Interview by Radio Sawa

QUESTION: Ambassador Grossman, we're going to start on Iraq first.

UNDER SECRETARY GROSSMAN: Fine.

QUESTION: Well, I'll start by asking you if the U.S. plans for Iraq are going well? Is everything going as has been planned before?

UNDER SECRETARY GROSSMAN: First of all, thank you very much for the chance to be with you. Nothing ever goes exactly according to plan. But if you ask me, “Are we better off in Iraq today than we were before this conflict?” -- I think the answer to that question is, yes. Iraqis are free. They are free from one of the most horrible regimes in the last 50 years; they are free from a Stalinist economy.

And we can see a day -- and I hope the Iraqis can see a day -- when Iraq will be democratic, multi-ethnic, have its territorial integrity, get rid of all of its weapons of mass destruction, stop its connection to terrorism and be at peace with its neighbors. And so we are working very hard to create that vision for Iraq. And it's something we're committed to every day.

QUESTION: Was the U.S. prepared for the complexities of the Iraqi society, as it is showing every day?

UNDER SECRETARY GROSSMAN: Absolutely. Obviously, we had time to think about this, and we worked a lot with Iraqi experts.

Were we ready for every single thing that's happened? No. But we have a very clear vision for Iraq and we think Iraqis share that vision. So we are not put off by this challenge. We are energized by this challenge. And we think that there is a very great opportunity here, and we hope the Iraqis will take it.

QUESTION: What about the anti-American rallies and what is happening lately? Do you have like proof now that these are definitely caused by Baathist people and groups of those people, or do you think that some of the Shia, the people who are basically supposed to be happy to see you there, are also sharing in this thing because they are probably upset of something?

UNDER SECRETARY GROSSMAN: First, I think that the attacks that have come on American forces are certainly from leftover Baath Party people, Saddam security people, people who are terrorists, people who wish to create havoc not just for the United States, but for Iraqis.

For the others, after 29 years of having no possibility of being able to be out in politics, I am not surprised that people are taking the opportunity to be political and to demonstrate for their views. They are also very frustrated.

I would imagine that if you were liberated, as the Iraqis were by coalition forces, you want everything to change right away, and everything doesn't change right away. It takes time for change. And so that people are frustrated, that people want more, that people have high expectations -- that doesn't surprise me at all.

QUESTION: Mm-hmm, absolutely. What about the Shia clerics and the Shia opposition -- the Shia, in general, in Iraq? Does the U.S. still have this reluctancy against dealing with the Shia? I mean, this old myth of the "Shia Boogeyman," what we call there, the Shia Boogeyman, I mean, everybody, all the Shia and the opposition are sensing that probably the U.S. is like driving them away from the new government that is being -- what is the real U.S. position on this?

UNDER SECRETARY GROSSMAN: The real U.S. position is that we want an Iraq that’s multi-ethnic.

QUESTION: Yeah.

UNDER SECRETARY GROSSMAN: And if you want an Iraq that's multi-ethnic and multi-religious, and you believe in democracy, then everyone in Iraq -- Shia, Sunni, Turkomen, Assyrian, everybody -- who is prepared to live peacefully, live by the rules, participate in Iraqi society, ought to be welcome to do that. And I think that Ambassador Bremer has shown by his actions over these past few weeks that we are prepared to talk to anybody, any religious group, any political group that is prepared peacefully to participate in Iraq's future.

So we don't push anyone away. People have some choices to make. They have to make choices about their future. They have to make choices about violence or non-violence. They have to make choices about participation. And if they make choices that show they want to be part of the future of Iraq, then we are more than glad to have them be part of it.

QUESTION: So the Iran presence doesn't have any role in any reluctancy that U.S. might have of the Shia? And you know the relation of the Shia, the Iraqis with the Iranians, do you like this is a door that probably the U.S. is afraid to open at large because of probably this door would be -- would allow more Iranians to be infiltrated inside the new Iraqi --

UNDER SECRETARY GROSSMAN: With respect to that, I wouldn't put the question quite that way. The door we are trying to open in Iraq is the door to democracy. And if you believe in democracy, then you have to believe in democracy for everyone, and Iraq is a multi-ethnic society. Iraq has many religious groups. Iraq has many people who believe in many things. And like the United States, we want to have a democracy in which all of those people can participate.

And my view is that if such a democracy can be created, and the Shia people in Iraq participate in that democracy, then Iran is kind of irrelevant because it's Iraqis who participate in Iraqi democracy. And, at some point, the United States will be gone from Iraq, other forces should be gone from Iraq, and Iraq should be for Iraqis. And that's what we are trying to create. That's the door we are trying to open.

QUESTION: For all purposes, the U.S. has explicitly said lately that it's going to be for a couple of years before it can leave Iraq to the Iraqis. But, in the meantime, like while this procedure is being done, what is the U.S. going to do, in order to swipe away this -- this illusion and this fear of the Arabs and the Iraqis of something called the "U.S. occupation," which is not really what is the U.S. doing in Iraq? But, I mean, you know, the Middle Easterners, in general, the Iraqis, in particular, are haunted by the occupation thing. What is the U.S. going to do, in order not to, you know, have this -- in order to swipe away this illusion from their minds?

UNDER SECRETARY GROSSMAN: First, I think that it's important to deal with this question of how long we will stay in Iraq. And all of us are trying very hard not to put some kind of specific date on it. And what our President has said is that we will be in Iraq as long as it takes, but not one day longer. And I think that's a very important point for your listeners to take in.

Second, Ambassador Bremer has talked a lot about the need over the next few weeks to bring some Iraqis into this administration on the way to some kind of interim authority, on the way to a transitional government. And he arrived there thinking that he needed to meet a lot of people, talk to Iraqis, and then he will make some choices, I think, with the help of the Iraqis about who ought to be part of this interim administration.

And the third answer I would give you about how are we going to show Iraqis that this is for the benefit of Iraqis, is if you look at what's happening now with the Iraqi army. Within a few days, the first new recruits for the Iraqi army will start to be trained. We have now about 8,000 Iraqi police forces; police officers are back on the streets patrolling 24 hours a day; 15 courts are back in business, all made up of Iraqis; thousands of people are working to restore Iraq's infrastructure, for example, the canals; we're paying people to try to get them back to work; the economy is slowly coming back.

And so these things take time. But we, with Iraqis, have this plan and this vision that a democratic Iraq should belong to democratic Iraqis. And I think we can accomplish that goal and everyone will see that our objective has never been to stay in Iraq -- not one day longer than it takes to create this vision.

QUESTION: Let's move to the big conflict of the Middle East, the Israeli-Palestinian. Why is the roadmap better than any other previous accord that has been done between those two people and never worked?

UNDER SECRETARY GROSSMAN: I think the roadmap has the possibility of being a success, where, as you say, other things might have failed, for maybe three or four reasons. The first reason is President Bush's speech of June the 24th of last year. And in many ways, perhaps, even your listeners, I think, underestimated that speech.

President Bush stood up in front of the world and what did he say? That the United States of America was for two states, a Palestinian state and an Israeli state, living side-by-side in peace in the Middle East. It was a very powerful statement for the President to be committed to this thing. So that's the first reason I would say that this is different.

Second is the call that our President made and Palestinians made for more democracy in the Palestinian movement, and for a new Prime Minister among Palestinians. And so you now have Prime Minister Abbas, who is committed to a Palestinian state, but he is also committed to the ending of terrorism. And I think that is also a very important change.

Third, you don't have so much competition among the world groups like the UN, the United States, the European Union for their own plans; everybody is behind the Quartet, and, therefore, the roadmap. And so the fact that the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia are all working together off one plan, I think is extremely important.

And then, finally, I believe it's also key that President Bush brought leaders of the Arab world together at Sharm el-Sheikh to get a commitment about the end of terrorism, and then went on to Aqaba to have the Israelis and Palestinians start to talk about a process.

So I think there is a clear vision. There is a commitment by the President; there is a recognition that terrorism is in the way of the creation of the Palestinian state; and there is more democracy on the Palestinian side.

So I don't say to you that this is a guarantee of progress, there are no guarantees in the Middle East. But is this something that we can work hard for and believe in? Yes, I think it is.

QUESTION: How much is the U.S. ready to support Abu Mazen into this new reform that he needs to do in the Palestinian Government, because we know Abu Mazen has very good intentions? But, I mean, how much is he going to be able to actually purge his society from whatever can stand against his new trend that he is trying to drive the Palestinians towards? Is the U.S. ready to actually support him, not only by telling him that they support him -- how much will the U.S. really support him? Because this is a very important part of this roadmap; if he fails, the whole thing fails.

UNDER SECRETARY GROSSMAN: That's a very important point. I think President Bush, Secretary Powell, and Dr. Rice, in all of the conversations and speeches that they have made, have been in support of the new Prime Minister of the Palestinians, Abu Mazen. The President spoke about it here in Washington today, about how pleased he was and how much effort he was making with the Arab states also to support Abu Mazen.

Today, in the West Bank, we announced a $30 million new aid program, for example, in areas of agriculture, in areas of irrigation, areas we hope that will be important to the Palestinian people. Ambassador John Wolf, who was sent by the President to work with the parties, has also been in great support of the peace process. And in other areas we are trying to build up democracy and security for Abu Mazen.

So part of this is our responsibility, but part of it is the responsibility of the Palestinian people, and also the other Arab states. Because here is a man, the Prime Minister, who can, I believe, bring Palestinians to their goal, which is a state, and so we'll support him. But I hope that Palestinians will support Abu Mazen, and that other Arab governments will support him as well.

QUESTION: Do you think Yasser Arafat will support Abu Mazen or will fight him?

UNDER SECRETARY GROSSMAN: I don't know the answer to that question. I hope that Palestinians will send a message to Yasser Arafat that his day is done, and that he was not able to produce a Palestinian state. And we recognize that he still has a lot of force in the Palestinian movement.

But, right now, everybody's job should be to support Abu Mazen. Because if he is supported by everyone and ends terrorism, he could really bring the vision everybody has, including President Bush, which is two states living side-by-side in peace.

QUESTION: What about the Israeli side? We are hearing good things from Mr. Sharon too, and especially probably regarding the settlements and the outposts. I was talking to Mr. Amir Gerdeman (ph.) yesterday, the spokesman of, and I was asking him about this, and he said that they are ready to dismantle all the illegal outposts, but the other settlements stay. What is that supposed to mean? I mean, like those settlements are in the Palestinian territory. If they stay there, they are still going to gruel a conflict.

UNDER SECRETARY GROSSMAN: Obviously, there are going to be lots of negotiations and conversation about all of this. But if you see what's happened over the past couple of weeks, the Israelis did dismantle the illegal outposts; the Israelis have withdrawn from Gaza; and on this very day, as we are speaking, Israelis have taken their forces out of Bethlehem.

These are not small things; I think these are big things. And if we can continue this momentum of each side meeting its obligations to the roadmap, then we're going to make some progress here. And the roadmap clearly says that at the end of the day, these settlements have to go, and we have to deal with this problem. And so that's what we're going to try to do.

QUESTION: There is this theory that's going in the Middle East -- let me tell you, I come from there, and I can tell you how people think and what is really going on there -- a theory called "The Palestinians Economic Transfer to Iraq." We are talking about the refugees that are outside the Palestinian territories or are outside Israel, which usually -- which means, I mean, the theory, it says that since the Palestinians are mainly Sunni Muslims, they would, demographically-speaking, they would probably be welcome to go as workers, needed workers, for labor or whatever, have an Iraqi citizenship, as part of the solution to the Palestinian refugees going, be transferred to Iraq. Do you think that this is a plausible theory, in the first place?

UNDER SECRETARY GROSSMAN: I have never heard of such a thing.

QUESTION: Well, I'm telling you what's coming from there.

UNDER SECRETARY GROSSMAN: Well, if you ask me whether there is some theory that we are working on that's anything like what you have just said, I'd say I have never heard of such a thing.

QUESTION: At all?

UNDER SECRETARY GROSSMAN: At all.

QUESTION: My last question is: Why the timing of the U.S. involvement, serious involvement in this Palestinian-Israel issue? I mean, we sensed at the beginning of when Mr. Bush was elected that he was kind of detached of this thing or may not be seriously involved; but then after Iraq, he decided to get more involved in this issue. Does that have any link between the U.S. presence and what it's doing in Iraq and making peace between Palestinians and Israelis? Does it affect the U.S. administration in any way?

UNDER SECRETARY GROSSMAN: I think you have to get the time sequence right here. The sequence, of course, is that the United States, for many years, through many administrations, has been deeply involved in the Middle East. The President's speech on the 24th of June of last year lays out this vision of two states living side-by-side, and calls for more democracy among Palestinians.

And then the President said that he would publish the roadmap immediately after Abu Mazen was confirmed by the Palestinian Parliament, and that happened I believe in December of last year. So this is well before there is conflict in Iraq. And so I think you need to see the sequence the way that we have seen it: the President's speech, more democracy for Palestinians, and then, just as we promised, the publication of the roadmap.

Then there was the conflict in Iraq, and I don't say to you that it has nothing to do with the changing circumstances in the Middle East. Secretary Powell said yesterday it removes from the Middle East a regime that was opposed to peace in the Middle East. It removed Saddam Hussein, a man who was opposed to peace in the Middle East, so it is relevant here.

And so, then the President is able to get people focused on the problem and a need to end terrorism, bringing Arab leaders together at Sharm el-Sheikh, and then to Aqaba. So I think if you see the time sequence right, this isn't something that we thought up at the end of the conflict with Iraq. It is part of a larger vision laid out by the President on the 24th of June of last year, to actually have two states living side-by-side, an Israeli state, and, very importantly, I think for your listeners, a Palestinian state.

QUESTION: Absolutely. But, like, on the other hand, it was -- it's more like maybe a very good U.S. involvement in making the peace between Palestinians and Israelis, which is a main issue in the Middle East, would probably help the U.S. with its image in the Middle East, which is having trouble with it, somehow with the Arab people, and the Arab -- I mean, getting so seriously involved into making this crucial matter into the right track would help it make a better job in Iraq be more welcome, be -- people will be more positive to whatever the U.S. would do in the Middle East. This is exactly what I meant, I mean, like the link between what it's doing in Iraq and the effect, the positive effect it will have.

UNDER SECRETARY GROSSMAN: We are trying, in carrying out the President's policy to carry out a number of policies simultaneously, to, as you say, facilitate and bring peace between Israelis and Palestinians and help create a Palestinian state, to bring an end to terrorism, but also to create, as you and I talked about earlier in this interview, a democracy in Iraq -- and even more than that. The President has talked about a Middle East free trade area over the next ten years.

We have asked our Congress for $100 million for the Middle East Partnership Initiative, to focus in on more freedom, more information, a larger role for women in the Middle East. So we don't have a Middle East policy that's just this piece or that piece. We look at it as a whole. And if all of those things help produce a better image for the United States and the Middle East, I would be very glad for that.

But our attempt here is not to do it for its public relations value, but to do it because it's the right thing to do. It would be right to have a Palestinian and Israeli state. It would be right if there was an end to terrorism and violence in the Middle East. It would be right if there was more freedom, more information, a greater role for women in the Middle East. It would be right if there was more free trade.

So we want to do these things because they are the proper and correct things to do. And if people consider it then better for the image of the United States, so be it.

QUESTION: So, finally, what is the next step in the roadmap after this? Now, if this works and the Israelis pulling out of the West Bank and all, what is the next step? What should be done next?

UNDER SECRETARY GROSSMAN: We need to continue to ask both sides to this conflict to meet the obligations of the roadmap. You'll remember it's in three phases, and we're currently working in phase one. We have to make sure that the terrorism piece of this is solved. Because one terrible event could make this much more difficult, and we don't want to do that.

So we need to keep the momentum going. We need to keep the world's attention focused on this. And we hope that both sides will meet the obligations clearly laid out for them in the roadmap.

QUESTION: Thank you so much.

UNDER SECRETARY GROSSMAN: Thank you. Anytime.