As always, it's a pleasure to have an opportunity to discuss Middle East issues with the committee. In the nearly five months since we last met, a lot has happened in the Middle East, not milch of it good. One thing has not changed however, and that is the vital importance of our interests in the Middle East.
Before turning to the body of my remarks, I wanted to take a few moments to reiterate our revulsion and sorrow at the murder of three sister of charity nuns in Hodeida, Yemen. The Yemeni government has likewise condemned this terrible act, expressed its condolences directly to the sisters, provided assistance in the repatriation of the sisters' remains and stepped up protection of Christian sites in Yemen. The suspect is in custody and has been identified a person with extremist tendencies. First reports suggest that he acted alone, although the investigation continues. In contrast to the responsible actions of the government of Yemen in this horrible incident, the government of Iran this week appears to have executed a person of the Baha'i faith. We strongly condemn this action by the Iranian judiciary which runs directly counter to Iranian president Khatemi's commitments to freedom and the rule of law. We note that there are some seven other Iranians of the Baha'i faith in detention in Iran and urge the government of Iran to avoid any repetition of the use of capital punishment against people of faith. We will be following this matter closely and are urging other governments engaged in dialogue with the government of Iran to express their concerns directly.
Introduction
Unfortunately Mr. chairman, too many innocent people are dying in the Middle East. That is one of the reasons that we continue to vigorously pursue a just, lasting, comprehensive and secure peace in the Middle East. Last week we reached a new stage in our efforts to achieve agreement between Israel and the Palestinian authority on the package of ideas we have presented to both parties aimed at restarting the final status negotiations. Israelis and Palestinians have now agreed to discuss directly Israeli refinements to our ideas. We are in constant touch with both sides, but believe that it is essential for them to resolve these issues directly. As soon as they do so, we stand ready to involve ourselves directly in an effort to bring this dragged-out effort to a successful conclusion as quickly as possible.
Iraq under the brutal rule of Saddam Hussein continues to be a potential source of instability in the region, but recent revelations about his continued deceit concerning his weapons of mass destruction program have reinforced our argument that Iraq is far from complying with the security council resolutions and have helped counter pressure to lift sanctions. Meanwhile, the expanded un program to ensure that the basic humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people are being met is in place and the situation of the Iraqi people is continuing to improve. Using money appropriated by this congress, we have also developed a program of overt support for the Iraqi opposition designed to make it more politically effective and to assist in the efforts to document Saddam's war crimes.
On Iran, the secretary has laid out a process that, through a series of parallel steps, by both governments, could eventually lead to a more normal relationship with this key regional country. The rejection in Iran to the secretary's remarks was predictably mixed, given the ongoing, intense political debate in Iran, but this approach does offer a way forward, if the government of Iran is prepared to respond. Meanwhile, people-to-people exchanges continue.
Last week, Iran test-launched the Shahab-iii, a medium range ballistic missile, heralding a new and potentially threatening development in the regional arms race. Although not unexpected, this missile test underscores the urgency of our efforts to shutoff the flow of technology to Iran's WMD and missile programs and the importance of helping our friends in the region develop defenses against this emerging threat, even while we seek to encourage moderation in Iran's international behavior.
As the tenth anniversary of the bombing of pan am 103 approaches in December of this year, we have also been preoccupied in recent months with the question of how to bring to justice the Libyan terrorists responsible. We are discussing with the UK and the Netherlands the possibility of conducting a trial of the two suspects in a Scottish court in the Netherlands. I should emphasize that the president has made no decision on this and will not consider the matter until we are satisfied that the large number of complex legal issues have been sorted out. I want to be very clear on one point, however. The unsc resolutions call for the suspects to be tried in an American or Scottish court. We are exploring the establishment of a Scottish court in a third country venue. A Scottish court means a panel of Scottish judges, applying Scottish legal procedures and Scottish rules of evidence. It does not mean a world court proceeding and it does not mean an international panel of judges - our bottom line remains simple: we seek justice for the 189 American victims of pan am 103 and their families - any arrangements agreed to will have to lead to this objective or demonstrate clearly to the world that qadhafi has no intention of ever delivering the suspects, thereby helping to strengthen the U.N. sanctions against Libya.
I would now like to discuss these developments and other issues in greater detail.
Mepp
First on the peace process, it is useful to remember the fundamental premise that the parties own this process, not us. If it is to succeed, the parties must once again learn to work directly together, without having their own perceptions and needs filtered through the US. This is especially important because over the past 18 months the parties have lost the ability to deal with each other directly. If they cannot resolve their differences on these issues, how are they going to resolve the extremely complex and sensitive issues involved in the final status negotiations that will resume as soon as we achieve agreement on our ideas? That is one of the reasons we have insisted that the parties get together in the current phase of negotiations. In our judgement, the only way to reestablish a relationship of trust and confidence is to work on the gaps in their positions together.
It is not at all certain that the current phase in which the parties are talking about Israeli refinements to the ideas we presented will succeed. The gaps have narrowed significantly but the clock is ticking on the interim agreement. It will expire in less than ten months. Already Palestinians are discussing a unilateral declaration of statehood and Israelis are warning that any such move will provoke annexation of territories in the west bank. These developments would have disastrous consequences. It is therefore imperative that the parties come to an agreement now that would restore confidence and credibility to their partnership, lead to parallel implementation of their obligations under the interim agreement and create a conducive environment for final status negotiations.
While the spotlight has been on the floundering Palestinian track in the peace process, it has been impossible to make progress on any other track.
This does not detract from the critical importance of resuming negotiations between Israel and syria and lebanon. This is not just because of our commitment to comprehensive peace, but also because of the strategic interest we have in bringing syria into the circle of peace. Recent visits to washington by the lebanese prime minister and the syrian foreign minister have enabled the secretary of state to engage in detailed discussions about how to resume negotiations on these two tracks. As soon as we have agreement on the Palestinian track we will undertake an effort to get these negotiations underway again.
In this context, a potentially positive development is the Israeli government' s announcement of its readiness to implement un security council resolution 425 which calls for withdrawal of Israeli forces from lebanon. We believe it is important to implement security council resolutions and we have long sought an independent lebanon free of all foreign forces. We therefore welcome the Israeli decision. We recognize that, as a practical matter, there would have to be some kind of understandings to facilitate Israeli withdrawal and the security of the Israel-lebanon border in its aftermath. Resolution 426 specifically outlines a role for the un secretary general in the implementation of resolution 425. We note that kofi annan has been in touch with all the concerned parties and we urge him to continue this process of consultations.
Iraq
Turning to Iraq, we are no less determined to prevent saddam hussein from ever again being in a position to threaten his neighbors and our interests than we are to achieve a comprehensive middle fast peace. Indeed, containing the threats to regional stability goes hand in hand with our efforts to promote peace in this volatile region. We are doing this by working to maintain international support for sanctions against the saddam hussein regime until it complies fully with all relevant security council resolutions. Frankly, given saddam hussein's track record, we do not believe this is likely to occur. For in the period since we last met, unscom has uncovered additional, concrete evidence of saddam hussein's deliberate concealment of his WMD programs. And until and unless he comes clean with full and complete disclosures - as required by the security council resolutions, the council cannot contemplate lifting sanctions. For our part, I want to be clear: given saddam hussein's track record, we cannot and will not abide a situation where he is free to spend fifteen billion dollars of oil revenues on efforts to reconstitute his ability to threaten the region again. That would constitute an unacceptable threat to our vital interests.
From this basic judgement, there flow two obvious points: first, saddam should leave power. The united states has long expressed its interest in dealing with a successor government in baghdad, particularly one that is democratic in character and wants to use Iraq's tremendous natural resources for the benefit of its people, rather than to threaten its neighbors. To move toward this objective, we have laid out a plan to use the funds earmarked by congress to aid tile democratic opposition to saddam: we will encourage a united opposition with the shared goals of fostering a pluralistic, post- dictatorship Iraq that is secure in its borders, at peace with itself and its neighbors and in voluntary compliance with un resolutions.
In the first instance, this money will go to developing the opposition's basic organizational skills and encouraging coalitions within the opposition.
We ape also offering assistance to facilitate the collection and organization of the evidence of saddam's war crimes. There is a huge amount of documentation available on this subject and many in the opposition are anxious to put it together with the objective of seeking saddam's indictment before an international tribunal.
We will assist the opposition in calling for the enforcement of un resolutions, such as the human rights provisions of 688 and the equitable distribution of food and other humanitarian goods under the oil for food program.
We will also be projecting the opposition message into Iraq through the operations of radio free Iraq. Regrettably, none of these efforts are short term projects, but it is very important to demonstrate that there is a viable Iraqi alternative to saddam hussein's brutal and destructive regime.
The second point which flows from our judgement that saddam is unlikely to comply with the unsc resolutions is that sanctions are likely to remain in place for the foreseeable future. Since these sanctions are aimed at the Iraqi regime and not the Iraqi people it is imperative that the international community find effective ways to meet the needs of the Iraqi people. For this reason, we supported the significant expansion of the un's oil for food program, including the reconstruction of enough of Iraq's oil infrastructure to enable Iraq to export the maximum amount of oil allowed under security council resolutions. The good news is that this program is working and will continue to improve the lot of the
Iraqi people until the burden of saddam's rule is lifted from them.
In fact, my principal deputy has just returned from northern Iraq where he saw and heard first hand that the program is working. Many of the people with whom he spoke commented that they were receiving more of the benefits of their country's wealth now than they would if saddam were to regain control of Iraq's revenue. They were understandably interested in seeing the sanctions remain in place and "oil for food" continue.
Saddam has complained that this program is a way to avoid lifting sanctions - not surprisingly he has twisted the truth that this program is designed to ensure that he and his regime are denied, to the extent possible, the means they want to enrich themselves and feed their illegitimate ambitions while providing Iraqis what they need to survive the depradations of their unchosen ruler. Sanctions and oil for food are two ways of working toward the same objective: an Iraq able to resume its rightful place in the international community as a unified state at peace with its neighbors and playing the positive role its geographic location, resources and dynamic people would allow it to do.
Iran
Iraq's neighbor to the east is a country in transition. In electing muhammed khatami president last year and apparently continuing to support him enthusiastically, the Iranian people, particularly the youth, have made clear their desire for change. It is not clear, however, how quickly the people's will will be achieved. Conservative forces opposed to change continue to control key organs of power in the Iranian government and remain a formidable impediment to the reforms president khatemi seeks to pursue.
The secretary of state, in prior recent address to the Asia society, has made clear that we would like to see the change that the Iranian people are demanding come about. And while there are areas of Iranian policy of significant concern to us, we can envisage that within a framework of parallel steps taken on a mutual and reciprocal basis it should be possible to build trust and confidence and overcome misunderstanding and in this way develop a roadmap to improved relations.
For our part, we continue to be prepared for an official dialogue with the Iranian government. Recent Iranian actions such as the flight testing of a medium range ballistic missile and the deplorable hanging of an Iranian citizen of the Bahai faith indicate that we would have much to talk about. Of course, Iran has said publicly that it too has issues of concern and we would be prepared to discuss those as well.
Recent Iranian actions in such areas as narcotics control, the situation in Afghanistan and in relations with its arab neighbors across the gulf, have demonstrated that Iran can, when it chooses to do so, exert positive influence in its region. But its development of weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems, as well as its continued support for terrorist organizations, remind us of Iran's potential to threaten our interests and those of our allies in the region.
For these reasons, us sanctions on Iran remain in place and we are working with other countries to retard and delay the development of Iran's weapons of mass destruction program. We have recently had some success with Russia in this area and will continue to work for improved cooperation in denying Iran WMD and missile technology. In light of recent developments, this effort takes on new urgency.
Libya
Turning to the subject where we have recently seen the most visible changes - the issue of Libya. For far too long the victims and family members of the pan am 103 bombing have been denied justice. Libya, under the dictator Muammar Qadhafi, has refused to deliver for trial before American or Scottish courts, the two suspects in the case. After ten years, we are no closer to getting the accused into an American or Scottish courtroom. The possibility we are now examining is simply this: moving a Scottish court and Scottish law to another country, probably the Netherlands. We are discussing the possibility, and seeking to resolve the legal complexities. Until we do so, no decision will be made to proceed with this idea.
Our bottom line is the same: there will be justice or there will be un-mandated sanctions. We have told the representatives of other countries that, if we decide to proceed with this approach, it is non- negotiable on a take it or leave it basis. We have told those who have urged flexibility on us that they will have the obligation to urge Libya to accept this offer. And if Qadhafi demonstrates that he has been bluffing all along when he promised the arab league to deliver the suspects to a Scottish court in a third country, we will expect them to help enforce and strengthen sanctions.
Mr chairman, this snap shot of the Middle East provides a mixed picture of our position there. Saddam is in power, but still in his box. The peace process is alive, but only just, and with a still uncertain outcome. Developments in Iran offer the prospect of positive change, but the struggle for power and influence continues. In the case of Libya, we're looking at creative ways to achieve justice for the families of the pan am 103 victims, but Qadhafi could be bluffing and we will have to be ready to rally support for stiffer sanctions if he is. But let me assure you that, whatever the outcome in these and other situations, we have the resources and the will to defend our interests and our friends. Thank you.