*EPF406 09/25/2003
Transcript: Senior U.S. Official Says U.S. Is Seeking New Resolution On Iraq
(Resolution aimed at furthering Iraqi self-government) (4160)

The United States is working with its friends and allies in the United Nations on a new Security Council resolution that will expand the U.N.'s role in Iraq and further the restoration of Iraqi self-government, a senior U.S. official said September 24.

Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs Kim R. Holmes said that work on a new resolution "is not just about troops. It is not just about finance. It's actually a larger question of how we bring the international community together on a consensus on the whole political process in Iraq. That's the larger picture that we are working on."

The United States is "trying to expand the role of the United Nations, have it more involved in the political process. We're trying to bring the council members together behind that process. That is our goal," Holmes said at a press conference during the opening week of the 58th U.N. General Assembly session.

Holmes said the issues are "defining the vital role of the U.N., finding an appropriate consensus on the political timetable, the political process, and dealing with these differences of opinion on turning over authority."

The United States believes that turning over authority to the Iraqi people "should be at the end of a democratic process," he said.

"The quicker we come together on this question, the quicker we move on a resolution and get the international community behind a common effort on returning authority to the Iraqi people, the faster it will go," the assistant secretary said. "The more we disagree, the more we delay, the more opportunities it gives to those who either through terrorism or through political obstructionism want to slow the process of democratization of Iraq."

Holmes said that at a meeting in Geneva of the foreign ministers of the five permanent members of the Security Council (China, France, Russia, Britain and the United States) called by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan there was "a convergence on two essential points" on Iraq: there is a need for a new U.N. mandate to create a multinational force that would enhance security and stability in Iraq, and the end goal is to turn over sovereignty and authority to the Iraqi people at the end of the process.

Following is the transcript of Holmes' remarks:

(begin transcript)

Briefing with Dr. Kim Holmes, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International
Organization Affairs, Department of State
"U.S. Objectives at this Year's United Nations General Assembly"
New York Foreign Press Center
Wednesday, September 24, 2003, 11:00 a.m. EDT

MS. NISBET: Good morning. I'd like to welcome Dr. Kim Holmes, Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of International Organization Affairs from the U.S. Department of State. He is here to discuss the U.S. objectives at this year's UNGA, and we're happy to have him. I know the schedule is quite busy this week, so if you could each pretty much keep your questions to one, we might have time for follow-up, and please wait for the mike and state your name and affiliation.

Thank you.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Thank you very much. Good morning, everyone. It's a pleasure to be here.

Yesterday, when the President addressed the 58th Session of the General Assembly, he made clear the commitment of the United States to the United Nations. He described the challenge that we and the member-states of the United Nations face in the world today. We face a world in which we have to choose between a world of chaos and violence, or a world of order and peace. And he made clear that all of those who work for peace and order in the world, whether through the United Nations or through their own national efforts, will earn the favorable judgment of history.

To these ends, we are working with our friends and allies in the United Nations, and the President described the vital role the UN is playing towards these ends in Iraq. He described how the United Nations can, and I quote, "contribute greatly to the cause of Iraqi self-government."

But he also described how we are working to expand the role of the United Nations. And to this end, we are working with friends and allies on a new Security Council resolution on Iraq, which will, indeed, expand the UN's role in Iraq.

He talked about the role of the UN in assisting us and others who are working with the coalition and the Governing Council in Iraq on the constitution, and how they can work on training civil servants, and also the role of the UN in assisting in conducting free and fair elections. These are the roles that we think the UN has shown itself historically to be very good at. We would like to welcome them to do more in this area in Iraq.

In the General Assembly, we are going to be pursuing a number of initiatives on women's rights, on HIV/AIDS, on cloning, on cybersecurity and sustainable development. And also, after 19 years absence from UNESCO, we will be rejoining UNESCO next week. And I will be joining the First Lady going to Paris for the opening ceremonies, along with Secretary Paige, Secretary of Education, who will be leading the delegation to UNESCO this year.

We have a number of initiatives that we will be pursuing in UNESCO after we rejoin: reducing illiteracy, promoting tolerance and press freedom, developing scientific standards, preserving cultural heritage, and also applying the information and communication technologies to prevent conflicts and to promote good governance and economic development.

We also, as a new member of UNESCO, will take up the historical challenge of the United States in the UN to make sure that UNESCO continues along the path of management reforms, something they've been going a good job of already but something that we would like to help them continue to do.

So, with that, I would be happy to take any questions that you may have.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: DeaglBn de BrJaddn from the Irish Times in Dublin. I'm just a little confused. Mr. Chirac talks of handing over power now to the Governing Council, but is it the case that the United States wants to wait until free and fair elections are being held and then hand over power or sovereignty to that body? Is that the issue? Is that your view?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Well, it's not entirely clear what the position of France is on this. I think that the phrase that they used is "returning sovereignty," and maybe there's a distinction between sovereignty and power, I don't know. You'll have to ask them to elaborate on that point.

But I think that what was made very clear, particularly from the meeting that we had in Geneva with the Permanent 5 members of the Security Council, was that there was convergence on two essential points in Iraq: convergence on the need for a new UN mandate to create a multinational force that would enhance security and stability in Iraq, that would give more encouragement for countries to contribute troops or otherwise to the security of Iraq; and also, there was convergence on the idea that we all agree that the end goal is to turn over sovereignty and authority to the Iraqi people at the end of the process.

Yes, there's some discussions going on about the process, the tactical questions about how you get from here to there, and that will be discussed in the course of the conversations and consultations on our resolution.

But I think there is an agreement -- notwithstanding the differences that still exist, and I don't want to underestimate them -- but still I think there's an overall agreement on the strategic goal of what we need to do in a political process in Iraq.

QUESTION: Eli Lake, United Press International. In the President's speech yesterday, he talked about a new nonproliferation initiative. Could you maybe lay out for us how this new resolution that the U.S. is apparently going to be drafting is different than the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and a variety of other treaties that already exist that would stem the flow of weapons of mass destruction?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Well, this administration has been committed to trying to control proliferation, and counter proliferation for some time now, and this is just another step in the commitment that we have to try to control the weapons of mass destruction and the technologies that are used to make them.

The resolution that the President described yesterday is something that we will have to work out in detail, certainly in consultations with other members of the Council. So it's going to take some time to get down to the details, but certainly, this is in line with the goal that we've had all along about the need to strengthen international regimes, to control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and also to insist that there are strict export controls that are consistent with international standards.

And so this is along those paths of details of how we're going to work that out. It's something that we'll have to go into consultations with over the next few weeks.

QUESTION: If I can follow up, how -- what are you going to get? What will a resolution give you that you don't have in existing treaties?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: As I said, this is something that we would have to work out with other members of the Council. It's a bit premature for me to get into the details of a resolution until we have some chance to consult with other members.

QUESTION: I don't even understand why you want it.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: As I said, we are trying to strengthen international regimes to control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The details of the resolution will have to be worked out in consultations with other members of the Council.

QUESTION: Tammy Kupperman from NBC News. I wanted to actually go back to Iraq, if I could. Where are you on generating a new text for the resolution, and what are you hearing back from other countries as far as donor fatigue, both militarily and financially?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Well, as you know, we have shared a text of the resolution a couple weeks ago with members of the Council. We have taken the reactions that we have gotten from them. We have welcomed the input that we have gotten from other members.

We have said all along that we are going to do this right, we want to take our time to put together a consensus in the Council on this issue. And we have been encouraged by the response. And as I said, the meeting that occurred in Geneva a couple of weekends ago of the Permanent 5 members of the Council was encouraging to that extent, notwithstanding some of the differences that we still have.

Where we go next will depend on the results of the discussions of the principals over the next couple of days. We will assess at the end of that period where we are. The President said we are committed to this resolution and we will go forward with it.

The timing of it will depend on the outcome of the discussions that occurred yesterday and today, and tomorrow as well. So we'll be moving forward once we have a clear idea of where we are at the principal level.

QUESTION: And on donor fatigue?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Well, I think that clearly many countries around the world are looking to this resolution as a way of providing greater political space for contributing financially to our efforts in Iraq, and we are cognizant of that. It's one of the reasons why we would like to move forward on a resolution. I think that most countries -- you know, they all have their own national imperatives and that they have to -- and their own budgets that they have to be attuned to. But I think that, at this point, our job is to try to move forward this resolution in order to give, as I said, greater political space for countries to be able to contribute.

QUESTION: Stoyan Tonchev, Bulgaria newspaper Monitor.

From yesterday's pictures of Bush and Chirac, we feel that there is not much common ground on the main issues of the world discussed now. Do you have any U.S. strategy towards getting closer, because, as you said, you are committed to United Nations, which just could be a common effort; otherwise, he said, but he stands with his own position. I don't see how this could be an end result in this.

So, do you have any plans you could share with us, any strategy how to overcome all these differences?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Well, Iraq is just one issue among many. It's the one that gets the most prominent coverage in discussing our relations with France, but there are many areas in which we cooperate with France. We cooperate closely with them on counterterrorism. We cooperate with them in Afghanistan. There are many -- and we cooperate with them on, for example, in the IAEA in Vienna in dealing with the issue of Iran and its nuclear program.

So I think it's sometimes, naturally, because of the prominence that's given to the issue of Iraq, that it seems to be that that's the only defining issue in our relations. And it certainly is important, I don't deny that, but I think that we should not overplay that in our overall relations. We've been friends with France for a very long time. We still remain friends. They are allies of the United States.

And I think that this is the way France looks at us. I think that they are trying to find ways to work together to reach the common goal of having a peaceful and stable Iraq. We have differences of opinion tactically on how that might be done at this point. We're trying to work it out in the Security Council in a resolution that I just described. So it's a bit too early to say how those particular discussions will turn out in the end.

QUESTION: Teri Schultz, Fox News.

But did you not yesterday send some -- more -- and also with the interview that President Chirac gave to the New York Times earlier this week, did you not sense a definite stepping back from the hardline position of saying that Iraqi authority -- the Iraqi Governing Council should get its authority back within a month or it should be within a month or two? Didn't you sense a difference in Chirac's language yesterday?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Well, I talked also to some of my French counterparts over the last day or so, and what I am sensing is that they are trying to be constructive within the lines of the position that they have taken out, and we all know what it is and there's no sense for me to, at this point, to repeat the debates. We all know what they are.

But what I am sensing is a willingness to try to discuss the different positions in a constructive way, to try to have a fuller understanding of where each one of us are. We are listening. They are listening. And my own personal view is that I am encouraged by what I have seen so far.

It's going to take some tough discussions over the next few days, and maybe even a week, before we see exactly how it turns out. But so far, I am encouraged.

QUESTION: Guillermo Fesser from Ser, Spain.

I am curious about why rejoining right now UNESCO, and I wonder if it could be read as a gesture of now that the United States policy in terms of military, you know, gets some animosity in many countries in the United Nations, maybe it's a gesture from the government to try to show that you will like to be in the international arena and not have everything approach from a unilateral point of view. I don't know, why right now?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Well, as you know, we left UNESCO some 19 years ago -- it was a different time -- but because we were concerned that the political agenda that UNESCO was pursuing at that time was adverse to the values of freedom and democracy that the West held. Also, we did not believe it was managed properly at that time. And some other countries, of course, joined us to leave UNESCO.

In the last 19 years, I think UNESCO has gotten more focused on its original agenda of science and culture. It's become less politicized than it was during the height of the Cold War. Under Dr. Matsura's leadership, it's made some progress in management reforms. So it's a different institution than it was 19 years ago, and for that reason we thought it was appropriate to return.

I think that once you now have this new environment in UNESCO, I think, and I've sensed this by talking to leaders not only of UNESCO but also other members of the permanent representatives to UNESCO from other countries, there is an anxiousness and an interest in knowing what America can provide in the area of cultural politics and education that's been missing for the last 19 years. We have a lot to offer on education. Secretary Paige will be going with the First Lady, as I said, next week to lead a delegation there. We have done a lot of work on education, have some new and interesting ideas I think the international community can benefit from. Certainly, America, as a leader in science and in maintaining the high standards of scientific research, is something that UNESCO would benefit from.

So if we can get UNESCO to stay focused on its original mandate -- because we were, of course, involved in the original creation of UNESCO -- then I think that both UNESCO, the United States, the American people, and, of course, other members can benefit. And so we thought the time was right to rejoin for those reasons.

QUESTION: Eli Lake again from UPI. Can you just say, from a kind of strategic perspective in getting the Iraq resolution, what it means that Ahmed Chalabi is leading a delegation of Iraqis right now, arguing for a much quicker transfer of sovereignty? He's talked about giving the Iraqi Governing Council the ability to make cell phone contracts, he wants to get control of the Ministry of Security, he wants to get control of the Ministry of Finance. That seems a lot different in a lot of ways than what the U.S. perspective on this is, and can you tell us what that means in terms of rounding up votes on the Security Council?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Well, you know, we're very pleased with the creation of the Governing Council. We're pleased that there is representation of the Governing Council here at the General Assembly, and that the Arab League and other organizations have welcomed them. The Security Council has welcomed the Governing Council, so we're all very pleased that this process is ongoing. I think that, you know, clearly the members of the Council will have to speak for themselves; after all, one of the purposes of creating a council like this is just to give the Iraqi people a voice, and each of one of the members will have their own opportunity to express their opinions.

I think that what we need to focus on here is how to bring consensus of the Security Council members together on a new resolution, and we know what the issues are in terms of defining the vital role of the UN, finding an appropriate consensus on the political timetable, the political process, and dealing with these differences of opinion over when you actually turn authority over to the Iraqi people.

We believe that it should be at the end of a democratic process, that this would give the most legitimacy to whatever new government is created, rather than handing it over early on to some provisional government that would have neither the capacity, nor the legitimacy to have full sovereign authority over the people of Iraq.

The quicker we come together on this question, the quicker we move on a resolution and get the international community behind a common effort on this effort of returning authority to the Iraqi people, the faster it will go. The more we disagree, the more we delay, the more opportunities it gives to those who, either through terrorism, or through political obstructionism, want to slow the process of democratization of Iraq.

So I think that this is all part of the process of democracy. Democracy allows people to give their different opinions. The process is not going to always be clear. Sometimes it's going to be messy. We understand that. That's what the process is all about. And we'll just have to work it the best we can.

QUESTION: But can you just say what it means that he's going out saying (inaudible)?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: What I don't -- as I said, he is entitled to his opinion. And this is part of the process of trying to form political consensus in Iraq. And it's just part of this process we have to deal with, and he's not my guy, he's not the U.S. guy. He is there, you know, trying to work out from his best vantage point what he believes that the Iraqi people should be represented.

QUESTION: (Teri Schultz, Fox News) The U.S. believes the Iraqis are (inaudible) by a timeline. Now, Chalabi is saying that this is -- this is the timeline that we want. So what the U.S. really means is the Iraqis should establish a timeline that's approved by the United States.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Well, there's more members of the Council than Mr. Chalabi, so he doesn't --

QUESTION: He doesn't speak for the Council, even though he's president of it right now?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Well, he's president this month. You know, they have to work out their own consensus. And this is their process, and it's also the process that has to be dealt with by the Provisional Authority in Baghdad. And, you know, I'm here in New York talking about the UN role in this and so I need to be speaking in my area of competence, and that's what we're trying to do in the Security Council.

QUESTION: Tammy Kupperman with NBC again.

I just wanted to follow up on, you know, you talked about this new resolution as being important in providing political space for countries to make commitments. Do you -- is anybody jumping up and down to contribute troops at this point? I mean, people are really strapped militarily, too.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Well there are some countries that are waiting to see the outcome of the resolution for the reasons that you just mentioned. I think also that it really would be a mistake for us to judge the results of such a resolution on the troop side by looking at what people are necessarily saying today. You'd have to look down the road and what they might say in two or three months' time or even a year.

It's important to keep you eye on the long road, on the long run here, because circumstances change, and even in the short term though, we have seen some willingness of some countries that would like to contribute. But they have asked for a UN resolution to provide its political space.

But I think, though, that to put this in a larger perspective, this is not just about troops, it's not just about finance; it's actually a larger question of how we bring the international community together on a consensus on the whole political process in Iraq. That's the larger picture that I hope that would keep in mind that we're working on here. And the troops are only part of that. And whatever position any particular member of the Governing Council may be taking at one time or another is a snapshot of this process, that we understand is part of the process, but it's not the end of it.

And so I think that what we're trying to do is keep our eye on the big picture. We're trying to expand the role of the UN in Iraq, we're trying to get it more involved in the political process, and we're trying to bring the Council members together behind that process. That's our goal.

MS. NISBET: Thank you.

(end transcript)

(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

Return to Public File Main Page

Return to Public Table of Contents