|
One Year Later:
Foreign Policy
With James P. Rubin
Fmr. Assistant Sec. of State for Public Affairs
Wednesday, Sept. 11, 2002; 11:30 a.m. ET
One year after the unprecedented attacks on America, the war on terrorism continues. U.S. foreign policy has widened its presence in Central Asia and the Middle East. The focus seems to be shifting from Afghanistan to Iraq. What are the diplomatic implications? Will the U.S. attack Iraq?
James P. Rubin, former assistant secretary of state and chief State Department spokesman under President Clinton, was online Wednesday, Sept. 11 at 11 a.m. ET, to discuss U.S. foreign policy in Central Asia and the Middle East.
Rubin served under President Clinton as assistant secretary of state for public affairs from 1997 to May 2000. He currently lectures at the London School of Economics and is a partner at Brunswick Group Ltd.
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Cairo, Egypt:
1. Will the U.S. proceed to the military action in Iraq despite strong opposition to allies in the Middle East such as Iraq?
2. How would such an action affect long term relations between the U.S. and places like Egypt?
Will President Bush succeed tomorrow at the UN in convincing any other countries to join the U.S. bandwagon on the Iraq invasion issue?
4. On the Arab/Israeli conflict, what is the peace plan most seriously (i.e., Danish Foreign Minister) now under discussion -- and do you view it as being viable and any more likely to succeed than others in recent months?
Thanks a million.
James P. Rubin: Starting with Iraq, I think it's still possible although unlikely that Iraq can prevent the use of American military power. They can do so by realizing that if they don't disarm their weapons of mass destruction, the U.S. will invade and will overthrow the regime. I think that President Bush may receive more support than it appeared several weeks ago, because the administration seems ready to make an important concession at the U.N., mainly that Saddam Hussein will be give one more chance to comply unconditionally and unequivocally with U.N. disarmament resolutions. As a result of this concession to international opinion, the administration will receive substantial support for this position. If the president doesn't give Saddam Hussein one last chance, I think American support will be limited to just a few countries.
If it comes to military action I would expect substantial oppostion from much of the Arab world. But some quiet support private support from some the elite and some the government. After the military action when the Iraqi people America as a liberator, much of the opposition in the Arab world may diminish.
As far as the middle East peace process is concerned, I see nothing out there that constitutes a realistic peace plan and I'm very pessimistic about any real breakthrough, but it is possible that there will be a reduction in violence through negotiated ceasefires.
Washington, D.C.:
I remember a great quote from your old boss, Ms. Albright, when she was Secretary of State: " . . . problems abroad, if left unattended, will all too often come home to America.”
In this regard, in 20/20 hindsight it seems we should have gone all out after Al Queda and helped to bring about a new Afghanistan earlier -- after the US embassy bombings in East African and of the USS Cole, but before 9/11.
Do you think the U.S. and it citizens have really learned this lesson now -- that the world's problems can and do come home to America? That it is in our interest to do a lot more to help address these global threats and problems before they hit our homes?
James P. Rubin: thank you for your question. yes, in retrospect we should have changed the government in afghanistan by force after the embassy bombings. but i must say that had we considered that prior to september 11, much of the public and most of the world would have thought we were wildly overreacting
Bent Hatchet, Utah:
Does the administration have hard, clear evidence that Iraq was involved in last year's terrorist attacks? If not, shouldn't the proper focus of our attention be al Qaeda?
James P. Rubin: i think there is some doubt as to whether iraq really is in league with al-qaeda. the case is unproven. and i agree that in any attempt to take on saddam hussein we must be sure not to lose our primary focus on stopping al-qaeda, because the al-qaeda threat is the one that is directed at american citizens and american lives
Frederick, Md.:
It seems to me that the president's desire to take on Saddam is simply anpother case of the son trying to reconstruct his father's image. If George Bush the Elder had finished the job a decade ago, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I understand that Iraq poses a long-term threat. But surely there are ways -- short of a military assault -- that we can deal with Saddam.
Any thoughts?
James P. Rubin: i don't know how much the iraq debate is motivated by the son's desire to finish the father's work. but i am not sure there is any other way to deal with the long-term threat from iraq without using military force.
West Lake, Calif.:
A year ago, the president promised us that the people who planned the attack on the World Trade Center would be found and brought to justice. Well, we are still waiting for that to happen. Is it still realistic to expect that Osama bin Laden -- or anyone else -- will be ever be caught and punished?
James P. Rubin: i think it is realistic that with patience and determination we will see all the top al qaeda leaders, dead or imprisoned, but it may take a long, long time
Laurel:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isnt' Iraq a large, wealthy country with an educated middle class, that in most respects except its government is a lot more like tje United States than like, say, Afghanistan?
Would the people of Iraq enjoy a U.S.-led overthrow of their government and replace it with a democracy (like post-Nazi Germany) or are we setting for a very long, very difficult occupation of a hostile people or a Bay of Pigs miscalculation?
James P. Rubin: good point. i think iraq could quickly become a successful, secular, western-oriented state, and i believe this will not be the bay of pigs but rather, if done right, an opportunity to improve the middle east dramatically, but there are real risks that saddam hussein will use the available chemical and biological weapons he is, if we choose to invade. that is a real and dangerous problem that needs to be confronted in advance.
Dover, Del.:
Is it realitic to believe that America can really "liberate" Iraq in the same way it helped liberate Paris during World War II? It seems to me we are on dangerous ground if we try to make ourselves appear to be fighting a war to set Iraq free. We've been told all along that our National Security is at stake. If that's the case, why does the administration believe it has to couch the mission as one of liberation?
James P. Rubin: i think there are both national security and moral reasons to help the iraqi people free themselves from the tyranny of saddam hussein. iraqis are among the most oppressed people in the world. and i believe a new government would meet the requirements of u.n disarmament resolutions in order to end iraq's isolation and see sanctions lifted. but this will be a risky and complicated operation, far more so than the gulf war, when iraq's leaders could retreat from kuwait back into iraq. this time there is no retreat, and they may throw everything they have against us, in terms of weapons of mass destruction and the possibility of complicated urban warfare in baghdad and saddam's hometown of tikrit.
McAllen, Tex.:
Isn't Pakistan the center of terrorism? Then why are we chasing Iraq?
James P. Rubin: in my opinion, an iraq operation should not be labelled as part of a war on terrorism, because according to the best government information i am aware of, iraq is not really in the terrorism business. it is in the weapons of mass destruction business, and the business of terrorizing its own people. but just because this is not about terrorism per se does not mean it isn't justified. using military force is justified to ensure that iraq is disarmed of its weapons of mass destruction as un resolutions require
Chicago, Ill.:
Seizing on the opportunity offered by 9/11, the US has established a strong military and political hold over Central Asia and its energy resources. Already the US is claiming that Uzbekistan has improved its human rights record, which Human Rights Watch says is false and motivated by the need to skirt legal restrictions on aid to despots. Will this region become the new Middle East, with the US propping up dictators who are willing to provide favorable access to oil and natural gas even as their impoverished and powerless people seethe with increasing hatred toward the US?
James P. Rubin: i do think we have to be very careful not to abdicate our responsibility to promote democracy and human rights in central asia, even as we develop improved military relationships with many of these countries. we have learned, i hope, the dangers of becoming accomplices to the actions of military dictatorships. in my view, it is still possible to promote democracy and develop improved relationships with countries that are not yet fully on the democratic path. it requires mixing pragmatism and principle day after day.
Washington, D.C.:
Doesn't the lack of association between al Qaeda and Iraq further indicate that bin Laden has long been more in league with his old ally from the Soviet-Afghanistan war, the United States intelligence community?
Certainly bin Laden talks a good game against the U.S., but he really comes from a family and a nation that has long behaved with enlightened self-interest toward us.
James P. Rubin: sorry, don't agree at all. yes, the us intelligence community cooperated with many muslim fundamentalists who were fighting against the Soviet occupation of afghanistan. and perhaps some of those relationships went a little overboard. but that was a long time ago, and there are absolutely no ties between the cia and bin ladin, i can assure you
Arlington, Va.:
Mr. Rubin,
Post 9/11, the question "Why do they hate us?" was a topic of much discussion in the media. There are many who have expressed the opinion that the terrorists are fanatics on the outer fringes of the Islamic world, yet our foreign policy is somehow to blame for the behavior of these fanatics. Should U.S. foreign policy be constrained so as not to offend fanatics? And would such constraints simply show the world that terrorism works?
James P. Rubin: i think we have to distinguish between the motivation of those who actually are terrorists and the anger among many countries'population against american foreign policy. that anger may cause many to sympathize and applaud terrorist attacks against the united states, but that is very different from the terrorists themselves. the al qaeda organization has a specific aim, to drive the united states out of saudi arabia and to topple the mubarak regime in egypt. and we obviously must not give in to those demands. however, we should be prepared to examine carefully what american policies generate broader resentment around the world, and decide whether there are any steps we can take to ease that resentment. that's just good diplomacy and good foreign policy. it is not capitulation to terrorism.
| |
© Copyright 2003 The Washington Post Company | 
