Press Roundtable with Ambassador C. David Welch

Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs
April 20, 2008

Ambassador C. David Welch, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, participated in a roundtable for members of the press in Abu Dhabi on April 20, 2008.  The following is the full transcript of his remarks.

On U.S. perspectives regarding the election of a Lebanese president, and on how the question could be solved:

• To be honest, I am not sure, because the Lebanese themselves have not been able to arrive at a solution yet.   There was some support offered through the Arab League initiative, but it has not had a result and I find that increasingly the people of Lebanon are troubled by this development.  They're worried that they'll have another difficult summer of tourism being low because of the tension in the country, and more broadly, I think they are concerned, ever since Hizballah launched the war in 2006, that maybe Lebanon will miss out from this oil boom, that it will be left behind in the region as there is economic progress elsewhere.  So I found them troubled about the future.

On reports that former President Carter was "warned" against dealing with Hamas:

•  “Tahdir” means warning, right?  Well, that's an inappropriate word to use in this context.  We offered our advice and our understanding of the issues to President Carter, but, sir, he is free to make his own decision. We don’t agree that this is a good approach and we are skeptical it would produce any results.  I would not describe what you have seen as an exchange of messages and it is entirely unclear what the content, purpose and effectiveness will be. What has always worried me, and I think others in the administration, is that because President Carter is a well-known public figure, with a, I would say, genuine moral intention, that his position and views might be misrepresented. It’s not uncommon for Hamas to take propaganda advantage of such things with no real change in their position whatsoever.

On recent statements by Moqtada al-Sadr and Iraqi government efforts to control militias:

• I saw the announcements today by Mr. Moqtada Al-Sadr. Of course one of the problems for security in Iraq is these lawless groups and militias that are operating beyond the authority of the state. It is the responsibility of any government to control law and order within its borders. The Iraqi Government has had particular difficulty doing that. It needs some assistance; that’s what we try to provide. We obviously don’t want to see further violence. We want to see the situation calmed, but calm must occur within a context of government authority and control, and I think that is a matter for the Iraqi government to decide. The Iraqi Government is sovereign. It has taken these decisions on its own and many people in Iraq, to be honest, are asking the government to do more to protect them, and to establish law and order, because they don’t trust many of these gangs and militias. We hope that the government is successful in imposing order and we will try to help it to do so.

On Iranian interference in Iraq:
 
• We’re quite concerned about their interference in Iraq and their supply of weaponry to some of these illegal groups.  We believe that problem is a continuing problem.

On whether the U.S. plans any military action in Iran:

• We have no intentions for such a thing. The President of the United States, always, no matter if the issue is Iran or some other place, never excludes any option. But this President's intention is to pursue a diplomatic course; to try and persuade Iran to change its behavior. That diplomatic approach includes bringing additional economic pressure on Iran using a variety of sanctions including some ordered by the UN Security Council, which means that they have the course of International Law and that all the member states of the Security Council have to decide on them. That’s our preferred course, we hope that it produces a result and that the Iranian Leadership will see that the risks of its actions are greater than the benefits and will change its decisions.  But at the end of the day, any President must have available every option, even if it's not his intention to use it, because circumstances could always change.

On the UAE's announcement of a peaceful nuclear energy program:

• I have discussed this matter several times with the government here. In my understanding as they look at the future energy needs of the Emirates.  They are very considerable. The pace of development here is obviously quite fast. The demand is outstripping the supply.  So they are looking at nuclear energy as an option. They would do so according to all the standards of international law. My belief is also they have a very high safety and environmental concern so they probably are going to attempt to do this at a better than world standard, if you understand what I mean. And finally, I would say this since your question follows one on Iran, these are two extremely different cases. The behavior of the United Arab Emirates is nothing like that of Iran, they are not a threat to any of their neighbors, they intend to observe all the International Laws, safeguards and guidelines.  I think they will find many people willing to cooperate with them in the energy field.  I think that is their national decision. I don’t see any doubt, in terms of the American Administration, that that isn’t their intention, that it is entirely peaceful, that it will not involve any dangerous technology and that it may also be good for the Emirati people.

On plans for an upcoming summit in Sharm El-Sheikh:
 
• I don’t have anything to say yet on the plans for the meeting at Sharm El-Sheikh . Our President will visit the region in the middle of May and is my expectation that he will go to Israel and a number of other places, but I don’t believe the White House has announced anything yet. They normally make such announcements a little closer to the travel time, and we’ll see what has been worked out for the President's schedule at that point.  Now, were he to go to Sharm El-Sheik, he’s the president, so there will obviously be some summit meetings with some counterparts who may be there. But I can’t say now who that would be.

On requests to Syria to cooperate on securing its border with Iraq:

• This is a very problematic border in contrast to the Jordanian and Saudi and Kuwaiti borders. Its length alone cannot be the problem. I think it also has to do with the government’s performance there. It is very well known that the favorite entry point for terrorists coming into Iraq from outside is through Syria. The only thing that could be said about that is, from time to time it appears to be lower in volume. Unfortunately for Iraqis, and for those who are trying to help them, these people are still getting through and they are still conducting terrorist operations inside Iraq. This is not an accusation from the United States; this is a fact, and it is known to every single government in this area, and some outside it.