The State Department web site below is a permanent electronic archive of information released prior to January 20, 2001.  Please see www.state.gov for material released since President George W. Bush took office on that date.  This site is not updated so external links may no longer function.  Contact us with any questions about finding information. NOTE: External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.

Thomas Pickering Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Remarks to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy Washington, D.C., September 19, 1997

U.S. Policy in the Middle East

Thank you, Rob, for that generous introduction. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

Throughout my career, I have had occasion to admire the work of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The Institute's reputation for publicizing issues, before they become issues is what makes it such a valuable part of the Washington foreign policy community.

Public speakers are fond of exaggerating to their audiences, how appropriate the timing of their speeches are. I do not think I am exaggerating, however, when I say that I come before you at a crucial moment in the life of the Middle East.

Secretary Albright's trip occurred on the heels of two horrific terrorist incidents, and amidst a fundamental crisis of conference between Israel and the Palestinians. There was no sense of shared interests; indeed, each side saw the other as actively working against his interests. As a result, pundits here, and in the region, had already declared the peace process dead before Secretary Albright boarded her plane at Andrews Air Force Base.

Others were arguing that she should postpone or cancel her trip. But, that would have been rewarding the terrorists who kill and maim innocent civilians, by helping them do what they want to do: deal a blow to the peace process. President Clinton and Secretary Albright insisted that she go ahead.

As the president has had to say all too often, we cannot and will not allow the enemies to achieve their goal of destroying the peace process. The terrorist bombs of a minority of people should not prevent the will of the majority of the people--both Israelis and Palestinians--to see peace achieved.

Clearly, the Ben Yehuda Market bombing made the Secretary's trip more difficult, but it also made the trip more necessary. Something had to be done to reverse the negative trend in virtually all dealings between Israelis and Palestinians, and to lay the basis for moving things in the right direction.

Although the Palestinian track was the focus of the media's attention to her trip, the purpose of the trip itself was broader. The Secretary also wanted to demonstrate our commitment to a truly comprehensive peace, one that would include not only peace between Palestinians and Israelis, but between Israel and Syria, and between Israel and Lebanon.

Our encouragement and support for the peacemakers led her to Egypt and Jordan, countries with which we maintain close bilateral relations, as well as cooperation on the peace process. The Secretary's visit to the Gulf emphasized the importance of the U.S. commitment to the security of that region.

The reaching of a comprehensive peace between Israel and the Arabs, the maintenance of Israel's security and its well-being, and the deterrence of threats to the stability of the Gulf and elsewhere, posed by Iraq and Iran, may seem like a disparate list. But all are in the national interest of the United States, and all are interrelated.

Progress in the peace process strengthens friendly governments in the region, removes a rallying point for fanaticism, helps secure our access to Persian Gulf oil, and enhances prospects for political and economic development.

The absence of progress in the peace process, on the other hand, increases tensions and spurs rearmament and violence, wins new converts to extremism, and potentially endangers our access to oil.

The Secretary's First Stops

As for the immediate focus of the Secretary's trip, the Palestinian-Israeli track, let me answer the pundits by saying that the peace process is not dead. We said, before the Secretary's departure, that the current problems in the peace process were extremely difficult; the Secretary was not a magician, and, thus, we would not be able to say, at the completion of her trip, that all was well.

That was not low-balling expectations; that was realism.

The parties to the peace process have accomplished a great deal since the Madrid conference, a fact often forgotten in the present atmosphere of mistrust. But the mistrust among them is, indeed, very deep right now, and the issues about which the parties are distrustful of one another are fundamental ones--fundamental to security, without which there can be no peace; and, fundamental to peace, without which lasting security is impossible.

The Secretary's goal was to begin to re-create the environment in which the negotiating progress could move forward. In essence, she was trying to restore the rules of the game. Primary among these rules was the need to do everything possible to prevent terror. The parties would also have to return to thinking about each other as partners in the same game, one in which, if they cooperate, they can gain more than if either side seeks unilateral gain.

In other words, the Secretary was trying to get the parties to get back to basics. As intermediary in these talks, we must often play the cards the parties deal to us, rather than the ones we would choose. But the Secretary was, in essence, telling the parties that they had to start dealing her some better cards.

Peace Through Security

While it may be premature to say that the peace process is firmly back on track, we believe that the Secretary's trip helped the parties start back down the road toward the train station. Of necessity, security is at the center of that route, and, thus, was at the forefront of her agenda.

Governments cannot negotiate under conditions of intimidation. There can be no peace process without security.

The United States will never accept a rationale for terrorism, and neither should the Palestinians. Zero tolerance for terror must start now, and not stop. The Secretary began her trip by saying that we stand with the Israeli people in the battle against terror.

No one has accused this Secretary of State of beating around the bush on issues of concern to her and the United States. And, she was both blunt and specific with Mr. Arafat on what was needed. In addition to better cooperation with Israeli security forces, there had to be more unilateral PA actions to root out the terrorist infrastructure, arrest and prosecute those engaged in terrorism or the planning of terrorist acts, and incarceration for those found guilty.

We began to see more cooperation between Palestinians and Israelis before the Secretary departed, but more needed to be done. We also saw a small beginning on unilateral actions before the Secretary departed, but here, the gap between what was being done and what needed to be done was even greater.

Chairman Arafat told the Secretary in Ramallah that he rejected violence and terrorism, and was committed to meeting his responsibilities.

Words and images are important, and that's why the Secretary reminded Arafat of the negative effects of recent contacts like that with the Hamas and PIJ leaderships. A public rejection of terror and violence is useful, but only if it is followed by real, sustained, and effective action on the ground. Everything must be done to delegitimize those who support these actions, and undercut their bases of support.

We accept the Palestinian argument that the terrorist bombers are not only striking at Israeli citizens, but at the peace process itself. But, if we accept that, the Palestinian leadership must accept that doing absolutely everything they can to prevent terror is their responsibility, and in their best interest. Just as there is no alternative to the peace process; so, there must be no alternative to security cooperation.

Security Through Peace

Security was the Secretary's first message, but not her only one. As the Secretary said during the trip, "real security depends on real peace." We will reach a peace agreement without a mutual belief on the part of Israelis and Palestinians that the end result of the process will be better than what they have now.

Palestinians must realistically believe that, if they meet their commitments, Israelis will meet theirs, too; and, that they will see their needs addressed. That is why the Secretary devised and promoted, during the trip, her plan which calls for continued and complete implementation of all commitments made under the Interim Agreement in tandem with accelerated movement to permanent status talks.

That is why the Secretary voiced understanding for the Palestinian frustration caused by the expansion of settlements, land confiscations, and housing demolitions. That is why she called for a "time-out" in such unilateral actions by the Israeli Government, as a means of restoring confidence that neither side is trying to prejudge the outcome of what the parties have agreed to negotiate bilaterally.

We recognize Israel's right to impose security measures to protect its own people, but we have encouraged it to find a way to balance security needs with the need for Palestinian social and economic well-being. That well-being is ultimately in Israel's interests, and in the interests of the peace process itself.

The U.S. Approach

Let me summarize the position that guides our approach to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, in the wake of the Secretary's trip: Security is a sine qua non of the process. That process will not succeed unless the parties take each other's concerns into account, and until political issues are addressed to their satisfaction. If they succeed, that success will provide the closest thing to a guarantee of long-term security that the people of this region are ever going to see.

As important and valuable a goal as peace in the Middle East is to the United States, ultimately, the parties must accomplish this for themselves. They must be the creators of these agreements, and the solvers of their problems.

The Secretary's trip did not and could not change that reality. We will do all we can, but "all we can" is not enough if the parties do not view each other as partners. Each side must be reasonably assured that, if it takes some tough decisions, those moves will be reciprocated.

The Secretary left the region fully believing that, despite the obvious difficulties, the parties were capable of working together and moving forward. Hopefully, her trip made this more likely.

The Pursuit of Peace

Pursuing peace means working on a broad front. The roles of Egypt and Jordan are extremely important to prospects for a Palestinian-Israeli peace. The Secretary had productive discussions with President Mubarak and King Hussein on how best to move the process forward. Both were frank in their advice of what was necessary: they condemned the use of terrorism, and promised to do all they could to help prevent it. But, they also urged Israel to continue implementing the Interim Agreement, and to take steps to restore Palestinian confidence in the process.

Secretary Albright had numerous occasions to call on King Hussein and President Mubarak for help and advice prior to her trip to the region. She will continue to work closely with these two supporters of peace.

Our efforts to help bring peace to the Middle East are not limited to diplomacy, but include our close security cooperation with Israel, our economic assistance to the Palestinian people, and our support for those countries, which are working to move the process forward, including Jordan and Egypt.

That's why President Clinton recently established the Middle East Peace and Stability Fund. The assistance to Jordan will help consolidate the peace between Israel and Jordan, and broaden the circle of those who have a stake in a secure Middle East.

That is also why the Secretary used her trip to encourage attendance at the next Middle East/North Africa Economic Summit in Doha in November. The summit provides an important opportunity for countries to manifest their commitment to peace in the Middle East, and to make useful commercial connections in the process.

Another important aspect of our support for the peace process is our assistance to the Palestinian people. While we appreciate Congress' backing for our unique role in the peace process, we frankly cannot support proposals seeking to cut off aid to the Palestinians, or those dealing with the sensitive issue of Jerusalem.

We share congressional concerns about the PA meeting, its commitments, and its prevention of terror. No one in the United States is working harder that this Administration to protect the security of the Israeli people. I have personally participated in many of the efforts; that commitment will never change or waver.

But cutting off our assistance to ordinary Palestinians is not the means by which to press our concerns about the Palestinian Authority. To deny aid to these people would make their already difficult lives more difficult. It could not enhance stability and security in the area. In fact, it would make peace more difficult to pursue.

The Secretary will soon be discussing the results of her trip with Congress, and we will be in close consultation on legislation which affects our peace efforts.

The Comprehensiveness of Peace

While her most immediate concern was necessarily with the Israeli-Palestinian track of the peace process, Secretary Albright also discussed the need for a truly comprehensive peace between Israelis and Arabs. That includes peace between Israel and Syria, and between Israel and Lebanon.

In Syria, the Secretary was exploring ways to resume the negotiations between Syria and Israel, which had yielded significant progress at Wye Plantation. As a result of the Secretary's trip, we continue to firmly believe that there is an Israeli-Syrian peace agreement to be had, and that both Israel and Syria are interested in reaching one. We will follow up on the Secretary's discussions in Israel and Syria to see if we can get the parties back to the table.

But the Syria track was not the only issue the Secretary raised with President Asad. She also asked him to help prevent violent flare-ups in Lebanon, and impressed upon him the need to restrain Hizballah. And, she emphasized the proven benefits of using the Israel-Lebanon Monitoring Group in defusing tensions and de-escalating cycle of action and retaliation.

Although it was not originally on her itinerary, the Secretary decided to make a stop in Lebanon, to demonstrate our support for Lebanon, its sovereignty and territorial integrity, and a comprehensive peace settlement. The Secretary expressed our backing of efforts to stabilize and rebuild Lebanon, and said she was pleased to have the passport restrictions end, but told the Lebanese leadership we remained concerned about the safety of Americans traveling in Lebanon, and were counting on the Lebanese to help provide a secure environment.

The stop in Beirut afforded another opportunity to buttress the work of the ILMG. The Lebanese leadership reconfirmed its commitment to the group and its desire to prevent future cycles of violence. The Secretary also helped broker the return of the remains of an Israeli soldier killed recently in Lebanon.

The Gulf, Iraq, and Iran

Let me turn to our policy in the Gulf, which was another focus of the Secretary's trip. As you know, she met with both the Saudi leadership and representatives of the Gulf Cooperation Council. The U.S. starts from the premise that we have good friends in the Gulf, that the Gulf will remain the low-cost producer of oil exports to the U.S. and the developed world at large, and that we should do what we can to maintain stability in the region for the sake of our friends, and our access to oil.

The Secretary briefed the Saudi leaders and GCC members on the results of her peace process discussions in the Levant. But the Gulf has its own role in the peace process, and the Secretary encouraged Gulf states to do all they could to support the process.

Obviously, the challenges posed by Iraq and Iran were high on the Secretary's Gulf agenda. I have said before, with regard to our policy on Iraq, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." To that I would add, "if the problem hasn't changed, why change the way you handle it?"

We have seen nothing to indicate that the Baghdad regime has changed the attitudes and policies which earned it the condemnation of the international community and the imposition of one of the toughest sanctions regimes in the history of the world. The international community has unanimously renewed one of the toughest sanctions regimes in history against Iraq 38 times, since 1990.

It is the Iraqi regime which continues to bear the responsibility for the suffering of its people. It is the Iraqi regime which cynically causes delays in the distribution of humanitarian goods by refusing to sell oil for two months. It is the Iraqi regime which continues to try to evade its responsibilities on its weapons of mass destruction programs. And, I might add, this same regime praised the recent terrorist bombings in Jerusalem.

In the face of such conduct, it is essential that the international community maintain its shared resolve on insisting on the continuation of sanctions, until Iraq complies with its UN obligations, and on supporting UNSCOM's efforts to root out all vestiges of Iraq's WMD programs. That was the message Secretary Albright gave to Saudi leaders and GCC foreign ministers.

It was a welcome message because our friends in the Gulf remain concerned about Iraqi aggression. And, because our insistence that Iraq meet all its international obligations, and our willingness to back up our words with deeds shows that we fulfill our commitments to our friends.

The United States looks forward to the day when Iraq rejoins the family of nations as a law-abiding member. But, in the meantime, we should not substantially alter a policy that is meeting its primary objective of containing the Iraqi regime's threat to the region.

Iran

The new Iranian Government has certainly tried to make overtures to its Gulf neighbors, and you know that it will host the next Organization of Islamic Conference summit in December. So, the Secretary's trip provided a timely opportunity to exchange views on Iran with our Gulf friends.

The Secretary told our friends that we considered the election of President Khatami an interesting development. The people of Iran made a choice, and the overwhelming majority of voters expressed their clear desire for change.

But, we remain concerned about Iran's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction programs and long-range missiles to deliver them, its active support for terrorism, and its violent opposition to the peace process. We hope that Khatami's election will lead to changes in Iran's international policies.

Iran has not begun to change these policies. Just a week ago, the Iranian media implicitly threatened Azerbaijan Prime Minister Aliyev for his efforts to establish good relations with Israel and the U.S. The new government has said nothing about ending its efforts to attain weapons of mass destruction. And, President Khatami recently termed Israel "the greatest manifestation of international terrorism." Iran has also meddled, and promoted, extremism in the Gulf, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. None of these policies, I might add, benefit the Iranian people, who seek a better quality of life, and with whom we hold no quarrel.

The U.S. has pursued a vigorous international campaign to prevent the transfer to Iran of facilities and technologies that could further its efforts to develop WMD, and their means of delivery, as well as advanced conventional weapons.

Russia's involvement with Iran here is a troublesome issue in U.S.-Russian relations, and an important part of our high-level bilateral dialogue on non-proliferation. Russia has agreed to limit the scope of their nuclear cooperation with Iran. We will, however, continue to emphasize our opposition to any nuclear cooperation with Iran.

Clearly, Iran's acquisition of a long-range missile delivery capability would pose a serious threat to regional and international stability, a subject of considerable concern in the Gulf, as the Secretary heard. While we appreciate Russian assurances that it will uphold the highest non-proliferation standards, we are disturbed by the discrepancy between the assurances we have received, and recent reports that Russian entities may have provided ballistic missile-related assistance to Tehran.

In the economic sphere, we are trying to raise the costs, to Iran, of its own actions. At some point, hopefully, Iranian concern, over those costs, will move it to alter its course. So far, the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act has helped deter foreign investment in Iran's petroleum sector, the primary source of Iranian Government revenues. However, our continued efforts to implement the law have the potential to place us at odds with some of our allies.

We are working further with our EU allies to develop greater convergence between our approaches toward Iran, in the belief that a more united front will leave Tehran with fewer options and increase the pressure for change.

We are not opposed to other countries' dialogue with Tehran; our problem with the EU's "critical dialogue" has been that it has not brought about changes, and that it can send an inappropriate signal to the Government in Tehran. We have offered our own dialogue, an open, publicly acknowledged dialogue, which would include an authoritative representative of the Iranian Government. Of course, we would use that dialogue to raise our serious concerns about Iran's international behavior.

Conclusions

Although Secretary Albright's trip to the Middle East was her first as Secretary of State, it was only the latest manifestation of the strong U.S. commitment to the Middle East, and especially to peace between Israel and the Arabs.

We have the responsibility and sufficient reason to keep our noses to the grindstones in the Middle East, particularly on the peace process. We have come too far and accomplished too much to lose faith in the ability to move forward and complete our work. Of course, the parties must also realize this, and remind themselves what they stand to gain from a successful conclusion to this process.

Secretary Albright recently hosted Israeli, Palestinian, Egyptian, Jordanian, Moroccan, Tunisian, and Kuwaiti youths participating in the Seeds of Peace summer camp.

I don't think the Secretary will be angry if I say that it was not her eloquent speech during that ceremony that made the greatest impression on me. It was the surprisingly frank confession of a Palestinian girl who told the audience that, if she had been back home in Ramallah at the time of the July 30 bombing in Jerusalem, she would not have cared about it. But, because she had spent time with Israeli young people, and heard their perspective, as they had hers--she immediately cried when learning of the bombing.

I can use many dry words to say that the parties to the peace process must take each other's interests and concerns into account if this process is to succeed. But, I think that girl's message said it more eloquently than I ever could. Thank you.

[end document]

Return to the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs Home Page.
Return to the Principal Officials' Remarks, Testimonies, and Briefings Home Page.
Return to the U.S. Department of State Home Page.
This is an official U.S. Government source for information on the WWW. Inclusion of non-U.S. Government links does not imply endorsement of contents.