In an interview with Khaled Dawoud in Washington, US Deputy Secretary of State maintains that the Iraqi elections will be held on schedule and that the second Bush administration will work towards an Israeli-Palestinian settlement What is your estimate of Egyptian-US relations, and the role Egypt has been playing in Palestine and Iraq? Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul-Gheit and the director of Egypt's intelligence, Omar Suleiman, are working hard to try to get the Palestinian situation back on track. We were delighted with the hosting of the Sharm [El-Sheikh] meeting [on Iraq] by Egypt. We thought it was great. Egypt has been helpful in this question of Iraq. So I think for a whole host of reasons, we're in much better shape with Egypt. The US is grateful both for the efforts of the nation, the president, the foreign minister and General Omar Suleiman. Palestine and Israel How are you going to link the Gaza disengagement plan to the roadmap? What is your vision about that? We view the Gaza disengagement as a step on the roadmap, but I emphasise that it's not the final destination. I think that through this step both the Israelis and Palestinians can gain confidence that there can be disengagement in occupied territories, leading to successful and secure possession of Arab territories by Palestinians. Palestinians can prove through their actions that they are able to govern themselves, provide security and stop terrorism. Israelis can develop confidence. We see it as a first step. And that's why the actions of Egypt to bring this about have been so helpful. But the Gaza plan wasn't part of the roadmap. How are you going to link the two? We see it as a step in terms of developing confidence that this could happen. I saw Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas who said that there could actually be peace by 2005, which is the original timetable of President Bush. I don't know if this can be realised or not. One reason why Arabs are sceptical is that this date to establish a Palestinian state was set by President Bush. Why not keep this date? Here is Abbas saying that perhaps this date can be realised. I think it's a practical matter. A year ago the Israeli-Palestinian situation was so bad that it seemed to be very difficult. At that time, public officials, myself included, were saying: "Well it might have to slip." But the vision remains the same and as a target, 2005 is perfectly good. If we missed by a little bit, fine. As long as we are on the road, as long as people can see an end point and the end point is understood to be two states living side by side. But the US won't push for a particular date anymore? I don't want to get into a situation where I say 30 December 2005 and then Al-Ahram on 2 January 2006 says the US failed. There are serious Palestinian concerns over the settlements issues? Of course. We see the United States so forceful on Palestinian obligations. But even on the illegal outposts Israel did not fulfil its pledges. What is the US stand now on the settlements? The prime minister [of Israel], when he was here, made certain representations to the president of the US about these settlements and outposts and we take the PM of Israel as a man of his word. The president expects him to live up to those representations. I think the dissatisfaction that you seem to be speaking of comes because we're not publicly criticising Israel for this. We have very intense discussions with our Israeli friends about these matters, you must make no mistake about that, but they're private. We feel the best way to get things done with the Israelis is in private. I'm speaking about Israeli reports; even Israeli peace groups say that settlements continue to expand at a high rate despite all that you are saying. I fall back to my previous answer: the PM of Israel has made certain representations to the president, and we expect him to live up to those representations and we think he will. We've had settlement activities where we don't want them to be, which is to cease, stop, finish. What's the fate of the $20 million that was supposed to be provided directly to the Palestinians? There's been discussions with Capitol Hill about providing $20 million to the Palestinians to help them pay their bills. These discussions continue and I certainly hope that there will be a positive outcome. We have the ad-hoc liaison committee [of donors to the Palestinian Authority] meeting coming up [8 December 2004]. It would be nice if this could be done by that time. What are the practical steps that you will take to support the Palestinian elections between now and 9 January? Let's have our Palestinian friends come up with the moves and regulations which should govern this, and then we'll see if there's additional assistance needed such as observers and others. We need to let Palestinians come to their own conclusions about this and then let us know what they think is necessary. To my knowledge they haven't done that yet. Iraq Moving on to Iraq. There are several reports on the possibility of postponing the 30 January election date. What is the US position on the possibility of postponing those elections for a few months? The president just announced his view; the interim Iraqi government has a moral obligation to hold elections on 30 January. The US continues to hold the view that this is doable. We want it to be the widest possible elections. The United Nations' supervisor of these matters in Iraq has said he thinks these are imminently doable, so we continue on that track. Prime Minister Allawi is meeting with Iraqis in Amman, trying to get people living outside the country to come back and take part in the process. The Iraqi electoral commission has also decided that in 14 countries Iraqis living in diasporas will be allowed to vote. So it's a pretty exciting time. But what if the Sunnis decided to boycott the elections? Look, we've seen that movie before. Shias boycotted years ago and then found they were disenfranchised of political life. I think that the majority of Sunnis will come to the realisation that if they don't participate, if they don't cut out an appropriate political space for themselves, they're liable to be second-class citizens. That's becoming the majority view. There is serious concern in the Arab world over the fate of Sunnis in Iraq. Reading some articles in the American press, there are those who say that Shias make up 60 per cent, Kurds 20 per cent, and that is good enough a majority in Iraq, even if Sunnis boycotted the voting. Does the US support this view? No. Absolutely not. In fact the United States has recently gone out to all Arab capitals and asked our diplomats to talk with the leadership and make the point that it is very important that all Sunnis be encouraged to participate. They do have a future in the political life of Iraq and they should take their rightful place. We are completely of the view that Sunnis must participate and we want them to participate as fully as possible. Don't you think that you've lost the battle to win Arab hearts and minds following the model you set recently in Falluja by heavily bombing the city? I don't know. It depends on what point you dial in. The fact that we found more weapons caches and torture chambers in Falluja than we found all year in Iraq is interesting. We found, unfortunately, 60 mosques which were not only fighting positions but also store houses for weapons. This all leads us to believe that Falluja was a really bad place. That doesn't mean that all people in Falluja were bad, but there were a lot of bad people doing bad things. We're involved in pretty heavy reconstruction in Falluja. As of 21 November, we had 54 projects underway: $30 million worth. A plan with the government of Iraq is to provide $100 million in ongoing reconstruction. A civilian governor and deputy governor were appointed by the Iraqi interim government. People who left before the fighting will soon be allowed to return to Falluja. I have been told that the worst thing for an Iraqi is to be seen as weak and ineffective. Not acting against a stronghold of terror, murder and maiming would have caused the Iraqi interim government to be seen as weak and ineffective. So they made the decision to act and Iraqi troops and US troops did it together. Time will tell whether the action was correct or not. I believe it was, and we may have to do it again in other areas. In the same way? No, maybe it won't be as hard next time. Though one thing you can be assured of is that, should they desire, the people of Falluja will be able to take part in the January election. But what about all of your talk of how Iraq should become a model of democracy and liberalism in the region. Is this the kind of model you are setting for other Arab governments on how to act with insurgencies? You can pick country X, we won't name any country, which has found a place from which emanated a constant stream of car bombs, videos of beheadings, torture, kidnappings and murders. Would any government in the Arab world allow that to continue? The answer to that, sir, is, Hell No. And that's what happened in Falluja. We're not setting an example. The United States could not allow it to happen. But what about reports, even in the US press, that the US army used phosphorous bombs that made the bodies of insurgents melt. Doesn't the use of such weapons constitute a war crime? No. I don't think there were phosphorous bombs -- I think they were phosphorous grenades. We use them. I used them in the Vietnam war, quite a bit, and they are not forbidden by the laws of war. So you don't agree with accusations that the US might have committed acts in Falluja that amount to war crimes? If there are actions such as what occurred in the mosque, the one thing that is absolutely crystal clear is that that's being transparently investigated. Should wrongdoing be seen, it will be shown to all. That's dramatically different from those who shot, beheaded and otherwise tortured people in Falluja and other places. If we committed a problem, if we did something wrong, it is being investigated. It will be known transparently and that's one dramatic difference. In a recent interview, you said you had underestimated the strength of Iraqi nationalism. Did you really expect to go there and be greeted without any resistance? Some said that publicly in the United States. I did not, Secretary Powell did not. The reason we expected resistance is because we did a very large full report called the Future of Iraq Study. It had a lot of participation by Iraqis who knew very well what was going on and they helped us to understand the complexity of Iraqi political, tribal and sectarian society. So when you ask me did I expect them to throw roses at us? No. Syria What's the US estimate on the possibility of Israel and Syria resuming talks? I don't think the Syrian government has made up their collective mind on what they want to do. I think they haven't made their mind yet about just how forthcoming to be on the question of Iraq, and I think they are still reeling a bit from the UN Security Council resolution 1559 on Lebanon. I think they were quite surprised at that. I think there are a lot of things the Syrians have on their mind. But they've got to come to grips before they can sit down this time. Mr Powell met with his Syrian counterpart Farouk Al-Sharaa in Sharm. Did they raise some of these issues in their meeting? He had a fair discussion with Foreign Minister Sharaa. He'd also met with him in New York and had a good discussion. But I think that these were discussions without a final agreement. There wasn't a disagreement. But there were discussions that Syria would definitely do x, y and z, and they were primarily devoted to an Iraqi peace and the need for Syria to not only talk but also act. You didn't see any action? Yes, I have seen some action, sure have. It is a better sign, but I don't think it's efficient yet, and we'd hope Syria would do more. There is Baathist financing from Syria that used to be the detriment of the interim Iraqi government. These are matters which the Iraqi government has taken up with Damascus. I think Damascus should do more, it can do more. They know very well who's doing what. Have they done a little better on their border crossing? They seem to be putting some effort into that. But don't you think the US case of foreigners infiltrating into Iraq is overblown given the figures announced by Richard Myers of the numbers of foreigners arrested didn't exceed three to five per cent? Foreign fighters aren't the major problem in Iraq. The former regime elements, some pan-Arab nationalists, etc, maybe much more. But when I spoke about Syria, it is about financing and I think that's a much bigger problem because money does talk. That's explained by former Iraqi Baathists who are in Syria slipping money across the border. Syria has also said that it acted to curtail the presence of Hamas and Jihad in Damascus. We have heard the same thing, and it looks like they took some action. But on Hizbullah, I have seen nothing. What about the Lebanon resolution you mentioned. Are you planning to push it any further? It was a French initiative, which we were happy to co-sign and co-sponsor. There's a requirement to report periodically back to the Security Council, which will give us all an opportunity to re-focus our attention on Syria. I have spoken many times about our view: this long after the Taif accords, it's about time that Lebanon was left for the Lebanese. I think troops in Lebanon, and certainly influencing the government of Lebanon, is something of interest to all people in the region. It is something that I think the UN Security Council spoke about: It's time to leave. Any deadlines? We're not working on a deadline. But how long has it been since Taif? 15 years. That's long enough. Iran What's the future with Iran now -- it's after the IAEA resolution? Our president yesterday indicated that the suspension is good, but they need to abandon their programme. We're sceptical, but we do support the EU-3. And the IAEA will monitor the Iranians and we'll certainly keep our eye on them. I'm sure the issue will be discussed further. But while suspension is good, non-suspension and abandonment is the best of all. Some think-tanks here are speaking about surgical military strikes against Iran. What's your view on that? I think that's irresponsible. The United States will never remove something from the table, but I think it's irresponsible to talk about these matters, particularly when we have diplomatic efforts ongoing. The second Bush administration You are about to leave your position on 20 January and so will Secretary Powell. Many people are worried about the second Bush administration, which will be left without any moderates, and are expecting the worst. What would you tell the Arab world about what to expect from Bush in his second term? I think they ought to look carefully at what Mr Bush has done. He has dispatched Secretary Powell to the Middle East and I certainly expect Dr Rice, when the Senate confirms her, to be travelling soon to the Middle East. And our imminent National Security Adviser [Stephen Hadley] will soon go to Bahrain. But you don't think that the second Bush administration will mean more "liberation wars" in our part of the world? Namely Syria or Iran? No. You can't take anything for granted because countries have to be on the right path. But in your question about the Arab world and moderation, I think you are going to find a big effort by the Bush administration to be very much involved in a positive way in the future of the regions, including the region of the Middle East.
