independent study group. It does not reflect necessarily nor speak for the Council on Foreign Relations. And there's nothing secret about these. Our literature, our reports are all public. Our journal, "Foreign Affairs," which is published, I believe, now five times a year, is publicly available, and it welcomes articles from all points of view on issues in foreign policy, with a particular emphasis that they should relate to where the policy is today, and how do you think it might go in a more positive direction.

My meeting with President Asad was the first opportunity I've had to meet with him. I found it a very valuable opportunity for me to discuss Syrian attitudes towards American policy, Syria's role in the region, and, of course, Syria's attitude towards Israel. I found the President very frank, and very self-confident, and it was a very for me a very useful exchange. I had known the late President since 1974, when I was picked to be the first Ambassador here to re-establish relations that had been cut since the six-day war. And, I recall some of my meetings with the late President. So it was a very welcome opportunity to be able to give my interpretation of how the region looks to me as one who had formerly served in Syria, and to discuss his views of Syria's present and future.

Yes, it took 54 years (sic) to use the word "occupation." That's a long time. It reflects the complexities of American policy-making. We have an expression in English that if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck; then it's a duck. And, I think we're now fortunately able to use that word, "occupation."

It's not just a question of stopping violence but there is a conviction which you read about every time an American official makes a statement that nothing can move ahead towards restarting political negotiations until the violence has ended. Now, of course, American history doesn't support that. We negotiated with the Vietnamese in the middle of a war, as we did with the North Koreans. But I think it is fair to say that the amount of blood that has been spilled, the level of fear that has been raised on both sides about the other's intentions have made it essential to bring the level of violence down and present, at the same time, a very clear picture to the people, the Palestinian and the Israeli people, that a far better world can be out there, and that was why Washington welcomed the initiative of Crown Prince Abdullah. Now, he said from the beginning that this is a vision, and he put it in very clear simple terms. But it was a vision of what may be, what can be. But it was also a reminder of what Israel had hoped for ever since the 1940's: acceptance and normal relations.

He said that it's out there; there's a condition. But I think it was the first welcome piece of news, the first major policy pronouncement now picked up by the Arab Summit to come out of the Arab world in a long time, to come out of Israel, to come out of the region in a long time. And, it has given a measure of hope since it came, perhaps particularly surprisingly, from Saudi Arabia given its weight in the Arab and Islamic world and given particularly the hearing that Crown Prince Abdullah has in Washington. So, as I say, it was very welcome.

And American policy is not looking just for an end of violence; that's only the first step. What it hasn't found is the way to get the parties to take that first step. And, as of today, it's very hard to avoid pessimism. It may be that many Israelis and many Palestinians are prepared to go on killing, sacrificing, before they are ready for that first step.

Q: First of all, you said that the Council is independent from the government. Are there Jewish groups which support this Council? And, what's the size of their contributions, and are there pro-Arab groups which support this council? And, back to the situation in the region, the situation is potentially explosive with a green light from the U.S. Administration. Would the United States exploit the tension in the region and take advantage of this opportunity to launch military action against states in the region? Iraq or any other? Especially given the statements made by Rumsfeld and Sharon.

A: The financial support for the Council on Foreign Relations comes from basically three sources. One is the annual membership dues of some 3,500 members in the United States with a few of those living outside the country. And from corporations; we have about 200 corporations that pay a higher fee for membership and it gives them the opportunity to attend our sessions. The third source of funding are foundations such as Rockefeller, Ford Foundation to which we go when there's a project we want to carry out, and it cannot be funded from the endowment that has been accumulated by the Council's membership fees and from donations. I'm not aware of any donations, to use your term, by Jewish groups or Arab groups. We have perhaps a dozen chairs: one is named after David Rockefeller, one is named after Paul Volcker the economist, so it's not a question of being a mouthpiece for any particular political party, ethnic group, or any particular point of view. As I said, the Council does not have a point of view; it's a forum. I think the private funding is something that is not common outside of the United States, private philanthropy. And people are used to assuming, and correctly assuming that many research institutes in Europe, for instance, enjoy a healthy measure of government support.

We use the term about our senior staff; we described them as holding a chair. This is a term taken from universities, a chair endowed by, funded by someone. My own is known as the Hasib J. Sabbagh chair, you may know his name from his work as a major Palestinian businessman whose been very active in trying to advance peace in the region over the years.

The question about the United States Government exploiting tension in the region shows that the conspiracy theory of international politics remains alive and well in your mind. No, is the short answer. I don't think there's any evidence that Washington intends to exploit this tension. Washington was extremely concerned about the Iraqi regime for years before the present tension, at a time when the peace process, Arab-Israeli, Palestinian-Israeli, was in far healthier condition, when there was a very promising dialogue. That concern is not new. And a terribly long period of time has passed since the war in '91 and the imposition of sanctions which were imposed, very tough sanctions, through the United Nations Security Council on the assumption they need only last until the regime collapsed, was overthrown presumably from within, and that was predicted publicly by any number of commentators, experts, specialists. It would take about six months. Then the revulsion against the leadership would be so strong that it would be put aside. It didn't happen for reasons that you are all familiar with.

But I don't think Washington is looking for an excuse to launch a military operation. The term that the President has used, "War on Terrorism," is a very aggressive statement of intentions, yet those are not necessarily involving military action. It's a war which can be a war of persuasion. A "campaign" might be a less emotional word; a campaign against terrorism. As I understand it, the Al Qaeda network may be present, may have cells in some 60 different countries. The President has said it's going to be a long war. And, he has felt the anger of the American people about September 11, and the threat to modern civilization, and we all hope it will be preserved. And terrorism is described Ð this is my definition but I think it is one generally acceptable Ð as an act against innocent civilians to achieve or to advance a political cause. This is something that the President intends to fight against. But it need not be a question of American military force. President Bush is seen through many eyes as a cowboy, prone to take violent, impulsive action, but just remember how he tried to get Mullah Omar, as leader of the Taliban government to deliver the leaders of Al Qaeda. Some in Afghanistan wanted that to happen. There was a meeting of the senior clerics who said perhaps the sooner that Osama bin Laden would leave the country, the better. But the political leadership of the Taliban could not bring itself to deliver Al-Qaeda, which we have been convinced from the beginning was behind September 11th. And it was only then that military action was undertaken. There was an effort to handle it politically and there will be further such political efforts.

Q: I'll start from the place where my colleague ended. Do American institutes try to offer an answer to the American people about why they are hated. There is a general belief that the American people are good people, but it seems that American officials arrive at the truth when they leave their positions, as seen in the statements made by former Secretary Albright and former President Bill Clinton. Another question about the situation in the region. Are American efforts sufficient now to stop the violence? And, how can we understand the American Secretary of State when he justifies what the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, is doing. Yasser Arafat is besieged, he is a Palestinian citizen and perhaps what's happening to the Palestinian people is more important than what's happening to the Palestinian leader.

A: The debate in America on this topic, why do they hate us, isn't confined to institutes or think tanks. You'll find it discussed in the main pages of our newspapers, by our columnists and on our TV talk shows. It's a very open debate, a very general debate. Forty different nationalities died in the World Trade Towers. It was an attack on an American symbol, the economic power of the United States. It killed nearly 3,000 innocents, unless one is fanatic enough to accept Osama bin Laden's definition that every American should be killed wherever he is because all Americans pay taxes and therefore are responsible for their government's policy. But it's only the fanatic that would try to explain the world in those terms. But Americans are very proud of being the host to the world. It's made us great. We are all immigrants to America; including the American Indians who came from Asia. But we're all immigrants. And we've tried to make everyone welcome who chooses to come to our country. So, it's puzzling to be wounded in that way, to be attacked in that way as it occurred in September.

I've often heard the statement that our officials arrive at truth only when they leave office. It's not that. Being in office does impose a certain discipline. There is always debate within an Administration, there's always discussion about different ways to proceed. But, at the end of the day, there's a President, and he expresses the policy for the Executive. We have only one President at a time. It's like the debate, I assume, that may go on in some news offices when you have an editor, and occasionally you may write an article that doesn't get published for reasons best known to the editor.

Are the efforts sufficient? In my opinion, no, but I think Washington is trying to bring an end to or a cutting back on the violence. I don't think Washington understands how, or knows quite what to do at this point, which is why you have heard many different comments by many senior officials. The goal is clear: get the parties back to the table. How to do it is a topic of very intense debate right now. I don't know which statement of Secretary Powell's you're referring to; the last one I heard was taking the position that Arafat should stay in his Ð in it didn't say in the prison that is his compound in Ramallah -- but he should not leave the country, that is not a solution, he is the leader. So Powell has not endorsed the invitation to leave, extended via a one-way ticket by Prime Minister Sharon. But I think it's clear. You get, particularly over these past several days, an effort to define a position and it shows how much in flux, how fluid it is at this moment in Washington. Their goal is clear. Their goal is beyond challenge, beyond criticism, but the critics are saying you're not doing enough, you should do this you should do that. And I think that's the way to interpret these various comments coming out of the senior levels of the Administration. The situation is changing very fast and not changing for the better.

If I could just sum up briefly: I did not intend to say, and I don't mean to be understood as saying that Washington does not know where it is going. What I am saying is that it's not getting there. It is convinced that the plans for a cease-fire by the CIA Director Tenet, and that the interim stage that Senator George Mitchell's Commission outlined, are the building blocks to get the parties back to the table. At the moment these are seen in sequence. First a Tenet cease-fire, then a Mitchell period of the measures that he talked about, including ending of settlement construction, and then restarting the peace talks. It may be that there isn't time; maybe there's a way to move more quickly to put those together. I don't know; I honestly don't know. But, it's not that Washington has been inactive. The names of Tenet and Mitchell are out there as signposts of what it's been trying to do. Powell's statements, Zinni's presence; all these are signs of the activity. So far, Washington hasn't made a significant impact on the level of violence.

But, it's not for lack of ideas and lack of concern. I think one new element in Washington that I sense is a welcome to the efforts by the Europeans and possibly the UN Secretary General and the Russians. That was incorporated into the latest Security Council Resolution. This is new, in the sense that in the 1990's and for the past several years it's been commonly described as the American peace process. Very possessive. Our peace process. Don't mess it up, you outsiders. That isn't the tone today. So there are very intense consultations with Kofi Anan, with the Russians, and with the Europeans. And I think it has been recognized long before the Bush Administration that it is not enough to talk about working to assure the security of Israel. That used to be a common saying; that's what we really care about, the security of Israel. But, for several years now it's been recognized that Israel is never going to be secure until Israel is accepted in the region, Israel is never going to be accepted in the region until it has adjusted its policies to be accepted as offering a just and durable peace, and that peace will not be durable unless the parties accept the Israeli positions.

And the same holds true for the Arab positions. There will be inevitably at the negotiating table amendments, accommodations in positions that have been defended and maintained for decades. But that's what making peace is all about. Finding a way to get to common ground. But it's not seen in Washington as a matter of just working for the security of Israel; everyone's security is involved.

Previous Stories:
  An international conference in Ashbelya   (3/29/2002)
  American Islamic societies protest against breaking in operations of their premises   (3/23/2002)
  US ambassador commends Saudi Arabia's peace ideas   (3/13/2002)

Please add a link on your webiste pointing to ArabicNews.com and bookmark ArabicNews.com & subscribe to our daily email news bulletin.

Search