Transcript
MR. MICHAEL ARMACOST: Ladies and gentlemen, it's my pleasure to welcome you to Brookings this morning for this leadership forum. It's a special honor, of course, to welcome our distinguished speaker, the Honorable Shimon Peres, Foreign Minister of Israel.
Americans have long identified with Israel's struggle for security and its quest for peace with its neighbors. Few, if any, have done more to advance those causes than our speaker. I think the empathy we feel as Americans for Israel has been deepened by the tragic events of September 11th. We've been reminded that we're not invulnerable from terrorist attacks on our territory, a condition which Israel faces daily. And we have also now been presented with the dilemma of dealing very firmly with terrorists while differentiating between them and co-religionists who do not subscribe to their extremist views.
It's very timely, of course, to hear the most authoritative speaker on the dilemmas Israel confronts, and they obviously connect profoundly to the foreign policy challenges that we face.
I would normally jealously guard my prerogative to introduce our guest. I had the great pleasure during the 1980s of observing his distinguished service up close and somewhat personally while working for George Shultz. But we have someone in our institution who has a more prolonged and more intimate collaboration with the Foreign Minister.
Dr. Martin Indyk joined our institution about a month ago, a little more than a month ago. He is a Senior Fellow in our Foreign Policy Studies program, but he came to us from his second stint as the US Ambassador to Israel, has served as the Senior Staff Member at the National Security Council responsible for the Middle East, and was the Assistant Secretary for the Near East at the Department of State. So let me invite Martin to say just a word before introducing our speaker.
AMBASSADOR MARTIN S. INDYK: Thank you very much, Mike. It's really a great pleasure for me to first of all stand before you on this podium at the Brookings Institution, my new home, but especially an honor to welcome my friend, the Honorable Shimon Peres, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister in the state of Israel to address this which is the inaugural meeting of The Brookings Leadership Forum.
The Forum is designed to give world leaders a platform in Washington to brief the policymaking community on the burning issues of the day, and we could not wish for a more distinguished leader and statesman than Shimon Peres to inaugurate this Forum.
Mr. Peres has spent a lot of time in public service beginning five decades ago when Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben Gurion appointed him Director General of the Israeli Defense Ministry. From then until now he has been at or close to the helm of Israel's ship of state. He has served twice as Prime Minister, twice as Defense Minister, and I believe three times as Foreign Minister of Israel. He has made signal contributions to Israel's ability to defend itself, and he was responsible for far-reaching reforms of the country's economic system to tame inflation and lay the foundation for Israel's participation in the high tech revolution in which it has played a cutting edge role.
But his most outstanding contribution lies in his courageous and unstinting effort to achieve a lasting peace between Israel and all of its Arab neighbors. Together with his partner, Yitzak Rabin of blessed memory, he was the architect of the historic Oslo Accords which laid the foundations for Israeli/Palestinian peace.
The international community recognized his contribution to peace when Shimon Peres was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. With the peace process now in crisis and the turbulence in the Middle East now infecting our own shores, Shimon Peres has come back into the arena, as always, to try to put things right.
With the courage of his convictions, the energy of a person half his age, and the vision of his forefathers, he has again taken on the battle for peace. With the news out of the Middle East so bleak these days, I think we all need his wisdom at this moment, and it is therefore a great pleasure to welcome him to Brookings.
The Honorable Shimon Peres.
FOREIGN MINISTER SHIMON PERES: Thank you, Martin. I am not so sure that they would like that an old ambassador that has served in Israel to introduce me, because he is the only one who knows on how many occasions I was thrown out from one office to another office. The changes in my job can hardly be classified. Anyway, thank you very much, Martin, and also for the great service you have had to peace and to Israel. It's a pleasure seeing you here.
Ladies and gentlemen, we know that we are in a new beginning in world [history]. We think the war against terror is just beginning to change the face of world politics. Nothing will be as it used to be.
First of all, the simple proposition that until now most of the wars were of a national nature, either nations or coalitions of nations, and we have had national armies and national enemies. Now we have national armies without national enemies. On the other hand, we have a global danger without proper armies and proper strategies and thus there will be new strategies.
This again will re-divide the word not any more between West and East or North and South, but between nations that understand the danger of terror and nations that are ready to close their eyes to it. I think there is no way to compromise on this difference because if terror will prevail nobody will be able to move around, to fly, to build, to drink water, to breathe fresh air, and it cannot stop at the point. It must reach an end to it.
For that reason, I don't have to explain that Israel is completely on the side of the United States. We are deeply moved by the American reaction in the face of such a great tragedy, such high dignity; in the face of a deep anger, a total unification; in the stage of tears, a determination. I think for the first time the world has learned American's soul, not only the American greatness, and that is a very moving lesson. And we are fully in the domain of admiration to the United States that became a united state, and I think the world is lucky to have American lead this campaign.
We understand, Secretary Rumsfeld has said that coalitions should be built according to their targets, and not a target selected on an available coalition. Right now the first phase of this strategy [of boundary] is to get hold of bin Laden, to stop the Taliban giving him shelter, and for that reason you need close-by bases which happens to be also a Moslem one. While bin Laden is speaking in the name of Islam, your answer is in the name of anti-terror, not anti-Islam. I suggest that I only have to repeat it never in my life, I ever dreamed that a time will come that a good Jewish boy like myself will pray for the safety of Musharif, the President of Pakistan. (Laughter) But this is a fact of life. And I think that if it will fail, it will be a real failure.
I do believe that the United States expects us, in thinking about Israel, to calm down as much as we can the situation in the Arab world, namely in the conflict between the Palestinians and ourselves. It is not a position, per se, it is a position per coalition. It's needed for the coalition. We don't complain. We understand it. It's not time now to have side accounts. And we are asking ourselves how to do it.
Arafat was quick to declare that he feels as one that belongs to the camp of anti-terror. It was a good declaration, a wise one on his part. The problem is that once Arafat stopped speaking, nothing is happening. Or should I say the things that are happening are in contradiction to the things he is saying. That is the greatest problem we face.
Partly because he is used to run a revolution more than to run a state, and revolutions are being run by [stitches] basically, by incitement. A state is more restrained way of talking and a more profound engagement of husbandry. But not only that, there are others who act in contradiction to what he is saying. The real problem, as I see it, is that Arafat has, their autonomy, his own authority with a 60,000 strong policemen and we think that considering the size of the area if he would employ them properly he can introduce tranquility and law and order.
But in addition to the Palestinian authority there are the Jihad, the Hamas, the Hezbollah, and now the popular forms of the Palestinians.
To keep order you need a real force. To destroy order you need a small group of people. What happened in New York wasn't done by a large force. It was done by a small group of killers. And those people are really trying to kill the chances of peace.
If Arafat announces himself as relevant to the West, the United States of America and Europe, their relevance is to Iran. They are Fundamentalists. They want to destroy Israel. They don't care. And whenever we try to calm down, something is happening or something is made happening by (unintelligible). The latest was the assassination of a Minister of our Cabinet, the Minister of Tourism in Jerusalem.
Would Arafat be in a position that he can do nothing, maybe he would keep quiet. Though we would ask ourselves, if there is a leader that can do nothing, why do we need him? If a leader cannot lead, who needs him? If he can lead and doesn't, again, what is the value of him?
And we feel very strongly, knowing this occasion, that Arafat can do. True, it's not easy. True, it calls for a risk. But if a leader is not ready to take a risk, he is not a leader.
Leadership is not a voyage on a luxury liner, though we have cocktails every day. Leadership is a risky vocation. And Martin mentioned I started my work under David Ben Gurion and I saw him, a lonely lion, deciding to shoot at Jewish armed organization because he understood that unless there will be just one authority in charge of arms and the use of them, we shall have a state. We shall have a chaotic situation.
And I told Arafat (unintelligible). Look, I know that you are impressed by shall I say the will of the Israeli expressions. We have a government that is very talkative and not all of them, you know, are using the same notes. (Laughter) But it is better to have many messages and one rifle, than to have one message and many rifles. Words don't kill. Bullets do. And it is for him and for the future of the Palestinians that he must make sure there is just one authority that is in charge of arms or the violence or the prevention of it.
We told Arafat in the many talks we have had, look, we know who are the troublemakers. Here is a list of 108 of them. You can arrest them. We don't ask you to arrest them in order to punishment, we ask you to arrest them in order to prevent further acts of terror. Okay, 108 are too many, there is a shorter list of 48. And then we say there are ten who are the main troublemakers. Put them in jail and you will tranquilize the situation.
The story is very disappointing. I shall just say one thing. He told me that he has arrested one of the gentlemen and he's in jail and we shouldn't be worried. The next day this fellow appeared on the Israeli radio with his own voice to give us the good news that he is free, that he can move around, that he can speak.
You know, you govern with words. You control with credibility. If a word doesn't carry a commitment and if a policy lacks credibility, we have a coward because the task of leadership is not to compose dictionary but really to (unintelligible).
I think until recently the United States and Europe demanded from Arafat to say the right words. He started to. But now they have discovered what we did, namely the words are not the beginning of the story but the end of it. And we suggest that we want to have a ceasefire which is the first chapter in the Mitchell Agreement, because once we shall have a ceasefire we can put the train on the rail and the train may start moving to a peaceful negotiation.
Nothing happened all of the places, so we went from place to place. We said let's take city by city. Every city we will be able to tranquilize, we shall normalize life. Army will be redeployed. Life goes down to normalcy
Today the United States, or yesterday and today sent two messages. One to Israel asking that we shall leave the cities in Zone A. Another to the Palestinians to act, not just to talk.
I want to say as far as we are concerned, we don't intend to stay there. As far as we are concerned, the shorter our stay will be the better we shall fill. It doesn't give us any pleasure to be there.
And if Arafat will follow the list of requests that were introduced not only by Israel but by the United States and the Europeans and the Russians, namely to put in hand on the ones who assassinated the Minister of Tourism (unintelligible). We know their names, Arafat knows their names, we gave them the names. And without law which he has declared he will do, but he didn't do it yet, the Palestinian Liberation formed, the group of leaders, again eight or nine of them, and they will put into jail the main problem makers, and really exercise this police force to stop the shooting, the shelling of mortars, the ambushes of cars, of civilian people, then we shall gladly leave the place. We are impatient to have it done
So it is not that we are challenging the American strategy, not that we want to have a second front of our own or to create another command of Israel. On the contrary, in order to bring an end to the flames of fire and hatred in the camp of the Arabs and the Muslims, we demand things which are doable. Because if they will not be done, the fire will become higher and more dangerous.
This is in brief the situation as I see it today. Thank you very much.
(Applause)
AMBASSADOR INDYK: We have a few minutes now for questions. I'll jump in, Shimon, if I can, and ask you what role do you need the United States to play in order to ensure that Arafat does the things that he hasn't done up until now? And if he doesn't, what options does that leave Israel?
FOREIGN MINISTER PERES: Well what the United States should do is to insist about implementation of their demand. I believe it can be achieved because Arafat considered, in my judgment, that there is a legitimacy that he has achieved in the United States and Europe is of highest importance to him. And if he will feel that he may endanger his legitimacy, I think he will follow through and he will do it.
As far as Israel is concerned, I would be very economic in spreading threats. I don't think it helps in a tense situation. But we understand perfectly well that we cannot leave the Palestinians without leadership. We cannot create a chaotic situation. And clearly, we wouldn't like to see the fundamentalists or the followers of bin Laden filling in the gap. Neither, I believe, would the Palestinians or some of our neighbors like Egypt and Jordan.
So right now the main thing is to insist on the implementation. Any added explanation will simply [introduce the tension].
AMBASSADOR INDYK: Thank you. We will take questions from the audience. There are microphones which will come to you. Please identify yourself.
Q: Miles Benson with Newhouse Newspapers.
Mr. Foreign Minister, if the Israeli defense forces are unable to protect Israel completely from terrorist attack, why do you believe that Arafat would be able to do that? And if he can't, what are the implications of a peace settlement that leaves a continuing stream of terrorist attacks on Israel?
FOREIGN MINISTER PERES: Well, the Israeli forces have to prevent terror initiated by Israel. It is the Palestinian forces supposed to prevent terror initiated by the Palestinians.
They live among the families or groups that produce terror. They are better informed in the world, and they are not strangers, and they serve themselves.
I mean theoretically the army can do what the Palestinians are now doing, but we would like it to happen. We are not in the cities. We are in the outskirts of the cities. And in a way it's a warning more than an invasion. And even I believe some of the Palestinians themselves feel that they can do better.
If the leadership will disembark from the shores of ambiguity and give clear orders, then we can again reach a reasonable level that will enable us to renew the negotiations.
Q: Mr. Foreign Minister, I'm Bob Litan from The Brookings Institution. It's a pleasure to have you here.
There seems to be growing support inside Israel for some kind of unilateral separation. The wall, big fence, I'm sure you're very familiar with the idea. What are your own views about that as a solution?
FOREIGN MINISTER PERES: I am for a mutual resolve and not for a unilateral one. Unilateral means an imposition. It means the extension of the conflict on a limited piece of land. I am afraid the conflict will become more dangerous, so the land will be more restricted.
Then again I believe as we cannot clap with one hand, we cannot make peace with one side. And I do not believe deep in my heart that fences or walls or trenches can really provide security. Only a new relationship. With the modern weaponry it is extremely difficult to maintain the peace without agreeing on peace, without having a peaceful agreement.
Then again I think there are two or three questions that the people who propose it are conveniently escaping them. Problem one, what will happen with the settlement. If you are talking about the unilateral withdrawal and keeping all the settlements, it is not a withdrawal, it is a camouflage. It is not serious.
Secondly, if we shall hand over the remaining [territory] to the Palestinians, what will prevent them from inviting a foreign army? What then?
Easy solutions are not serious. It's only the hard and the deep and the honest solutions that can hold water.
Q: Sam Lewis. Shimon, there are a lot of these so-called experts on the PLO who tell us often here in Washington and elsewhere that Arafat really doesn't have control enough to stop the violence. Some control, but not enough.
You in your opening remarks clearly lined up with the other Israeli leaders, all of whom say he has the control, he just doesn't exercise it. And he can stop all but marginal terror if he really decides he has to do it.
You've dealt personally with Arafat more I think than any Israeli leader and probably more than any other leader period. By this time, after all these meetings, you must have come to some conclusion about why he doesn't exercise what he should and you urge him and we urge him to do. What's your analysis?
FOREIGN MINISTER PERES: Well, he is not an easy customer. And I know occasions when he took the right decisions. I know occasions when he made mistakes, terrible.
I don't believe he has a full-fledged control of the Palestinians but he has enough and he has more than anybody else, and in my estimation, that today the people around him would support him to do so.
I am afraid that what he does is not a great decision, but a known hesitation. I think it's more hesitation than decision. And I think unless he will understand fully that this time he has to make up his mind, he will not.
It is a costly decision, by the way. I don't underestimate it. I don't say it's easy and simple. But what I say, if he will not do it he will lose control, whatever he has. His choice is not between full control and no control. His choice is between partial control or losing leadership eventually.
My impression is that many people around him feel that the Intifada did not produce really any results. Pains, yes. Achievements, no. And if he will understand that this is the choice then there is no doubt that he can do better than what he is doing today.
Q: Mr. Peres, I am from Russian (unintelligible) and I have a question about your vision of what can do Russia in the future of this peaceful process. And probably you or somebody from Israel's government plan to visit Moscow in the near future. Thank you.
FOREIGN MINISTER PERES: Well, Russian (unintelligible) what terror was all about, and also what terror in the disguise of a Moslem approach means.
I feel very strongly that today more than ever before the Russian Republic is ready to cooperate as far as terror is concerned with the United States of America, and even ready to take the lead of the United States.
I think a combined force of the United States, Europe and Russia can be extremely effective in order really to reopen the road to peace.
Q: Steven Cook from The Brookings Institution. Mr. Foreign Minister, you mentioned in your talk that if Arafat doesn't lead he's not worth being a leader, or you alluded to that. If he doesn't lead, what... Can Israel identify who they may want to work with in a post-Arafat era? What kind of vision do you have for that potential outcome?
FOREIGN MINISTER PERES: Israel must be very careful not to create the impression that we can elect or nominate a Palestinian leader. I think it's a very great mistake on our part. It is for the Palestinians to decide, not for us to indicate. If he shall do it, everybody that may be elected we consider as a [quisoning], as a collaborator. That's not our intention. We would like to negotiate with the Palestinians in respect. We are negotiating with Arafat because he was elected by the Palestinians. And we know that he didn't become a lover of Zion even after the election. But he represents his people and he has his own points of view and we don't suggest that he will put on a face as he is our servant for getting (unintelligible).
But then again I don't think that anybody outside of the Palestinian orbit can decide who will be their leader.
One should be warned that whoever may succeed in the future Arafat will not represent the combined force of the Hamas and the Jihad and the Hezbollah and the front, and getting order from Iran.
Yesterday night we had some problems in the North and this happened immediately after the head of the Hezbollah and his deputy was on the list of the terrorists that the United States has published. They did secret visit to Iran and came back home. We understand the message.
Q: I'm Paul Leventhal with the Nuclear Control Institute. You mentioned, Mr. Foreign Minister, a prayer for the safety of Musharif, and in that context I'd like to ask you how you currently assess the nuclear threat environment to Israel with particular attention to Pakistan, but also with respect to Iraq and Iran. Could you give us some sense of how the Israel government views that situation today?
FOREIGN MINISTER PERES: I think not only Israel, the rest of the world would be terribly concerned if the nuclear weapons of Pakistan will fall in the hands of irresponsible people. It's a nightmare. Not only for us.
Then again we know that the Iranians and the Iraqis, the minute you will stop keeping an eye on Iraq they will go nuclear. There is no room for any illusion. And Iran is the [center of the role]. They feel now a little bit uncomfortable and also they feel a little bit different because Taliban is there and they may as well, for reasons of their own.
But I believe there has to be a more serious consideration how to face the danger. The NPT itself, in my judgment, is not sufficient because Iran signed entity and so did Iraq. And people who are killing don't hesitate to lie. It must be more than just a declaration. There must be a very serious reliance by responsible countries to make sure that nuclear or chemical or biological weapons will not fall in the hands of jealous religious people.
The greatest danger I can think of is a combination of terror, modern technology, and religious pretense. Because in the name of justice many people who claim to be religious are ready to kill everybody.
Q: Sunil Dasgupta from Brookings. Mr. Foreign Minister, you suggested that Arafat can bring about some sort of order in the territories. I wondered if you want to expand that idea and look at how the West and Israel and other countries can get moderate Muslim leaders to step up and put down the terror within their territories? Part of the problem, as you know very well, is in Egypt with whom Israel has a peace agreement, and which is considered to be an ally of the United States. How do you get people like President Mubarak to step up to the plate?
FOREIGN MINISTER PERES: I for one like the combination of the CNN and Al Jezeera. I hope that Al Jezeera will carry the news of the CNN and not only that CNN will carry the news of Al Jezeera.
But may I say the following. I don't believe in the [Huntington] doctrine about the clash of civilization. I think in each civilization there is a clash between modern and moderated forces and extreme ones . I don't think that the Catholic Church, for example, changed because it was in clash with any other religion. It changed because it has discovered inner forces that called for changes and moderation.
The same goes for other religions?Jewish, Buddhists, Protestants... The time has come for the Moslems to decide about their own destiny. Nobody can do it. I mean I don't believe that foreign intervention should or can decide the face of modern Islam. And I see as a result of this tragic event in New York there is a beginning of a heart searching in the Moslem world.
I don't believe that the majority of the Moslems would be like to even indirectly be identified with violence and terror.
I don't know who among the present leaders can do it, but my feeling is that there is a new generation that will carry the message. They are part and parcel of an open world where communication flows easily, and today the world is no longer connected or disconnected by land and sea, but connected or disconnected by air, by cybernetics. No matter where you are, no matter what your religion is, there is an ongoing comparison worldwide. So the young people are asking themselves why them, not us?
I believe the time will come it will reach many very extreme Moslem countries. I can't say how and when. But this is the situation and I think that Moslems should do it for their own sake.
AMBASSADOR INDYK: Shimon, you have other appointments to make. I want to thank you on behalf of all of us here for such an enlightening presentation. And to remind you of something you always reminded me of, a quote from Emerson that you should treat every wall like a door. You have a very big wall of enmity and hatred and mistrust to turn into a door, and we wish you good luck and God speed in doing so.
Thank you very much.