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 R. Pickering Under Secretary of State Middle East Institute Washington, D.C. October 16, 1998

Thank you, Rocky. It's a pleasure to be here, among old colleagues and friends who share a common experience and appreciation for the Middle East. In this regard, allow me to pay special tribute to the work of the Middle East Institute and its supporters. Allow me to pay tribute, too, to your prescience. Who but you would have known that October 16, 1998 would land smack in the middle of the most important period for the Middle East peace negotiations in several years...and thus the most important Middle East weekend of the year, and more.

Current events in the region are testimony to the foresight of Ambassador Christian Herter and the Institute's founders, who recognized the importance of the Middle East to American interests and appreciated the need for greater mutual understanding. Since its establishment over 50 years ago, the Institute's programs, publications, and library have served us well by educating the public and opinion leaders on the region's complexities and their relevance to the United States.

I have been asked tonight to speak about those complexities and to examine some of the problems and opportunities for U.S. policy in the region.

In some ways, the problems of the Middle East are not distinct from those that we face throughout the world. With an average population growth rate of 3%, the region is beset by the same demographic explosion which is putting dangerous resource demands and social and political pressures on countries throughout Africa and Asia. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems is a global threat, which concerns not only the Middle East, but Europe, South Asia, and East Asia, as well. As the Embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam so horrifically demonstrated, terrorism represents an international scourge, which is not confined to a single geographic area. The accelerating evolution of an interdependent global economy makes Middle Eastern markets vulnerable to the fiscal and trade upheavals now affecting Russia and several of the Asian tigers.

The Middle East is no longer the isolated, exotic enclave romanticized by the likes of Doughty, Lawrence, Thesiger, Philby, and Bell. Rather, it is a modern, vital member of the complex web of international institutions, information linkages, and transnational relationships euphemistically referred to as "the global village." But also a modern region with a venerable and vital history which touches all Americans.

The Middle East thus presents unique challenges. Many of its more intractable problems have their roots in the region's long history and require special consideration. Foremost among these, of course, is the Arab-Israeli dispute. Its antecedents date back thousands of years. The common traditions of the Gulf states have allowed for decades of interdependence and a close and cordial security relationship with the United States. Saddam Hussein uses history by invoking the legacy of the Babylonians to legitimize his aggressions and Iraq's persistent refusal to rejoin the family of nations. Across the Middle East, radical movements exploit religion for political ends, positing a false dichotomy between Islam and the West. Even moderates in the region speak of a "clash of cultures" when discussing relations with the U.S., and chastise us for what they perceive as double standards and an anti-Islamic bias. Huntington is perhaps more in vogue in the Middle East than the Middle West.

The truth is that Islam is one of America's newest, but fastest-growing religious faiths. In mosques across the country, millions worship as part of the complex web of American life, respected by friends and admired by neighbors. Americans are beginning to understand that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism share much in common and honor a single god. Indeed, each was born and found favor in the Middle East, the common crucible of our religious heritage.

The history of the Middle East has also given the region's political institutions a distinctive character, which influences how we deal with them. The Free Officer and Ba'athi movements, the creation of the modern Gulf sheikdoms, Hashemite and Saudi rule in Jordan and Central Arabia, respectively, and the political structures in North Africa were all in a direct and material way influenced by the outside and by colonial experience, whether Ottoman or European.

One of the more distinctive characteristics of the region, in this regard, is the unusual longevity of its regimes. Most of its leaders have been in power for over 20 years. King Hussein has led Jordan since 1952. King Hassan ascended to the throne of Morocco in 1960. The UAE has had only one leader since independence. In 1970, Sultan Qaboos came to the throne of Oman, and Hafez al Assad seized control of Syria. Colonel Qadhaffi took power in Libya in 1971. Next year will mark the 20th anniversary of Yemen's Ali Abdullah Saleh and Iraq's Saddam Hussein as heads of state. With only 17 years as Egypt's President, Hosni Mubarak, is one of the Middle East's more junior leaders in time of service, but certainly not in terms of Egypt's enormous prestige and his leadership role in the peace process.

This continuity in leadership has resulted in a remarkable degree of internal stability. Alternatively, you could argue that it graphically illustrates the degree to which the region's political institutions are underdeveloped. Either way, it poses a particular challenge in planning for the future. In some cases, such as that of Jordan and Saudi Arabia, the path for succession, when it comes, is clear. In others, such as Syria and Iraq, the politics of regime transition are anything but obvious or certain.

We must manage these myriad issues with due regard to both their global character and special regional considerations. Our policies combine continuity and innovation, multilateralism and American leadership. I should also point out, especially to a group such as you, that these issues require of us policies which are not only consistent with American interests, but also take into consideration the views of our allies in the region and the social and political forces which influence their decision-making. Virtually, every issue of common concern with the countries of the Middle East has a cultural dimension to it. To be effective in the region, we must understand and take these dimensions into account, not necessarily to the point where they determine our actions, but at least so that our decisions are not made in an intellectual vacuum or dispensed to a misunderstood public or leadership. If you examine our policies in any number of areas, I think you will find that we are making a special effort to accommodate these sensitivities and political realities.

Some parties, for example, have argued in a fit of oversimplicity that our war against terrorism is a war against Islam. Nothing could be further from the truth. We view terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as transnational threats which require a multilateral approach. While America must lead, we cannot adequately protect ourselves by acting alone. Only by working together with our international partners and through international organizations can we hope successfully to contain the spread of missile technology, nuclear and chemical weapons, or acts of terror.

That being said, if and when American interests are under direct and imminent threat of attack, we will not, and should not, hesitate to act. Such was the case last August, when we had compelling information about operations planned by Osama bin Laden and his associates, directed against American embassies abroad. Despite Sudanese claims to the contrary, the evidence implicating the al Shifa factory in the manufacture of chemicals for use in weapons of mass destruction was clear and convincing. But for political reasons, Sudan continues to argue for an international mission. May I say that there is more than a little cynicism in Sudan's request, now that the rains have begun to wash the soil. However, let me be clear: we would welcome Sudan's return to the international community. I have spoken with the Sudanese foreign minister and made clear that Sudan should demonstrate its seriousness of purpose by signing the Chemical Weapons Convention. At that point, its sites would be open to investigation in the same manner as other signatories. Signing CWC would be a step toward more responsible behavior. Our strikes against the factory and bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan were a firm but measured response to this threat, one that had to balance our respect for the Arab people and Islam with our concern to protect our own citizens from exposure to attack and the possible use of chemical weapons. The strikes were not directed against the people of Sudan or Afghanistan, and they were confined to specific, limited sites. It is important now that we look to the future and work with renewed vigor to strengthen the bilateral and multilateral cooperation necessary to contain the threats of international terrorism and chemical weapons.

Multilateral diplomacy is our preferred means for dealing with Iraq, as well. The United States remains as determined as ever to ensure that Iraq never again presents a threat to its neighbors and the international community. This is a commitment made by the Bush Administration to which we continue to adhere. Our goal is full Iraqi compliance with its obligations under all UNSC resolutions. To that end, ensuring the effectiveness of UNSCOM and the IAEA, and maintaining Security Council unity and the broader international coalition in support of sanctions, are the focal points of our efforts.

Saddam's aims are twofold: to end the sanctions regime and to retain his weapons of mass destruction capability. In the face of this challenge, the international community must remain steadfast and resolute. We are working through the UN Security Council to ensure that the full extent of Iraq's wmd program is accounted for and disarmed. Until that is the case, sanctions will remain in place. The periodic controversies over UNSCOM access to inspection sites and Iraq's refusal to cooperate with UNSCOM and IAEA do nothing to alter this fact. We will not be drawn in to playing his game, to responding to his every provocation. For all its bluster, Iraq remains contained within the limits imposed as a result of Saddam Hussein's folly 7 years ago. As we look ahead, we will decide how and when to respond to Iraq's actions based on the threat they pose to Iraq's neighbors, to regional security, to vital U.S. interests, and to the Iraqi people, including those in the north.

Rest assured that while we continue to give every preference to a diplomatic solution, through the work of the Security Council, the Secretary General, and other members of the international community, we retain in the region the force necessary to back our diplomacy. As he has shown in the past, Saddam underestimates that threat, because he doubts that we are ready to use the force deployed to protect our interests. The lesson now, as it was in the past, is that it is high time to come into compliance with UN resolutions. The bottom line is that if Iraq tries to break out of its strategic box, our response will be swift and strong. We will act, but on our own timetable, not Saddam Hussein's.

Our friends in the Gulf have been steadfast and reliable partners in this endeavor. Security cooperation with the Gulf states, much of which goes back for many decades, has been instrumental in successfully confronting Iraq's aggression and containing its regional ambitions. Beyond the question of security, however, the Gulf states have been at the forefront of economic liberalization, protection of intellectual property rights, and regional integration, which makes them among the most progressive and modern in these areas in the Middle East.

Special mention must be made of our efforts to help the Iraqi people. The intent of economic sanctions against Iraq is to deny Saddam Hussein the means to threaten his neighbors and the region. They are not directed against the innocent citizens who are victims of their government's misguided policies. Saddam Hussein has cruelly and cynically exploited the suffering of his people to raise international support for the lifting of sanctions. Many countries, including most in the Arab world, have been vociferous in their criticism of sanctions as unjustly punishing the Iraqi people for the decisions of its leadership. We believe that such criticism is not well-founded. In point of fact, the international community is doing more to care for the people of Iraq than their own government is or has. After 5 years of Iraq's refusal to accept UN programs to assist its people based on permitted oil exports, Iraq negotiated for 2 years and then accepted the UN's proposal. The United Nations, led by the United States, has undertaken the largest humanitarian effort in its history to minimize the negative impact of sanctions on the people of Iraq. Under the oil-for-food program, and upon the recommendation of UNSYG Annan, we have now authorized Iraq to sell up to $5.2 billion worth of oil every six months. A portion of the revenue from these sales will ensure that the people of Iraq are provided with the food, medicine, and other humanitarian supplies which its government has been deliberately denying them in order to exploit their suffering for propaganda purposes.

The Washington Talks at Wye River are another example of our continuing commitment both to long-standing American policies in the region and to the needs of the people in the region. Building on what was begun in Madrid and shepherded through Oslo, these talks are the culmination of a long period of hard work. The President, Vice President, and Secretary of State are deeply engaged in completing a process built on American proposals and opening the door to final status negotiations, where more difficult tasks lie ahead: resolving the divisive questions of Palestinian statehood, resettlement of refugees, and the status of Jerusalem. However hard we may work to advance this process, we cannot want peace more than the parties themselves, and it is they who must make the tough decisions.

The atmosphere at Wye has been constructive and pragmatic. The purpose of these discussions is to make as much progress as possible on the interim issues. It is not designed to address permanent status issues. The setting brings together experts and political leaders. Their proximity to each other over the course of a long weekend is facilitating interaction.

Throughout this process, the Secretary of State has made it clear that there should be no doubting the Clinton Administration's commitment to Israel's security and its people. That commitment has been unshakable and has been demonstrated repeatedly--in our joint struggle against terrorism, in the assistance to Israel that the American people have so long and so generously provided, and in the steps we have taken to ensure Israel's qualitative military edge. At the same time, we have agreed with Israeli leaders from Prime Ministers Ben Gurion to Begin to Rabin to Netanyahu that the key to long-term security for the Israeli people lies in lasting peace. That is why we have been working so hard to resolve the present impasse. We cannot assert for ourselves the right to determine Israel's security needs. But we can continue to assert our belief that peace is the best guarantor of security.

Parallel to our diplomatic efforts to bring peace to the region, the number of Palestinian and Israeli victims of violence continues to mount. Last week's demonstrations in Hebron, the recurring random attacks against individuals, and the ever-present threat of a large-scale terrorist incident remind us of the fragility of this process and the urgent need to address the pressing demands of the people on the ground.

The real measure of peace is the stability and prosperity it brings to people's lives. Israelis and especially Palestinians who suffer more economic, political, and social disadvantages, must be free to realize and actually see concrete, material gains from peace--increased trade, free markets, improved standards of living, security.

The interim agreement expires May 4, 1999. It would be in the interests of all involved--and especially of the people in this region--for the parties to make the most of this period. It is a matter of history that when there is no progress toward peace, a political vacuum develops, which can give rise to political extremism or violence. The parties must move quickly to stay one step ahead of events and bring into fruition the long-awaited final status talks. The present talks have narrowed the issues and brought the sides together. They alone, with our help, can determine the outcome. The results will make a large difference to the area and its people.

Let us not forget that the peace process is more than just talks between the Israelis and Palestinians. It consists also of the Syrian and Lebanese tracks. Although we have been concentrating our energy on the Israeli-Palestinian relationship, we recognize that the Syrian and Lebanese negotiations are also crucial to the achievement of a comprehensive peace, and we are eager to re-energize them. We are exploring with the parties how to close the gaps between Syrian insistence on picking up talks from the point they left off in 1996 and Israel's position that all issues should be open. The Israeli Government has indicated its willingness to implement UN Security Council Resolution 425 on withdrawal of its forces from southern Lebanon, if it has appropriate security guarantees. The U.S. supports the implementation of UNSC Resolution 425. We want to see Lebanon free of all foreign forces and its sovereignty and territorial integrity preserved.

The ever-present potential for conflict in this region has been dramatically demonstrated over the past several weeks in the dispute between Turkey and Syria over the latter's support for the PKK. Turkey's threat to use of force should Syria continue its support of the PKK set off alarm bells in capitals throughout the region and beyond. We are relieved that for the moment, thanks to the skillful efforts of leaders such as President Mubarak of Egypt, diplomacy has prevailed and conflict has been averted or dampened. This incident is a reminder, however, that dangerous flash points in the region can erupt on short notice and that we and others must be prepared to contain them quickly through responsive and forceful diplomacy.

The outcome of the efforts in the peace process will affect our policy on a wide range of other regional issues, giving Arab governments more space for dealing with other pending issues. The political map of the region is clearly changing. Secretary Albright's Asia Society speech this June was one initiative designed to respond to some of the opportunities these changes present. Since the election of President Khatami, we have noted a shift in Iranian thinking about its relationship with other countries, including the U.S., and we have made an effort to respond in a similarly positive way. After two decades of hostility and estrangement, it is time to work toward better relations. In addition to more cultural and academic exchanges as a means of building greater confidence between our peoples, we are ready to explore other ways to build mutual confidence and avoid misunderstandings, and we are prepared to do so as soon as Iran is ready.

As we work toward that goal, it is important that our two nations communicate directly, openly, and frankly with one another. In his September speech to the Asia Society, Foreign Minister Kharazi said that Iran would adopt policies based on the "guiding principle of replacing confrontation and tension with dialogue and understanding." While we agree with the Foreign Minister on the need for international cooperation on Afghanistan and narcotics, we believe his criticism of American policies reflects misunderstanding and the long divide that separates our two peoples and cultures, especially over the last 20 years. At this point, the United States would like to go beyond the exchange of rhetoric to address the substance of our relationship. We have proposed a process of parallel steps to build a new relationship, and we are ready to engage in such a process.

In our relationships with the countries of the region on the full range of issues which I have discussed this evening, the United States is very sensitive to the charge that it is hostile toward Islam or harbors cultural biases toward the Arab and Islamic world. Our critics in the region are often quick to characterize our actions as the reflection of a clash of cultures. This was the refrain heard in the aftermath of the strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan, echoed by Hamas militants opposed to the peace process or apologists for Saddam Hussein, and taken up by radical political movements throughout the region. During the Bosnian conflict, we often heard the criticism that our response was too slow because of our indifference to the suffering of Muslims at the hands of Christian aggressors. This theme is being taken up again in the context of the fighting in Kosovo. Our firm and determined response to Serbian aggression there should serve to refute the charge of indifference and to reassure our friends in the Middle East the we are not insensitive to the suffering of innocent victims, whatever their religion may be, at the hands of a harsh and predatory regime.

President Clinton and Secretary of State Albright have spoken forcefully and frequently of our country's respect for Islam and the people who practice this faith. Islam has now established firm roots in America and is a religion whose moral teachings we admire and recognize as a source of inspiration and instruction for hundreds of millions of people around the world.

As I hope my remarks have made clear, the perceptions of bias by Muslims both abroad and at home is something we can neither belittle nor ignore. We must recognize that these perceptions can adversely affect our objectives in the region. For this reason, the issue of mutual understanding is an important element of our policy, as exemplified in our attempt to build a new relationship with Iran and to increase the level of people-to-people exchanges as part of an interim agreement between Israelis and Palestinians. If we are to overcome decades of mistrust and suspicion, we must do a better job of understanding one another. This is not for academic or altruistic reasons, but for reasons of national interest.

This brings me full circle. I began by noting that your organization contributes greatly to building this mutual understanding. Long may it be so. It is in the best interests of all in the region, whatever their nationality or religion. It is truly in the best interests and best traditions of this country. All of us engaged in the foreign policy of this country thank you for it and wish you a good year ahead, and many others to follow. It has been an honor to speak here tonight. Thank you very much.

[end document]