INTERVIEW

Interview with Chinese Dissident Liu Xiaobo 'If the Games Fail, Human Rights Will Suffer'

noreply@blogger.com (Publisher : Danari & Danari) — Sun, 10 Oct 2010 05:51:00 +0000

With the Olympic Games rapidly approaching, more attention than ever is being focused on China's handling of protests in Tibet and on the state of human rights in the Communist country. SPIEGEL spoke with human rights advocate Liu Xiaobo about what to expect.

China's human rights record has been a focus in the run up to the Olympic Games.
China's government has come under massive international criticism over its human rights record in the run-up up to the Olympic Games in Beijing this summer. China wanted to use the Olympics to show the world a new, modern face but the plan seems to be backfiring as Western countries sharply criticize China's handling of protests in Tibet last month. Some have even openly considered boycotting the Games.

SPIEGEL spoke to prominent human rights activist Liu Xiaobo about the current situation of human rights in China and the prospects for change.

SPIEGEL: A few months before the Olympic Games, criticism is mounting against the Chinese government -- both for its activity in Tibet and the fact that it throws human rights activists such as Hu Jia in jail. Did Beijing underestimate the consequences of hosting the Games?

Liu Xiaobo: I don't think so. The leadership knew that the conviction of Hu Jia would ruffle feathers. But it wasn't reckoning with the protests in Tibet. Now the entire world has its eyes on China. The response of European countries has been especially tough, much tougher than the US response. That surprised Beijing.

SPIEGEL: Why did Beijing want to host the Olympics in the first place?

Liu Xiaobo: The Party leader at the time, Jiang Zemin, wanted to show the world China's new status. And in winning the bid, the leaders could show the people how strong the government was. Plus, the leadership wanted to use the Games to strengthen nationalist sentiment. After June 4, 1989…

SPIEGEL: …the Tiananmen Square Massacre…

Liu Xiaobo: …its legitimacy was seriously weakened. The party was desperate to boost patriotism.

SPIEGEL: The Communist Party continues to claim that the Games have nothing to do with politics.

Liu Xiaobo: For the party, the Beijing Games are the biggest political happening of 2008. Everything revolves around them. This will be a huge celebration for the President Hu Jintao and the Premier Wen Jiabao.

SPIEGEL: In order to win the bid, Communist party functionaries promised more democracy. Did you believe them at the time?

Liu Xiaobo: No. I've heard the government say many nice things. But it did make some gestures, like writing human rights protection into the constitution -- that surprised me. And it improved the conditions for foreign journalists: It used to be impossible for you to meet with me personally. But there still hasn't been a real improvement in the human rights situation.

SPEIGEL: Does the government respond to pressure form the outside world?

Liu Xiaobo: Yes. If it didn't, the human rights situation would be much worse.

SPIEGEL: What would happen if the Games were boycotted?

Liu Xiaobo: That wouldn't be a good way to punish China. If the Games fail, human rights will suffer. The government would stop paying any attention to the rest of the world. I personally think: We want the Games and we want human rights to be respected.

SPIEGEL: What are you expecting in the coming months?

Liu Xiaobo: As soon as the torch reaches Western Europe, there will be protests. I think the government will respond to foreign pressure and criticism to diminish both. I hope they will decide to release Hu Jia prematurely, for health reasons.

SPIEGEL: What will China look like after the Games? More liberal? More open?

Liu Xiaobo: It will all progress very slowly. But the demands for freedom -- on the part of ordinary people but also party members -- won't be as easy to contain.

SPIEGEL: Do you think there could be a Chinese Gorbachev one day?

Liu Xiaobo: I can't imagine that. But the party will gradually open up. For instance, it has already set a time limit for political reforms in Hong Kong. And in four years time, there won't be a strongman to name the General Secretary at the party congress. That means that the various factions will have to develop better rules for naming their leader. But there won't be a timeline for political reform.

Interview conducted by Andreas Lorenz.
(04/07/2008 www.spiegel.de/picture:www.nalair.fr)

An Interview with Dr Mahathir Mohamad

noreply@blogger.com (Publisher : Danari & Danari) — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 03:39:00 +0000

Access to information equals opportunities. With the Internet today, such access is almost limitless but only those who seize the opportunities will get ahead, says Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

IN a recent interview with Open University Malaysia (OUM), former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad shares his views on the challenges that educational institutions face and the direction they should take. He adds that immigration policies should be reviewed, as they stop the brains from coming in, but allow the uneducated to work here instead.

Below are excerpts from the interview.
Dr Mahathir believes that a lifelong learning habit begins with a love for reading.

Q: In some countries, going back to school is regarded as the norm. What are Tun’s views on lifelong learning? What does it take to encourage more Malaysians to participate in lifelong learning?
Dr M: We gain knowledge through many sources, among which is, of course, reading. To participate in lifelong learning, one must first love learning and to love learning, one must first love reading.

Of course, we can also acquire knowledge through television but we cannot gain an education just by watching television alone. They say a picture paints a thousand words. Sometimes when you look at a picture, you see not just one but many thousands of words. However, understanding still may not come and so you do not produce.

Reading is different. It stays in your mind longer. You learn when you read. You learn not only the knowledge contained in the book but also the language, the way the book is written.

So, reading improves communication. A person who watches television cannot learn to communicate; a person who reads books can. And communication is one of the weaknesses in human society. The ability to convey your thinking to another person is a communication skill.

Through reading, the process of lifelong learning begins. Once you start reading, you cannot stop reading. Of course, the person who starts watching television also may not be able to stop watching it, but what he learns from television may not be good for him. But when he reads, even if it is only a story book, he will, at least, acquire the skill of communication.

Reading also improves your perception of things and trains you to analyse and understand complex matters. The more you read, the more you acquire the experience of others albeit through the eyes of a skilful observer. Even if you are reading a story book, your ability to solve problems increases because you have, at least, read about it.

I started reading when I was young. Books tell me what people will do in 10 years’ time, they tell me how people think, they predict trends… If you don’t read, you will be left behind.

To encourage lifelong learning, you must instil a reading culture. Lifelong learning starts with reading, and can become a habit, just like reading.

Q: The world is increasingly becoming a global village and more of our young people are working overseas. How can we turn this increased mobility of youth and talent to our nation’s advantage?
Dr M: Globalisation is the trend today. But it aggravates the brain drain in Malaysia. To understand this, we need to look at our immigration policies, which were formulated in the 1950s when people could not travel easily.

We did not want people coming into the country then, so our policies stopped people coming in. We believed our people would not want to go out, so our policies did not stop them going out.

But today, the world has changed. It is now very easy to travel; it only takes about 20 hours to fly to the other side of the world. With this ease in travel, physical borders can no longer stop people from entering or leaving a country. So people go out, especially those with knowledge and skills. Other countries offer them high wages and we do not stop them, so they leave and we lose our best people.

At the same time, we have a policy which actually stops brains from coming in. But we also need workers, so we allow uneducated people to come in.

So, what we get is no inflow of brain but inflow of the brainless.

All this is because we are using an outdated immigration policy. We must remember that in future, all countries will have a multi-racial population. There won’t be a single-ethnic nation anymore. Five million of the people in France today are Algerians. England has many Indian restaurants. People will be moving around, either legally or illegally, and settling down where they like.

The only country that may not change is China, with its 1.3 billion people. People who go to China become Chinese. Kublai Khan conquered China and became Chinese. The Manchus conquered China and became Chinese. There are so many Chinese; you get diluted, the Chinese don’t.

To attract youth and talent, we need to change our policy to consider the mobility of youth and talent.

Q: What is the greatest challenge that higher education faces in the next decade? What opportunities should we look out for?
Dr M: You cannot recognise challenges and opportunities unless you understand what is happening around you. That is where learning comes in — learning helps you to comprehend, analyse and tackle problems.

Globalisation is clearly a challenge. With globalisation, your knowledge widens and you learn to deal with things you may not otherwise be able to.

Take a person born in the kampung, for example. His knowledge of things is limited to what he sees there. Once he moves to the city, he sees and learns so much more. Everywhere in the world, people in rural areas are regarded as less capable, less savvy, less sophisticated. But with globalisation, the kampung boy can cross new frontiers, embrace new values, see new ways of doing things. Globalisation gives the kampung boy a new world to comprehend, new skills to develop, new relationships to handle. Those are tremendous challenges.

Opportunities are different. Opportunities are affected by our ability to access and classify information. In the past, when we did not have much access to information, our opportunities were limited. Today, with the Internet, we have access to information and plenty of facts, but we need to know how to classify and use these facts.

So today, we have the capacity but the problem is, how do we use this capacity? The people who are able to use this capacity will see the opportunities – Google, Yahoo... In the end, seeing opportunities and seizing them, it is all up to you.

Q: Technology is said to have liberalised and democratised education and we must compete on a global platform. How successful have our local public universities been in this respect?
Dr M: Well, they are not too bad, but they are not too good either. University authorities need to reassess their roles. It’s not just a question of giving sufficient knowledge to students so that they can pass their exams.

Knowledge must be viewed in a wider context. In the hands of some people, knowledge can bring about harm. What I notice about our public universities is that not enough attention is given to human character development and nurturing value systems which can help students become useful people in society.

Without the right values, knowledge can even make someone a criminal. But if you are shaped by the education system to become someone useful in society, then education would have fulfilled the greater need. There is a need for universities to strike a balance between producing skilled knowledge workers and people with good moral values.

Q: What is Tun’s perception of world university rankings and the role of universities?
Dr M: Our universities today are much more aware that they are not just institutions for imparting knowledge but also institutions for researching new knowledge. Unfortunately, some still don’t have that mindset. Universities need to understand that their function is not just to transfer knowledge but also to create new knowledge through research, and to write about it, through producing papers. That is a crucial role.

Rankings should be based on the type of universities. Of course, you cannot compare an open university with conventional universities. You will get different results because the criteria are not the same. That, I think, is not important. What is important for an open university is whether it can provide education for people who have missed the boat, and for as many people as possible without compromising on quality.

When I was a small boy, my teacher only passed Standard Four. Later, a teacher had to have secondary school qualifications. Today, even that is not enough. Entry qualifications keep getting higher. Later, we will need more people with doctorates. The progress of society is such that, over time, the level of knowledge increases. So there is always a need to upgrade skills and qualifications, and OUM has a clear role to play.

Q: What is your secret for staying so young?
Dr M: Oh, I do my usual physical exercises and I enjoy horse riding. But I also read. It is something I have enjoyed since young. My father was very strict about reading. Everyday, when he got home from work, he would cough in front of the house and I’d rush to get a book to read so as not to get scolded. Besides, I can do other things when I am reading. That is good because I don’t like to waste time (smiles). (rainbowdiplomacy.co/mahathir-mohamed.blogspot.com/picture:procaricature.wordpress.com)

Consistent Support for Palestinian Independence

noreply@blogger.com (Publisher : Danari & Danari) — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:34:00 +0000

Special Interview Ambassador of the Republic of Tunisia to the Republic of Indonesia HE Faysal GOUIA with Yoedi Karyono and Dana Anwari in Office Space Ambassador on 22 April 2010

Ambassador of the Republic of Tunisia to Indonesia since 2006 Faysal GOUIA, gentleman born July 10, 1959, married and now blessed with two daughters. A daughter is now being completed pharmaceutical studies in Tunis, Tunisia, while a daughter was in Jakarta attended an international school in South Jakarta Cinere.

Have an educational background including business administration at the "Ecole Nationale d'Administration (National Administration Institute) ENA of Tunis. Hold and equivalent of a PHD in Public Administration from the "Ecole Nationale d'Administration (National Administration Institute) ENA of Tunis (1989). Hold on MA in Finance Management from the Finance School of Paris (1986). Holds a diploma from the Nationale Defenc Institute in Washington, DC (Near East South Asia Center from the Strategic Studies) (2002). Diploma in Home Studies from the "Bourgiba Institute of Foreign Languages" of Tunis (1995). Auditors of the "National Defence Institute of Tunis (2003).

Languages with very active, of course, Arabic, French and English. Indonesian while on duty when this place was also occupied with a very limited,''I will study harder Indonesian language, because it is very enjoyable. Attitude of Indonesian people are calm, friendly and ready smile made my task in this country is much more fun,''he said.

Faysal GOUIA professional experience among others in the tahun1984 until 1986 as Head of International Relations Division at the Ministry of Family and Woman Affairs. 1989 to 1993 as Head of the Bugdet Management Division at the Ministry of Finance. 1993 to 1995 as Deputy Director for South Asia Region at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Began his career as a diplomat at the Embassy of Tunisia in Washington the United States as Cultural and Press attaché in 1995 until 1997, the year 1997 to 1999 believed to be the Economic and Commercial Consular next year in 1999 until 2001 as Deputy Chief of Mission. In the year 2001 till 2005 he appointed as Director of Americans at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Tunisia.

In 2006, the man who has the hobby sport of football this country believed to be the Ambassador of the Republic of Tunisia to the Republic of Indonesia and located in Jakarta. Other activities Faysal GOUIA until such time as a Permanent Member of the "High Commission for Tenders" at the Prime Ministry. " Lecturer at the Diplomatic Institute of Tunis, and also as Attended Several United Nations Conference, and represented Tunisia in many conferences and seminars on issues related to foreign policy and international relations.

Consistent Support Palestine
Relations between the Republic of Tunisia and the Republic of Indonesia nurtured since 1950, and is now entering the 50th year of diplomatic relations. Even the two countries at the start of each relationship was solidified in the struggle for the independence of his country. ''The two countries initiated diplomatic relations five years before the Asian-African Conference which was monumental, and is remembered today in our country,''said Faysal.

According to Faysal, the first state visit President of the Republic of Indonesia Ir Soekarno to Tunisia in 1960 was a very memorable visit. President Soekarno was not only being familiar with the head of state, heads of government and key officials of other countries, but also be familiar and friendly with the people of Tunisia. ''This is what makes us the People of Tunisia was very impressed and become sweet memories to this day,;; he said.

Furthermore, said Faysal, the visit of President Suharto and several other officials and also visit of President Megawati Soekarno Puteri into our country makes the relations between the two countries are very familiar, and certainly return visit of the President of Tunisia as well as many more officials who are increasingly strengthening good relations both countries.

''Now my job as an ambassador is to further enhance the good relations the two countries have become much better. It's not just in the forum between countries and between peoples of both countries, but in a wider forum in the international forum,''said Faysal.

The two countries shared a majority Muslim population dominated by early sejaka nerada opened diplomatic relations both in one stance, the two countries have a firm political stance that supports the Palestinian People's struggle to achieve independence. Until now''in Tunis, the capital of our state buildings and facilities and equipment provided all the necessary facilities to representatives of Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO),''said Faysal.

Provision of facilities for the PLO it is not nonsense, when President Suharto's visit to Tunisia in the '90s and in the agenda of the visit include a meeting with PLO leader Yasser Arafat, Tunisia gives a very respectable facility, a meeting between Arafat and Suharto made in Tunisia Presidential Palace, and of course with very tight security.

Political attitudes of both countries on the problems of Palestine, said Faysal, absolutely nothing changes, the two countries would continue to provide support to the Palestinians to achieve independence.

Tunisia's largest phosphate producer countries of this world, and also a date that became a favorite of Muslims in Indonesia, especially in the month of ramadan when breaking the fast, currently has a population of 10 million people, is located in very strategic areas in the continent of Africa and very close to the European Continent . In this country the cost of school education from kindergarten to university is free and all countries covered by the study. Budget''of education in our country is ¼ of the entire state budget, so we can finance that education,''said Faysal.

Gross national income (GDP) this country according to data from the year 2002 amounted to USD 21 billion with per capita income in the same year amounted to USD 2,150, while the total population of 10 million, because that was a very prosperous country, in addition to modern education and also the planning of the town very similar to the major cities in Europe, the most important trading relationship is France, Italy, Belgium, the United States.

The use of geothermal energy in this country for more than 90 percent, and this is an environmentally friendly energy, energy from fossil fuel use is there but very limited,''Our country import oil from neighboring countries in the Middle East, and was used for the purposes limited course, we prefer the energy that can be produced domestically, including the technology we use is a domestic product,''said Faysal.

Faysal said his country is very strict in protecting the environment, especially water supply and one of the mainstay of this country is tourism, where tourism is very popular among others in Kairouan, Monastir very beautiful beaches, ancient relics of the Roman ruins of Carthage, the ancient city of Sousse and also Yasmine Hammamet and there are many more beautiful places in this country.

''Our job in the government and also by umum is to maintain best possible hygiene lingkungan from all kinds of pollution and for future generations, not for us, especially with global warming is happening now become the responsibility of us all,''said Faysal.

Faysal GOUIA enjoyed the cuisine of Indonesia, because many use spices, especially the satay chicken. Recognizing that nature in Indonesia are also very beautiful. ''My family had vacationed in Gili Trawangan Lombok Island, this place is very beautiful.''

Ongoing relations between the two countries has reached 50 years old in 2010 and this is the golden anniversary, warning that good relations will be conducted over one full year and in May to the Jakarta Embassy of Tunisia will hold activities such as painting exhibitions and art form from his country , culinary festivals and the activities of state of Tunisia's cooperation with several five star hotels in Jakarta.

In addition activities such as art performances in Jakarta, Indonesia, and also shows artists who will perform the same activities in Tunisia. Seminars and discussions relating to the warning relations between the two countries will also fill the big events. ''My job is to do our best to improve relations between the two countries, and that's what makes me happy,''said Faysal. (rainbowdiplomacy.com/Photo: Dana Anwari)

The Iranian revolution 30 years: An Interview with Khomeini

noreply@blogger.com (Publisher : Danari & Danari) — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:01:00 +0000

31-year commemoration of the Islamic revolution of Iran. Memorial celebration of the Islamic Revolution of Iran began to be held from February 1 until February 11. Revolution's central figures are Imam Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
What and how Khomeini's thoughts, we present an interview TIME Middle East Bureau Chief Bruce van Voorst with Khomeini.

Bruce van Voorst: Anti-American feelings in Iran are intense. Americans, in turn, are angry with Iran. How do you assess prospects for bilateral relations after the resolution—whatever form it might take—of the current crisis?

Khomeini: Iranian feelings are not against the American people, but against the American Government. When they refer to America in their slogans and denunciations, they mean the U.S. Government, not the U.S. people. I have received reports about large-scale, Administration-orchestrated anti-Iranian propaganda in the U.S. The Zionists especially are doing all they can to poison U.S. public opinion against Iran. As a result, there may be ill feelings toward Iran in the U.S. as reported. But if the facts penetrate the Zionist-imperialist propaganda screen, if we succeed in explaining the truth to the American citizenry through the mass media, then the Americans will most probably have a change of heart about us and reciprocate our amicable attitude. But we are under no illusion that the U.S. Government might change its hostile attitude. The U.S. Government has lost great interests in Iran. Still worse, the Administration has lost its political prestige in other countries as well.

We have been screaming for justice, for having our grievances redressed. The U.S. Government placed the Shah on the throne—that is, the Allies appointed him [in 1941] after ousting his father Reza Khan [who was] a British stooge. The U.S. Government consistently helped him stay in power in the face of our people's opposition to him. The Shah squandered all our resources—our national dignity, our natural assets, the talents of our youths and everything else we had. Obviously, Iranians cannot have a good view of the U.S. Government. And recently our people discovered that the Administration had turned its so-called embassy into a base for espionage and conspiracy against Iran. Spies were operating there under the pretext of being embassy personnel. Now that our people know this fact, they consider the Administration their No. 1 enemy.

In our view, the American people are not to blame for their Government's behavior in Iran. Americans should recognize the fact that the Administration has wronged not only us, but them as well. It has deprived us of everything through its lackey, the Shah. And it has placed the U.S. citizenry's honor in jeopardy. Because of U.S. Government behavior, Eastern peoples may now develop a pessimistic view of the American nation. The Americans should take this fact into consideration. Carter's continued presidency is a danger for America. It poses a threat to American national honor. If the U.S. Government —through military intervention, economic blockade, bully tactics and similar actions—succeeds in depriving us of justice, then the crisis will never be resolved, it will always rankle in the mind of our people. The American people should not allow Carter to follow this course because, gradually, Iranians will suspect that the U.S. people share Carter's ill will toward Iran. Then, enmity might set in between the two peoples.

Another option is for the U.S. Government to admit its misdeeds in Iran. These are numerous. Allowing a murderer to enter the U.S. is one of them. Still worse is the U.S. Government's imposition of a murderer as ruler of Iran. When Carter became President, he continued the policies of his predecessors —that is, he tried to perpetuate the rule of the criminal Shah and plunder Iran. When our nation rose against Pahlavi tyranny, Carter did all he could to keep him in power. He failed.

Our people's hatred for the Shah was too obvious for Carter not to notice. But still, in blatant disregard of the Iranian nation's feelings, Carter offered the deposed Shah refuge in the U.S. Not even the American people, I think, believe Carter's claim that he allowed the Shah to enter America on humanitarian grounds. Humanitarian considerations do not enter the American Government's thinking at all. Washington is prepared to do anything, kill 200,000 people in an atomic raid, in order to gain some profit. No one can believe these officials were humanistically motivated in giving the Shah an entry visa. In a sense, they have abducted the deposed tyrant to make sure he will not divulge their secrets. If we try him, all the facts the U.S. Government wants to cover up will surface. The whole world will know who has aided the Shah in his crimes.

Of course, once the American people discover what their President has done, they will not vote for him any more. In our view, all Carter is interested in is a second term in the White House, and he is prepared to do anything, even to sacrifice American national honor, in order to achieve his goal. We cannot believe the U.S. Government's claims to humanitarian motives. Is the Shah alone a human being? Aren't 35 million Iranians human beings? Weren't the Vietnamese human beings? We clearly see what crimes are committed now in southern Lebanon ly see what crimes are committed now in southern Lebanon with Carter's approval.

For us, [the resolution of the crisis] means the extradition of the deposed Shah to Iran and measures to compensate Iran for damages caused by his tyranny. There are, of course, damages that cannot be repaired. For instance, we have sustained about 100,000 fatalities tin the struggle against the Shah]. The labor and human talents wasted in pursuit of his harmful objectives cannot be retrieved. But we expect the repatriation of the wealth plundered from Iran.

The main point to bear in mind is that there is a new era. Iran today is not what it was under the Shah. A miracle has occurred. Under the previous regime, a single policeman could force all merchants in a huge bazaar to hoist flags to mark the Shah's birthday. These very people stood up against tanks and artillery with their bare hands. Even now, they wear burial shrouds, come here [to Qum] and declare their readiness for martyrdom. A nation thus transformed cannot be pushed around. Mr. Carter has not understood this transformation yet. He thinks a dictator can be imposed on the country again. But he must understand that Iranians will never put up with such actions. Carter must wake up.

And the Americans should vote Carter out of office. They should elect a suitable President. Then Iranians, if convinced that the U.S. Government does not intend to wrong them, will have normal relations with the U.S.—the kind of relations we have with other countries.

Bruce van Voorst: You have called the Shah a criminal, but you have not been specific. Could you give a rundown of what you feel his crimes were?

Khomeini: The crimes of the Shah are innumerable. Even a synopsis would be too long for me to present in a single session. In the last two years of the Shah's reign alone —when people rose to crush the imperial regime and establish an Islamic republic —this criminal killed more than 60,000 and maimed more than 100,000 of our people. During his reign, the Shah made us economically dependent on the U.S. and turned Iran into a bankrupt state. Our industry is dependent on the West. He has destroyed our agriculture. Politically, he toed the U.S. line and placed Iran in league with the oppressors and tyrants. The Iranian position in international forums during the reign of the Shah clearly demonstrates this fact. Even when the Shah, for fear of incurring the people's wrath, adopted apparently anti-U.S. positions, he would, behind the scenes, remain hand in hand with America. For instance, although he publicly supported the Palestinians, he gave oil to Israel, the enemy of Islam and Muslims. He fed Israel militarily—that is, he assisted Israel, this archaggressor, wholeheartedly. Militarily, the Shah made us thoroughly dependent on the U.S. [To perpetuate his monarchy] he gave our oil to the U.S. and used the proceeds to build military bases for America in Iran. Worst of all, he was determined to annihilate Islam and Muslims. By pushing our youth toward the West, he created a painful cultural dislocation. He brainwashed the people with Western propaganda. It takes gigantic efforts to liberate our society from the evil effects of his cultural treason.

Bruce van Voorst: How do you feel qualified to judge him? How can you be sure that your measures are truly in keeping with the law of Islam and the will of God? Does God ever speak to you or send you guidance?

Khomeini: What I said in response to the first question sums up the judgment of all Iranians. I have repeatedly stressed that I simply reflect the views of the Iranian people.

Bruce van Voorst: Doesn't the fact that virtually every government in the world condemns the seizure of the hostages raise doubts in your mind about your own position?

Khomeini: Most governments that have condemned Iran [for the embassy seizure] have done so under superpower pressure. We want to prove to the whole world that the superpowers can be defeated with the power of faith. We shall stand up against the U.S. Government with all our might. We fear no power.

Bruce van Voorst: You have objected to the West's efforts to impose its values on Iran. Why are you trying to impose Islamic values and Islamic justice on representatives of the West?

Khomeini: We definitely do not want to impose Islamic values on the West. Islam will never be imposed—neither on the West, nor on the East, nor on any particular individual or region. Islam is opposed to coercion. Islam stands for freedom in all its dimensions. It is up to the people them selves to accept or reject it.

Bruce van Voorst: Even if he wished to, the President could not legally hand the Shah over to Iran or to a third country with the intention of extraditing him to Iran. Do you expect Carter to violate the basic principles of his nation? Isn't that inconsistent with your moral and ethical goals?

Khomeini: Did the U.S. Government legally place Iranians under the Shah's machine-gun fire? And now, is it the same law that prevents the U.S. from extraditing the Shah? What kind of law is this? It permits the U.S. Government to exploit and colonize peoples all over the world for decades. But it does not allow the extradition of an individual who has staged great massacres in Iran. Can you call it law?

Bruce van Voorst: You talk so readily of the embassy as a "nest of spies." But there has been precious little evidence for this. Aren't you aware that it is the function of all diplomats to gather information about the country they are in, and this is considered legitimate? When there is evidence of espionage against diplomats, they are simply deported, not tried by the host country. If you objected to the activities, why didn't you just shut the embassy down?

Khomeini: There is a difference between gathering information and conducting espionage. Evidence so far collected proves that they ["the American spies"] had charted different conspiracies for different parts of Iran. They had plots for creating armed clashes in different regions. Is this how diplomats gather information? God willing, the Muslim students [holding the U.S. hostages] will reveal the details in the future. It is the government's job to close the embassy or allow it to function. I do not interfere in these affairs.

Bruce van Voorst: Are you aware how isolated you have made Iran? Even Islamic nations have condemned the hostage taking. You have pushed the U.S. out of Iran, but who will free you from pressures by the Soviet Union?

Khomeini: We have pushed the U.S. out of Iran in order to establish an Islamic government. We have not ousted the U.S. in order to replace it with the Soviet Union. Our people's slogans clearly demonstrate this fact. Throughout their struggle, our people would chant, "An Islamic republic—neither Eastern nor Western." If the Soviet Union should one day try to pressure us, we will deal with it with the same force that enabled us to oust the will deal with it with the same force that enabled us to oust the U.S.—the force of our faith. We trust in God and the boundless might of the people.

Bruce van Voorst: You must accept the fact that America will never surrender the Shah to you. If you doubt this, you do not understand America. Would you release the hostages if the United Nations agreed to investigate your grievances? At the same time, should all dictators in the world be investigated by the U.N.?

Khomeini: In fact, we understand America well. We know that we can resist it and defend our honor. We have proved that we can resist its great injustice—harboring the Shah. We shall overpower America. We shall defeat it in the whole region. The [departure of the] Shah from the U.S. will not solve the problem. An international organization should make serious efforts to convince the U.S. to extradite the Shah to Iran. This organization should return all the wealth the Shah has plundered to its rightful owners—the people of Iran. Such an organization should also try all dictators. We will not surrender to injustice. We will not compromise with the oppressors.

Bruce van Voorst: Why can you not mediate this dispute in a reasonable manner? You have turned down Ramsey Clark, U.N. Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim, the P.L.O., and barely listened to the papal representative. Don't you think these are honorable and serious individuals?

Khomeini: I have never said that these gentlemen are not honorable and serious. I have defended the Palestinians against Israel for more than 20 years. I used to point out the danger of Israel at a time when Israel and Palestine were unknown in Iran. We support the Palestinians' cause of justice against Israel, but a more significant issue is at stake now. I want to drive home to all peoples throughout the world the point that they should not try to mediate between the oppressor and the oppressed. Such mediation itself is a great injustice. We do not want any [would-be mediators] to commit this injustice. The right approach, under these circumstances, is to rush to the side of the oppressed and implacably attack the oppressor. It is for this reason that we rejected offers of mediation and will continue to do so. You may consider the mediation of your representatives between Israel and Palestine logical. We don't. The only logical course is defending Palestine. We approve those who strive for the international recognition of our just demands, but we shall never endorse oppressors, even if they act in our interest. It is among the eternally valid principles which we must always uphold.

Bruce van Voorst: If the hostage crisis is peacefully resolved, can you foresee a normalization of relations with the U.S., such as by the renewed sale of military spare parts and commercial ties on terms acceptable to Iran?

Khomeini: We will certainly reject any deal that harms the interest of Muslims. Otherwise, commercial ties and other exchanges, as long as they are in the interest of our nation, are agreeable to me. However, the government is responsible for signing such agreements, not I.

Bruce van Voorst: The economy has not revived. The poor in south Tehran are as poor as ever. The armed forces probably could not defend Iran against attack. There is no normal political activity. In light of this, is it not fair to say that the revolution has failed?

Khomeini: All these observations might be true. But the revolution has not failed. Indeed, the pillars of the revolution have been strengthened. It is a fact that our people have become accustomed to the revolution. They are all revolutionaries. They all welcome martyrdom. I declare, in all seriousness, that we can easily stand up against U.S. aggression. The U.S. may destroy us, but not our revolution. It is for this reason that I am confident of our victory. Listen to the people's slogans. For instance, AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IMPRESS NO ONE. CARTER DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT THE LOGIC OF MARTYRDOM. The U.S. Government has no idea what martyrdom is. In this spirit, we will solve all the problems of Iran. Although, I must point out, the damages we have sustained stem from more than 50 years of Pahlavi treason and will take at least 20 years to repair. Freedom and the Islamic republic have been established. But complete independence requires the dispossession of the East and the West, an objective we shall undoubtedly achieve.

Bruce van Voorst: Haven't you really lost a measure of control? The embassy takeover was allegedly undertaken without your knowledge or the support of the Revolutionary Council. Didn't the students take policymaking out of your hands? Do you really control the crowds?

Khomeini: Failure to understand Iranians leads to such mistakes in reading the situation. Iranians harbor profound enmity toward the U.S. Government because of the wrongs it has done them. We lead our people along the path to independence and liberation from U.S. domination. It is for this reason that our people have occupied the American nest of spies. The so-called embassy is certainly a nest of spies, and, in principle, what do we need the U.S. Government for? All Iranians are asking this question.

Bruce van Voorst: Sometimes you issue elamiehs ordering the people what to do, and then when you want to avoid responsibility, you reply you can do nothing, it is in the hands of the people or the students. Aren't you trying to have it both ways?

Khomeini: It is a fact that I, as Khomeini, express my views like all other people, comment on what should be done. But you should have no doubt that the hostages are in the hands of the students.

Bruce van Voorst: You have not studied seriously economics, international political relations. Your education is primarily theological. Doesn't this raise doubts in your mind that there may be factors in this equation you don't grasp?

Khomeini: We have discarded equations and social and political terms of reference so far used for assessing all the world's problems. We have built a new framework of values standing up for justice and fighting injustice. We will defend any upholder of justice and attack any perpetrator of injustice. You may name this value system whatever you like. We are laying the foundation of this value system, which, we hope, will one day replace—in the U.N., the Security Council, and other world bodies—the influence of the capitalists and the great powers that can now condemn out of hand anybody they want to. Yes, with your criteria, I understand nothing—and I am better off for it.

Bruce van Voorst: Have you ever been wrong about anything?

Khomeini: Only the Prophet Muhammad and other saints have been infallible. Everybody else makes mistakes. (rainbowdiplomacy.com/www.time.com)

Tony Blair interview

noreply@blogger.com (Publisher : Danari & Danari) — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 04:11:00 +0000

Former British prime minister Tony Blair being questioned by the Commission of Inquiry Iraq war in London, Friday (29 / 1). This is related to the decision at that time to support the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. And then most of the British invasion of Iraq refused.

Tony Blair appeared on Newsnight on Thursday, 6 February, 2003, 22:09 GMT where he was quizzed by Jeremy Paxman and a panel of voters about the Iraq crisis.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Good evening, welcome to a Newsnight special in which we'll be cross-examining the Prime Minister on the confrontation with Iraq.
After yesterday's performance at the UN America looks more determined than ever to go to war.
Our government is George Bush's closest ally yet many here and around the world would not believe the case for war has been made.
Tonight in the Baltic Centre in Gateshead we've invited the Prime Minister to face an audience of ordinary people from here in the north-east, all of whom are sceptical about the arguments for war with Iraq.
Facing them is the Prime Minister. He has confessed himself worried he has not yet made the case for war.
Tonight, taking questions from our audience and from me he'll have the chance to do so.
Prime Minister, for you to commit British forces to war there has to be a clear and imminent danger to this country - what is it?

TONY BLAIR: The danger is that if we allow Iraq to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons they will threaten their own region, there is no way that we would be able to exclude ourselves from any regional conflict there was there as indeed we had to become involved last time they committed acts of external aggression against Kuwait.

JEREMY PAXMAN: But right now there is no danger, it's a danger some time in the future.

TONY BLAIR: I've never said that Iraq was about to launch an attack on Britain but if you look at the history of Saddam Hussein there is absolutely no doubt at all that he poses a threat to his region.

If he was to use chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in the rest of his region, there is no way that Britain could stand aside from that, or indeed the rest of the world.

And that is precisely why we have had 12 years of United Nations resolutions against him.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Well you said of those UN resolutions and the sanctions which followed them in the year 2000, you said that they had contained him. What's happened since?

TONY BLAIR: I didn't actually, I said they'd been contained him up to a point and the fact is -

JEREMY PAXMAN: I'm sorry Prime Minister - we believe that the sanctions regime has effectively contained Saddam Hussein in the last ten years, you said that in November 2000.

TONY BLAIR: Well I can assure you I've said every time I'm asked about this, they have contained him up to a point and the fact is the sanctions regime was beginning to crumble, it's why it's subsequent in fact to that quote we had a whole series of negotiations about tightening the sanctions regime but the truth is the inspectors were put out of Iraq so -

JEREMY PAXMAN: They were not put out of Iraq, Prime Minister, that is just not true. The weapons inspectors left Iraq after being told by the American government that bombs will be dropped on the country.

TONY BLAIR: I'm sorry, that is simply not right. What happened is that the inspectors told us that they were unable to carry out their work, they couldn't do their work because they weren't being allowed access to the sites.

They detailed that in the reports to the Security Council. On that basis, we said they should come out because they couldn't do their job properly.

JEREMY PAXMAN: That wasn't what you said, you said they were thrown out of Iraq -

TONY BLAIR: Well they were effectively because they couldn't do the work they were supposed to do

JEREMY PAXMAN: No, effectively they were not thrown out of Iraq, they withdraw.

TONY BLAIR: No I sorry Jeremy, I'm not allowing you away with that, that is completely wrong. Let me just explain to you what happened.

JEREMY PAXMAN: You've just said the decision was taken by the inspectors to leave the country. They were therefore not thrown out.

TONY BLAIR: They were effectively thrown out for the reason that I will give you. Prior to them leaving Iraq they had come back to the Security Council, again and again, and said we are not being given access to sites. For example, things were being designated as presidential palaces, they weren't being allowed to go in there.

As a result of that, they came back to the United Nations and said we can't carry out the work as inspectors; therefore we said you must leave because we will have to try and enforce this action a different way. So when you say the inspectors, when you imply the inspectors were in there doing their work, that is simply not the case.

JEREMY PAXMAN: I did not imply that, I merely stated the fact that they were not thrown out, they were withdrawn. And you concede they were withdrawn.

TONY BLAIR: They were withdrawn because they couldn't do their job. I mean let's not be ridiculous about this, there's no point in the inspectors being in there unless they can do the job they're put in there to do.

And the fact is we know that Iraq throughout that time was concealing its weapons.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Right.

TONY BLAIR: Well hang on, you say right, they were concealing their weapons, they lied both about the existence of their nuclear weapons programme and their biological weapons programme and it was only when people were interviewed, when they defected from the Iraq regime and were interviewed, that we discovered the existence, full existence of those programmes at all.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Has not Colin Powell demonstrated yesterday, quite conclusively, that a regime in which those weapons inspectors are back in Iraq is one in which it is impossible for Saddam Hussein to continue developing weapons of mass destruction?

TONY BLAIR: No, because what he is doing is engaging in a systematic campaign of concealment and what Colin Powell was doing yesterday was giving evidence, for example, intelligence evidence and other evidence, of direct conversations which are evidence of the concealment is happening.

We still don't know, for example, what has happened to the thousands of litres of botulin and anthrax that were unaccounted for when the inspectors left in 1999. So, you know, the idea that -

JEREMY PAXMAN: And you believe American intelligence?

TONY BLAIR: Well I do actually believe this intelligence -

JEREMY PAXMAN: Because there are a lot of dead people in an aspirin factory in Sudan who don't.

TONY BLAIR: Come on. This intelligence is backed up by our own intelligence and in any event, you know, we're not coming to this without any history. I mean let's not be absurdly naïve about this -

JEREMY PAXMAN: Hans Blix said he saw no evidence of hiding of weapons.

TONY BLAIR: I'm sorry, what Hans Blix has said is that the Iraqis are not cooperating properly.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Hans Blix said he saw no evidence, either of weapons manufacture, or that they had been concealed.

TONY BLAIR: No, I don't think again that is right. I think what he said was that the evidence that he had indicated that the Iraqis were not cooperating properly and that, for example, he thought that the nerve agent VX may have been weaponised.

And he also said that the discovery of the war heads might be - I think I'm quoting here - may be the tip of an iceberg. I think you'll find that in that report.

JEREMY PAXMAN: You produced a dossier last September in which you outlined Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction. All the sites in that report were visited by UN inspectors who found no evidence of the weapons or no evidence of there having been hidden.

TONY BLAIR: I'm sorry, it is absolutely clear what has been happening over the past few months, which is of course, I mean the moment we mentioned those in our intelligence reports we were aware of the fact that the Iraqis would then have a significant period of time in which they could conceal these weapons.

But, you know, if this were some country that we had no history of this problem with and this was the first time anyone had ever raised the issue, there might be a point in what you're saying. It is absurd in the case -

JEREMY PAXMAN: But you concede it's true -

TONY BLAIR: I don't concede it's true at all. It is absurd¿

JEREMY PAXMAN: Well, your own foreign minister Mike O'Brian said it is true.

TONY BLAIR: It is absurd to say in a situation where Iraq has definitely had these weapons, developed them over a long period of time, concealed them, that there is nothing to be suspicious of when they can't even account for the weapons that we know were there when the Inspectors left in 1999.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Right, let's hear from our first member of the audience. Lesley Farrow, what do you make of the evidence?

(Male 1) I don't think there's sufficient evidence at the moment, like when Mr Bush yesterday come out with this supposedly new evidence I don't think there was anything there.

TONY BLAIR:

Well what there was, was evidence, I mean this is what our intelligence services are telling us and it's difficult because, you know, either they're simply making the whole thing up or this is what they are telling me, as the Prime Minister, and I've no doubt what the American Intelligence are telling President Bush as well.

And that is that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, we know they were there before, but the Iraqis are now trying to conceal those.

But although they're allowing the inspectors access to sites they're not actually fully co-operating with inspectors, for example, they're not allowing the experts that worked on these programmes to be interviewed properly by the inspectors, and what Colin Powell was talking about at the UN yesterday was the systematic attempt to try and conceal this, to disperse it into the country so that it couldn't be found by the inspectors.

So, we're faced with a situation where, I mean, here am I as Prime Minister, this is the evidence that's coming to me day in, day out, and I think it would just be wrong of us and irresponsible of me not to act on that.

Now, if Iraq wanted to co-operate with the weapons inspectors they could do it perfectly easily.

They could say here are all the experts that have worked on our programme, come and interview them free from Iraqi minders, not in designated places, this is what has happened to the stuff that was left over from the inspectors before.

If they did all that they would be co-operating, and then I agree with you, it would be a different situation.

(Male 1) So how come America has got spy satellites and they can't seem to pick anything up.

TONY BLAIR: Well they are of course picking things up.

(Male 1) They don't seem to be picking any mass weapons up of anything other.

TONY BLAIR: Well they're picking up certainly movement of material and one of the things that Colin Powell was talking about yesterday was the movement of material shortly before an inspection took place. So, you know, you've got to put it all together and make a judgement.

JEREMY PAXMAN: The gentleman next to you.

(Male 2) Prime Minister, you must see the evidence that was presented yesterday as laughable, it was Morecambe and Wise-esque - the warhead sketch. It was just absolutely laughable what Colin Powell put in front of the UN yesterday.

TONY BLAIR: Well I don't think it was laughable at all.

JEREMY PAXMAN: You've put your point of view, the Prime Minister has said that he accepts the evidence. Monica Frisch.

TONY BLAIR: Well can I just deal with this for a moment. Look, leave aside what's been happening in the last few months and all the debate about whether we have a war in Iraq or not. I mean, you wouldn't dispute with me that this is a barbaric and appalling regime.

(Male 2):

I would say to you Prime Minister that the war is to get rid of a despotic dictator who has no real democratic mandate, who's very destabilising, who commits human rights violations. Is Mr. Bush next perhaps?

TONY BLAIR: Well, you think Saddam's the same as George Bush.

(Male 2) I'm saying Mr. Bush has a lot of comparisons.

TONY BLAIR: I think that's a bit unfair you know. I don't think George Bush has quite done that.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Right Monica Frish.

Female 1: I'm totally opposed to anyone having, or developing nuclear weapons.

But that goes for British and American nuclear weapons as well.

This country has lots of nuclear weapons and the United States has nuclear weapons.

The United States has dropped nuclear bombs, don't let us forget that.

How can we possibly justify criticising Iraq for developing nuclear weapons when we're doing so little to get rid of our own. Isn't it incredibly hypocritical?

JEREMY PAXMAN: Prime Minister?

TONY BLAIR: I don't believe so for two reasons. First of all we're obviously part of a whole lot of agreements to do with nuclear weapons.

Secondly, Britain has not menaced and used external aggression with these types of weapons against our neighbours.

You know, Saddam, every time he has been allowed to do so has started a war with the countries around him. He used chemical weapons against the Iranians some years ago. He invaded Kuwait shortly afterwards.

I mean he is, you know, in a sense I can totally understand the argument about whether the war is right or wrong and I understand the concerns that people have, I genuinely do, which is one of the reasons I wanted to do the programme tonight - to try and answer some of those concerns.

But the one thing I hope we can all agree on is that Saddam Hussein is in a different category from virtually any other regime in the world in terms of his use of appalling repression against his own people, external aggression against other people and the fact is, he is the one power in this world that has actually used chemical weapons against his own people.

JEREMY PAXMAN:

Prime Minister, if you're looking at countries in the Middle East that have got arsenals of chemical weapons, I mean what about a country like Syria which has the biggest chemical weapons arsenal in that part of the world, and whose president you invite to this country to have tea with the Queen.

TONY BLAIR: But he has not started a war with his neighbours, using those weapons.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Yes - well - not using those weapons - he's had wars with Israel.

TONY BLAIR: Well, I mean, look, well there is a real issue to do with Syria and terrorism which is important. -

JEREMY PAXMAN: It's a state sponsor of terrorism

TONY BLAIR:

Hang on, Syria has not started a war with its neighbours. Saddam twice, in fact every time he's been allowed to. First of all the war with Iran in which a million people died. Secondly, the invasion of Kuwait.

Now Syria is not in that category. I'm not saying there aren't issues to do with Syria.

There are issues to do with Syria and we can get on to those. But the one point that I'm simply making to you is that this is not an issue that comes with no history and a history particularly relevant to the nature of this regime - that's all I'm saying.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Is there one more person from the audience? Yes.

Female 2: Yes, I think we should be adopting a policy of contain and deter with the Iraq conflict.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Contain and deter?

Female: Yes, and I'm very concerned that we're following the US along a line of conflict and war and I don't understand why we're taking that line.

TONY BLAIR: Well, let's go back to this issue of containment, because I agree of all the arguments against this, this is the best one.

I mean, OK Saddam's a bad man, he's a terrible man, he's got these weapons but can't we work out a policy of containment.

Now the reason I was saying to Jeremy earlier, containment worked up to a point is this, that there were two methods that we had to contain him.

One was the method of sanctions which, because of the way he implements those sanctions is actually a pretty brutal policy against the Iraqi people.

Sixty per cent of the Iraqi people need food aid in order to survive, even though it's actually a wealthy country and the fact is, with a different regime, without these weapons, sanctions could be lifted and the Iraqi people would in fact be far better off.

But anyway, that's one element of the containment which is sanctions. But what we were finding, really in the year 2001 when we were trying to negotiate a new sanctions regime, was that those sanctions were no longer working properly.

What the sanctions were supposed to do was to stop him selling oil except for food and medicine. But we were finding, and I think in 2001 round about $3 billion worth was being leached away through illicit sales of that oil. So the sanctions weren't working that well.

The second part of it was the inspectors, and as we were saying earlier, I mean you can split hairs about did they leave or were they thrown out. But the fact is they couldn't do their job.

And therefore, the second part of containment we weren't able to do. Now the reason for going back down the UN path, some people wanted to go to war last year.

I said no, we have got to go down the UN path. Put the inspectors back in there because we could have then, if the inspection regime was working properly we could have made the policy of containment work. But the inspectors can only do their work with the co-operation of the Iraqis.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Right, you said of those weapons inspectors that they needed time and space to be able to do their job. How much time?

TONY BLAIR: The time to make a judgement as to whether Iraq is co-operating or not, because the inspectors aren't there as a detective agency, it's not a game of hide and seek. What is supposed to happen is that the Iraqis are supposed to co-operate, actively, as Kofi Annan said, with the inspectors. They're not doing that at the moment.

JEREMY PAXMAN: OK, so they report back next week. Will you give an undertaking to this audience, and indeed to the British people that before any military action you will seek another UN Resolution, specifically authorising the use of force.

TONY BLAIR: We've said that that's what we want to do.

JEREMY PAXMAN: But you haven't given an explicit commitment that those are the only circumstances under which British forces will be used.

TONY BLAIR: I haven't but what I've said is this - those are the only circumstances in which we would agree to use force except for one caveat that I've entered.

And I'll explain exactly why I've done this. If the inspectors do report that they can't do their work properly because Iraq is not co-operating there's no doubt that under the terms of the existing United Nations Resolution that that's a breach of the Resolution. In those circumstances there should be a further Resolution.

If, however, a country were to issue a veto because there has to be unanimity amongst the permanent members of the Security Council. If a country unreasonably in those circumstances put down a veto then I would consider action outside of that.

JEREMY PAXMAN:

But Prime Minister, this is, you say, all about a man defying the wishes of the United Nations. You cannot have it both ways.

If one of the permanent five members of the Security Council uses its veto and you, with your friend George Bush, decide somehow that this is unreasonable, you can't then consider yourself absolutely free to defy the express will of the Security Council. What's it for otherwise?

TONY BLAIR: First of all, let me make two points in relation to that.

Firstly you can't just do it with America, you have to get a majority in the Security Council.

Secondly, because the issue of a veto doesn't even arise unless you get a majority in the Security Council. Secondly, the choice that you're then faced with is this. If the will of the UN is the thing that is most important and I agree that it is, if there is a breach of Resolution 1441 which is the one that we passed.

If there is a breach and we do nothing then we have flouted the will of the UN.

JEREMY PAXMAN: We have flouted the will of the UN.

TONY BLAIR: If we don't act in those circumstances. Look ¿

JEREMY PAXMAN: Are you saying there's already an authorisation for war?

TONY BLAIR: No, what I'm saying is this. In the Resolution that we passed last November we said that Iraq, it's actually interesting to look at the Resolution. Iraq had what was called a final opportunity to comply.

The duty of compliance was defined as full co-operation with the UN Inspectors. The Resolution then goes on to say "any failure to co-operate fully is a breach of this Resolution and serious consequences i.e. action, would follow". Now, we then also put in that

Resolution that there will be a further discussion in the Security Council. But the clear understanding was that if the inspectors do say that Iraq is not complying and there is a breach of that resolution, then we have to act.

Now if someone comes along and says, OK I accept there's a breach of Resolution 1441 but I'm issuing a veto I think that would be unreasonable. Incidentally I don't think that's what will happen. I think that we will, if the inspectors do end up in a situation where they're saying there is not compliance by Iraq then I think a second resolution will issue.

FEMALE: Do you not agree that most of Britain don't want us to act alone without the United Nations, and do you not agree that it's important to get France, Germany and Russia on board with support to help us?

TONY BLAIR: Yes I do. I agree with that. That's what I'm trying to get. So¿

JEREMY PAXMAN: Why not give an undertaking that you wouldn't go to war without their agreement.

TONY BLAIR: Because supposing one of those countries - I'm not saying this will happen, I don't believe it will incidentally. But supposing in circumstances where there plainly was a breach of Resolution 1441 and everyone else wished to take action, one of them put down a veto. In those circumstances it would be unreasonable.

Then I think it would be wrong because otherwise you couldn't uphold the UN. Because you'd have passed your Resolution and then you'd have failed to act on it.

JEREMY PAXMAN: And who are we to say it's "unreasonable" as you put it?

TONY BLAIR: You say that, if in circumstances where the inspectors - not us - have come back to the UN and said we can't do our job. Now look - I think it's a perfectly simple way of putting this thing and incidentally, I don't believe we'll get to the stage of vetoes and so on. I think we'll be in the position that you're talking about. Now the reason I wanted this to go down the UN path last year. I mean, in the summer people were thinking you were about to start the war.

Myself and other people said, no, we've got to take this back to the United Nations and go through the UN route. And I think we will be in circumstances where the UN passed the second Resolution and I take it in the sense from what you're saying I think this is where the majority of people are. Is that if the UN did pass a second Resolution people would support it.

LAURA SEWELL: I'd like to know if the UK and the US just ignore the UN, just go ahead with war without a UN Resolution. How can you expect any other country to listen to the UN in the future?

TONY BLAIR: Well, that comes back to the point that we're making. The first thing is that it would be odd to say that we'd ignored the UN since ¿

LAURA SEWELL: What if you go against a UN Resolution, are you not ¿

TONY BLAIR: We mustn't go against the UN Resolution.

SEWELL: If you go without the UN Resolution.

TONY BLAIR: The point that I'm making is this. There are only one set of circumstances. I mean the reason I won't give the absolute undertaking that Jeremy was asking me to give, is because of this one set of circumstances where Resolution 1441, the one that has been passed, where everyone's agreed on.

If that is breached and the inspectors say, no I'm sorry we can't do our job and in those circumstances the Resolution 1441 effectively says well then a second Resolution issues. If someone then at that point vetoes wrongly, what do we do?

FEMALE: It's only you that thinks it's wrong, like George Bush thinks that they're doing that unreasonably.

TONY BLAIR: No, no ¿

FEMALE: It's the point of the veto, not that that can happen in that sort of situation.

TONY BLAIR: What happens is that there are 15 members of the Security Council, there's five permanent members and the five permanent members have got the veto. The other ones don't. Now, the issue of a veto only arises if we've got a majority of people on the Security Council with us, so there's not - Britain and America that would be doing this on our own in any event.

JEREMY PAXMAN:

Who else is concerned about this business of the UN. Yes, you sir, right in front there.

MALE: Prime Minister - do you not think that this war could cause even more conflict in the Middle East in that this could cause other rogue states to actually go and sit behind Saddam and actually support him - countries like Syria that Jeremy mentioned before. Iran, countries like that.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Yes, I think we're going to come to that point and some of the broader possible implications later on but, yes, you sir right in the back row.

MALE: I agree with something that the Rt. Hon Member for Texas North said a few minutes ago,

TONY BLAIR: I gather you're not wholly in favour then.

MALE: ¿which was that there is not likely to be a veto in the Security Council because when Bush (sic) comes to shove I think everybody will fall in line. But aside from that, on the point of the inspectors - isn't it strange, Mr. Vice President that with the information that was displayed to the world by Colin Powell yesterday, that the video evidence, the photographs taken from satellites, why is it then that if this information was available to the US way back in November, December, that it was not given to the UN inspection team to give them some pointers as to where to look at.

Because, one of the things that was said there was the topsoil was removed to take away all traces of chemical agents. So why wasn't that information given to Hans Blix and his team, to say go and look over there>

TONY BLAIR: There's a very simple explanation for that. In respect of much of this information it's only coming to light now. Some of the intelligence about what has happened earlier has only come to light now. In respect of other stuff however, we are co-operating with the inspectors. We are trying to give inspectors the whole time to allow them to do the work.

JEREMY PAXMAN: These were satellite photographs that were taken before, and in one case during, and other cases after, UN inspections. So they could have been made available to them at any time. Did they lose them? TONY BLAIR: No we do make the information available to the inspectors but where, for example, you have evidence that they're moving stuff before the inspections, obviously then there's not much point in the inspections taking place in those circumstances.

Now in fact I think in this particular instance they did do the inspection but you know, don't be under any doubt at all, we are trying the whole time to co-operate with the inspectors and give them what intelligence we can.

But there isn't really much doubt about what is going on inside Iraq. They tried to conceal the stuff.

JEREMY PAXMAN: The question referred to you by the way, Prime Minister, as Vice President and Honourable Member for Texas North. But it's not just him. I mean, when a great world figure like Nelson Mandela calls the British Prime Minister the American Foreign Minister - don't you feel embarrassed?

TONY BLAIR: I've huge respect for Nelson Mandela. But I don't feel that I'm doing the wrong thing and I may not be doing the easy thing but I do believe I'm doing the right thing.

JEREMY PAXMAN: So when people say you're a poodle..

TONY BLAIR: Yeah, well you know, you can do that and be the Right Hon Member for Texas and all that. Look, it depends whether you want to deal with this at the level of humour and satire or whether you want to try and make sense of what are difficult issues.

Now, look, I'm faced with a situation here where you know, we know the history of Iraq, we know these weapons of mass destruction. We can see in our own country for example what is happening with the problems of international terrorism. I simply tell you, you can believe it, don't believe it.

Now hang on a minute. I just want to finish this thing. Because this is the reason I'm doing what I'm doing, even though I know that it is difficult and unpopular in certain quarters.

It is a matter of time before these issues of chemical biological nuclear weapons which are now increasingly easy to get hold of with irresponsible, unstable states proliferating them.

It is a question of time before that comes together with international terrorism in a devastating way for this country and other countries in the world.

And, I've said this before, it may be, even if I'm the only person left saying it, I'm going to say it. It's a threat and a danger that we have to confront and there's no reason for these people to have these weapons in this way, there is no reason why they can't co-operate with the UN and these terrorist groups out there they are trying every day as we speak to get hold of this stuff and use it. These are not separate threats, they're related and linked.

JEREMY PAXMAN: You know your defence intelligence assessment is that there is currently no link between Baghdad and al-Qaeda.

TONY BLAIR: No they didn't say that. What they said was - which is absolutely right - is that historically al-Qaeda which wants these Arab states to become religious states.

That al-Qaeda obviously would regard Iraq as a secular state and relations between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein would not have been of any great historical importance, that is not to say in circumstances where Iraq faces a threat from possible military action and al-Qaeda have also been subject to action being pursued at international level they aren't coming together and there is evidence that links the two. I've never suggested that.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Hang on, with respect, I mean this is the defence intelligence staff terrorism analysis sell a paper to you on the 12th January, there have been contacts between al-Qaeda and the regime in the past. It is now assessed that any fledgling relationship foundered due to lack of trust.

TONY BLAIR: First of all, it wasn't a paper to me. I mean I know the BBC...

JEREMY PAXMAN: What, you're on the circulation list?

TONY BLAIR: I'm not actually on the circulation list. I know the BBC keeps saying it's a paper to me and I'm on the circulation list since we keep telling them that it isn't.

The papers that I get are from the joint intelligence committee.

That was a paper primarily actually about the relations between Iraq and terrorism more generally and I can absolutely assure you the evidence that we have is not that Iraq was responsible for the 11th September or some such thing. I don't suggest that. But what Colin Powell was talking about yesterday is correct.

The poison factory in northern Iraq, not strictly under the control of Saddam, is run by operatives that have people in Baghdad and the stuff that they are producing there which includes ricin and other poisons we believe is being dispersed throughout the world.

Now, I'm not sitting here and saying to you that's the reason why we're taking action against Saddam, it isn't.

But it would not be correct to say there is no evidence linking Al Qaeda and Iraq.

JEREMY PAXMAN: If that danger that you and George Bush perceive apparently independently is as real as you suggest, where else are you prepared to follow him in action?

TONY BLAIR: You say apparently independently. I mentioned this issue of weapons of mass destruction in February 2001, I majored on it in my press conference with George Bush, before 11 September had happened. Three days after 11th September when I went to the House of Commons I said that the next issue on our agenda is weapons of mass destruction.

The worry is not just Britain and America.

As you can see from the eight other European leaders that signed letters last week, in fact the ten Eastern European Union leaders, and this is a worry to anybody who looks at this seriously.

To be fair to France and Germany, France and Germany may have a difference about how we're tackling this problem but they don't have any difference with us in that it is a problem.

JEREMY PAXMAN: All right, let's take some of these other countries. I mean, you were asked about North Korea in the Commons last week and you said we have to confront North Korea about its weapons programme.

Well when someone shouted when do we stop, you said we stop when the threat to our security is properly and fully dealt with. What does that mean?

TONY BLAIR: It means that in respect of each of the countries that poses a threat with these weapons of mass destruction, we confront them and try and deal with it and you would deal with it in different ways in different countries.

JEREMY PAXMAN: So you are willing to attack North Korea

TONY BLAIR: No, I'm not saying that. But what I am saying is that you cannot ignore the risk.

North Korea is a country, its people are starving, that is virtually living on the export of ballistic missile technology.

Their nuclear scientists are people who are working for other countries as well as North Korea and I'm simply saying to people, if you allow this stuff to proliferate, if you allow it to be traded in, and there are companies so-called supposedly respectable companies in the world trading in this stuff, the terrorists are trying to get hold of it - they will succeed at some point unless we deal with it.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Prime Minister, you said of Iraq that it was only the threat of force that got the UN weapons inspectors back in there, and you're not prepared to say the same about North Korea which has, as you know, thrown out inspectors.

TONY BLAIR: Well. I'm not saying that in respect of North Korea that I agree with them throwing out the inspectors. What I'm saying is you will adopt different strategies for different countries and the UN as you know will have a discussion about North Korea.

JEREMY PAXMAN: So there's no threat of force against North Korea?

And when the North Koreans say today that they will themselves engage in pre-emptive strikes if there's an American military build-up are they not merely following the example that has been set them by the threats that you and George Bush have made?

TONY BLAIR: No - because as you know, North Korea have withdrawn from the non proliferation treaty, that's extremely serious.

We are trying to work with other allies now to make sure they come back.

That's one of the reasons why this is an issue we've been discussing, I had a conversation about this with President Putin a few days ago.

This is a serious issue.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Yes.

TONY BLAIR: Well we're going to have to deal with each of these countries that is doing this.

JEREMY PAXMAN: OK, Ian Davies Davies: Yes, Mr. Prime Minister. I mean the question has almost been asked already.

TONY BLAIR: There's a compliment for you.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Let's see what it is first!

Davies: Since September 11, obviously the United States has sort of been aggressive towards Afghanistan and now Iraq. Where it's going to stop, who's going to be next?

TONY BLAIR: Well, you know, where does it stop. It stops when we've dealt with these two twin issues which is, as I say, unstable states who are developing weapons of mass destruction and international terrorism. I think this is the threat the world faces.

Davies: But does that mean that we'll be tagging along on Mr. Bush's shirt-tails all the time?

TONY BLAIR: No, but it means...

Davies: Well that's what it's looking like at the moment.

TONY BLAIR: No, we've got to do what's right for us. OK, and what I'm saying to you is I believe this is a threat that concerns us.

You see, I think that the world we live in today which is an interdependent world, there is no way that any of these states could use this type of weaponry and us not be involved in this in some way.

You saw with Afghanistan or the 11th September attack, there's no way Britain could have stood apart from that. I mean we could have taken a back seat, but we were still involved.

You know, the terrorists that are operating in countries today, they're operating in Britain yes, but they're operating in France, they're operating in Sweden, they're operating in Italy, they're operating in countries that haven't taken a high profile in this.

Davies: But it was only last week that the US warned Pakistan about its terrorist links. Are they going to be next, and bearing in mind that our historic links with Pakistan, what position does that put us in?

TONY BLAIR: We've got different strategies, I say, for different countries., Some we will sit down and negotiate with.

The reason why the strategies we have in relation to Iraq is that we've gone through a history of aggression from Iraq and the United Nations Resolutions are there because of Iraqi aggression.

But you're not wrong, there are real issues to do with Pakistan. India and Pakistan and the potential for conflict there, is still a huge issue.

Davies: Yes but the US warned them regarding their terrorist links last week, it was reported in The Times. So where do we stand with that warning?

TONY BLAIR: Well, we fully support that warning. In fact we've been talking to the Pakistanis ourselves about doing this.

But, let's be clear, the difference is that Pakistan does not launch an external war of aggression.

Now, that's not to say there aren't real issues to do with weapons of mass destruction and Pakistan.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Not recently anyway. Gentleman in the front row.

MALE: Prime Minister, this has been going on now for 12 years. Why have we had to wait 12 years to get to this state that we're in now - why?

TONY BLAIR: Because we went through a whole process where the inspectors went in...

MALE: With respect, 12 years - a process - that's nearly three terms of a government.

TONY BLAIR: You might say having had 12 years it's about time you got rid of the weapons.

MALE: Well I think that should have been done a long, long time ago.

TONY BLAIR: Well can I just explain the 12 years, as to what happened.

MALE: What are we going to accomplish with war?

TONY BLAIR: Disarmament of Iraq, of the weapons of mass destruction.

MALE: And then we move round the world?

TONY BLAIR: No, we don't move round the world creating war on everyone, but what we do do is we do confront those countries that have this material and if we can do it through partnership and by agreement with them, we have to reduce the threat that they pose.

Because otherwise this stuff will carry on proliferating and it will be traded round the world and that causes a threat to us.

And just, I'd like to deal with your 12 years. Because what actually happened was, in April 1991 when the first UN Resolution was passed people went in.

The inspectors were supposed to be there, a few weeks.

I mean, the way the inspectors are supposed to work is the way they worked in respect of South Africa.

MALE: With respect, when there was this problem with South Africa, South Africa said that's where they are, that's where they are, that's where this is, that's where this is.

Why hasn't somebody told Saddam 12 years ago either do it that way, come out in the open and say you've got these things - they're there. Take them away from him.

TONY BLAIR: But that's what we've been saying for 12 years. But he's not done it.

MALE: 12 years!

TONY BLAIR: What you're really arguing for is that we should have taken action earlier.

JEREMY PAXMAN: There's a chap here in the front row who's had his hand up for ages.

MALE: The difference between Korea and Iraq is it purely based on oil, because Iraq's an oil-producing country and Korea isn't.

TONY BLAIR: No, let me just deal with the oil thing because this is one of the... we may be right or we may be wrong, I mean people have their different views about why we're doing this thing.

But the oil conspiracy theory is honestly one of the most absurd when you analyse it.

The fact is that, if the oil that Iraq has were our concern I mean we could probably cut a deal with Saddam tomorrow in relation to the oil.

It's not the oil that is the issue, it is the weapons, which is why the UN Resolutions have gone over 12 years in relation to the weapons and why we've actually allowed Iraq to export oil but we've had to try to keep it in an account used for food and medicine because of our worry that otherwise it would be used to buy arms.

MALE: The three biggest countries against the war at the moment are Russia, China and France and they've all signed agreement with Saddam to explore the western oilfields.

Is that why they're against it because they're frightened that if the US and Britain go in the contracts will be torn up?

TONY BLAIR: No, I don't think that's the reason either actually. Let's wait and see where France and Russia and China end up on this.

I mean, there have been differences between ourselves and France, between those countries you've mentioned and ourselves and the United States.

But let's just be clear where we're all in common. We're all in common on Resolution 1441.

We're all in common that Saddam has to disarm. We're all in common that the inspectors are the best way to do it.

But actually, we're all in common also that if the inspectors can't do it it's going to have to be done by force.

The only issue between us really is well, when do you make the judgement that the inspectors can do it or not.

MALE: So at this moment in time, in Great Britain everything over the economy everything else, the most frightened thing I should be scared of is Saddam Hussein?

TONY BLAIR: I think the thing you should be most worried about in terms of security, obviously there are economic issues in our country and the rest of the world today.

But the thing to be most worried about, I would say, yes, is the link between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Can we look, Prime Minister, if it does come to war, about what the possible implications are for us in this country and elsewhere.

You were one of the very first to realise the moment that this all got serious - the importance of addressing the whole Israel-Palestine question.

I suggest to you that going to war with Israel as a tacit ally is likely to make the threat of terror in this country a great deal greater.

TONY BLAIR: I don't think it will. First of all, we're going to be at risk of terrorism in respect of what happens.

Where did the last major terrorist event happen? In Bali, in Indonesia, a Moslem country.

There are arrests being made, there have been something like 3,000 arrests made in 90 different countries over the past few months. If you hide away from this issue you're not going to stop being a threat.

France has just been arresting people in connection with terrorist events and they're supposed to be on the other side of the argument.

JEREMY PAXMAN: There have been 66 arrests in Europe in the past two months, 29 of them have been in Pakistan, there have been something like 16 from Algeria, 14 from elsewhere in North Africa, not one of them has been an Iraqi.

TONY BLAIR: What do you prove by that?

JEREMY PAXMAN: Well I'm just asking you about the connection between terrorism and the looming war on Iraq.

TONY BLAIR: Well, that's a different issue actually, what you were asking about I thought was will we make ourselves a bigger terrorist threat, or more threat from terrorists if we engage in military action in Iraq and my point to you is that we are a terrorist threat, we're going to be a terrorist threat frankly, irrespective of what happens there.

But I do believe that it is very very important that we push the peace process forward on the Middle East.

But I think that's important in its own terms, irrespective of what happens in Iraq.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Do you consider this a just war do you, if it comes to war?

TONY BLAIR: I wouldn't go to war if I didn't consider it right.

But I just want to point this out to you, we could still avoid war today if Saddam did what he should do, and as the gentleman just said there, it's not a mystery - South African did it.

When they had their nuclear weapons programme shut down they called in the inspectors, they let the experts be interviewed, the experts said well this is what's happened to the programme, the inspectors said fine - they shut it down.

That's all he needs to do.It's not a mystery. There's no difficulty in him knowing what it is we need him to do.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Gentleman in front row.

MALE: Could America - because George Bush has said that his object is regime change in Iraq. We might be able to avoid war but can Bush without regime change?

TONY BLAIR: Well, George Bush has gone along with Resolution 1441 as well and it was absolutely clear, last thing we both said last November - if the Iraqis obey this Resolution and as I say, it's not a mystery what they have to do, all they have to do is agree to do what the inspectors say.

If they did that we wouldn't even be sitting here having this discussion.

Now, the choice in the end is for them and the reason why I wanted to go through the United Nations is to give them a last chance, is to say, OK you know, we've had this long history of this thing, there is still an issue here.

We've got to confront this issue but let's confront it peacefully so that the UN inspectors do their work.

Now what's actually happening at the moment, there is massive intimidation going on of their experts and their witnesses to this programme.

They're effectively told they'll be killed if they give proper evidence.

They're not being allowed to come and be interviewed by the inspectors except with a colleague alongside them that is obviously there for the purposes of intimidation.

You know, it could be done so easily if he wanted to do it.

And therefore, when people say you're hell bent on this war, I've tried to avoid being in this position and I honestly thought there was some prospect last November when we passed the UN Resolution that he would realise we were serious about this and that if he didn't cooperate he was going to be in trouble.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Rabina Ahmed, in the back row, there, you have concerns about the possible domestic consequences of any war.

FEMALE: Yes Prime Minister, I am a Muslim and I live in Britain.

When you said we have to do what is right by us, does that include me, because I feel that a lot of Asians up and down the country feel threatened if Britain goes to war with Iraq.

Unfortunately Saddam is a madman, in my view - sort him out! Why do the Iraqi people need to suffer?

Why do the Muslims in this country, not just the Muslims, the view that British whites have of Asians is everybody is a Muslim. There is prejudice, there is growing racism -

JEREMY PAXMAN: Do you think it will make race relations worse?

FEMALE: It will - it will definitely make things worse, it has already reached that point where things are getting bad.

TONY BLAIR: Well I mean I've been in, I mean I totally understand the point you're making. I've been involved in conflicts twice before. The first was Kosovo when we went to the help of Kosovo Albanians - who were Muslims - to stop ethnic cleansing, and where we took on Milosevic who is a orthodox Christian.

FEMALE: Yes.

TONY BLAIR: Now I hope that's some indication that we're not singling out -

FEMALE: But people have forgotten that.

TONY BLAIR: Well let's remind them.

FEMALE: After September the 11th everything is linked to Muslim. Everything seems then to be linked to anyone with a colour that is not white.

TONY BLAIR: Well I mean I agree that that is a perception amongst certain parts of our Muslim community but let me just say this to you. When we entered Afghanistan, a lot of people said to me then, if you take military action against Afghanistan, this war, this is a problem for, for Muslims.

But actually what has happened in Afghanistan is Afghanistan remains a Muslim country, but people are free - you know, I was just talking to the president of Afghanistan the other day and he was telling me, look we've got huge problems still in this country but people are free, they can go about their daily business, we've got now three million children in school, one and a half million of them are girls, girls weren't even allowed to go to school.

You know, those two conflicts, I think are some indication that we try and do what we have to do with care and I just simply say to you, if we do have to come to military action in Iraq and remove Saddam, then I honestly believe the people who will rejoice first will be the Iraqis because they have been the victims of Saddam.

FEMALE: But so many Iraqis, so many British people, so many Americans are going to die. Innocent blood is going to flow.

TONY BLAIR: If you get into war and conflict it is true -

FEMALE: Can it be avoided

TONY BLAIR: Well it can be avoided if Saddam abides by the United Nations - if we do take military action, we have to do everything we possibly can to minimise the civilian casualties.

Of course we've got to do that. But I simply do say to you, the people that have suffered most from Saddam are the Iraqi people themselves.

I mean I spoke to ten Iraqi exiles the other day, who were women, who described to me, not just the deaths of members of their family, but the appalling human rights abuses, torture, the fact that they were still, some of them, under threat of death - living abroad - from this guy. I mean, you know, this, this is not a humane regime -

FEMALE: No coming back to my question.

JEREMY PAXMAN: No one denies the man's a monster.

TONY BLAIR: Yes, but that is of importance then in asking how do you deal with someone - okay let's accept -

JEREMY PAXMAN: She's asked you about deaths of innocent people, I mean as a Christian how do you feel about innocent people dying? As they always die in war.

APPLAUSE

TONY BLAIR: That is why you avoid war if you possibly can, and that is why we went through the United Nations. Now there were innocent people, I'm afraid as well as guilty that died in Kosovo, and in Afghanistan.

But in the end I felt on both occasions we had no option but to do this.

And I remember at the time of Kosovo, I remember saying no let the peace negotiations go on several more weeks in order to try and get them sorted so that we didn't have to take on Milosevic.

But when you say that Saddam is a monster that is irrelevance, I'm afraid, to how you deal with the situation because a monster is not somebody you want to allow to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

JEREMY PAXMAN: The question is what freedom he has under the current inspection regime but we've discussed that already, I want to explore a little further about your personal feelings about this war. Does the fact that George Bush and you are both Christians make it easier for you to view these conflicts in terms of good and evil?

TONY BLAIR: I don't think so, no, I think that whether you're a Christian or you're not a Christian you can try perceive what is good and what is, is evil.

JEREMY PAXMAN: You don't pray together for example?

TONY BLAIR: No, we don't pray together Jeremy, no.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Why do you smile?

TONY BLAIR: Because - why do you ask me the question?

JEREMY PAXMAN: Because I'm trying to find out how you feel about it.

TONY BLAIR: Possibly.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Right, would anyone else like to have a question?

FEMALE: Yes, I would like to ask do you believe that the people of your country are behind you at the moment?

TONY BLAIR: I think that, I think if there were a second UN resolution then I think people would be behind me. I think if there's not then there's a lot of persuading to do.

FEMALE: Because I don't, I don't share any confidence that the people are behind you at the moment. Everybody that I've spoken to within my circle oppose what's happening at the moment.

APPLAUSE

TONY BLAIR: Supposing there were a second resolution then, would that make a difference?

FEMALE Yes.

TONY BLAIR: Well.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Prime Minister but you said, in your view, it may be necessary to go to war without a second resolution.

TONY BLAIR: Well I said that in one set of circumstances.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Yes, an unreasonable veto, as you put it. But if that happened, would you be prepared to go to war despite the fact that apparently the majority of people in this country would not be with you?

TONY BLAIR: Well you can only go, obviously, with the support of parliament but I think that if you do get to a situation where the inspectors say, look we can't do, you know, Saddam's not cooperating with us, we can't do this through inspections and there wasn't just the United States and Britain but other countries too were supporting us in that view, so you had a majority of countries in the UN Security Council, I think that would be, I think that would make a difference to people.

And I also think that as, as more emerges about the nature of this regime, as well, I think people, at least I hope they can realise why it is not safe to allow a regime such as this the freedom to develop these weapons.

I understand it is not an easy task because I think the very first point that Jeremy was making to me is the point that is most difficult for people, what is, you know, why now are we suddenly doing this?

And my answer to that is actually this does have a long history to it and I think the one thing that has changed my thinking about these issues, in relation to the 11th of September, is that, you know, I keep having this mental picture in my mind of August 2001 and coming along to people and saying there's this terrorist organisation in Afghanistan, they are evil people who will try and mount major terrorist attacks on our country, we've got to go into Afghanistan and deal with them.

I think people would have said to me, you know you must be crackers what on earth are you on about. I mean people wouldn't have even have heard of who al-Qaeda was but a month later it happened.

And I think that if these people could have got hold of an even worse weapon than the weapon they used, in a sense, which was the planes, they would.

And you know, Jeremy talked about 90 arrests, actually as I say, there's something like 3000 that have gone on in the last few months worldwide.

I just think these, these dangers are there and I think that it's difficult sometimes for people to see how they all come together but it's my honest belief that they do come together and I think it's my job as prime minister, even if frankly I might be more popular if I didn't say this to you or said I'm having nothing to do with George Bush, I think it's my duty to tell it to you if I really believe it and I do really believe it. I may be wrong in believing it but I do believe it.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Prime Minister, thank you. And thank you all and goodnight from the Baltic Centre. (news.bbc.co.uk)(rainbowdiplomacy.com)

Vice President Boediono: Our Faith

noreply@blogger.com (Publisher : Danari & Danari) — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 00:46:00 +0000

When Vice President Republic of Indonesia Jusuf Kalla will leave the post to his successor memory, Boediono, he delivered some hope. Jusuf Kalla hoped his successor would not be just a "spare tire". "Because the spare tire will only be retained," said Jusuf Kalla. Boediono, he said, must be "helpers driver" who can remind, directing, and even replace the driver when the helmsman wants a short break.

Compared with Jusuf Kalla of the Golkar Party that supported Boediono do seem to waltz with "empty hands" when the vice president's office. Relations President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono with Vice President Jusuf Kalla when he was also tied with the political contract division of tasks between them. Now the situation is different. There is no political contract. But he assured that he was not just "tire" of a car. According to him, the division of tasks by the President based on need. "There is no demarcation of the static," he said.

After the sports complex of Bank Indonesia, quietly and calmly as usual, for more than an hour Vice President Boediono explained the program's first 100 days of government and a few other questions to Tempo at his office on Friday last week.

President Yudhoyono has set 15 programs, the main focus of the first 100 days. How it formulated?

Initially there is 45 programs. Before we were sworn in, there is a small team that prepared the 100-day program and five years. We also have conducted the National Summit to get input from stakeholders. After that, the President chose 15 major programs in the next 100 days. Programs that are included in the contract the performance of ministers. Monitor the implementation, in addition to the coordinating ministers, conducted the President to Work Unit Monitoring and Control of Development, headed by Kuntoro Mangkusubroto.

Is there a special task division between the president and vice president?

Principally, there is responsibility on the president. I helped the president wherever necessary. So there is no demarcation of the static. But, if you look at my skills, maybe he will give a lot of economic problems of responsibility and welfare. We complement each other. So I'm not just a tire of a car.

How the division of tasks between the minister and the coordinator of the Work Unit President?

Work Unit no institutional policy makers. The determination of government policy remain in the department or ministry. Electricity policy, for example, discussed in the department, coordinating ministers, vice-president, to president. But, once the policy was a knock, the president can order Work Units monitor and see if there are blocks in its implementation. If there is, units should be done. That's where the Work Unit can be a busybody.

What is meant pry this extent? Only a mere coordination or until the implementation?

The mandate of this Work Unit is to solve the occlusion (bottlenecking). They have no authority to order the minister issued a decision to resolve the issue. The solution remains the authority via the coordinating ministers, vice-president, or president.

The idea to adopt the concept of the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit in the UK?

Formerly British Prime Minister Tony Blair used the concept of the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit. Perhaps the idea from there. But I do not know if this is exactly the Work Unit with the British.

It seems like the Work Unit Operational Control Development Secretary in the era of President Suharto.

I think the Work Unit is more active than the Secretary of Control.

There used to be a political deal between President Yudhoyono and Vice President Jusuf Kalla. Now?

Nothing. We trust each other. The contract was a substitution of the relationship of trust. If no mutual trust, so do not have a contract.

Is there a presidential decision to the vice president job?

Assignment per issue, so it is more flexible. For example, to alleviate poverty, will set up a special body headed by the vice president. If the problem can be solved in electricity minister level coordinator.

There are problems of infrastructure, electricity, and poverty, which has rusted. Does the policy compiled from the beginning again?

I am not a person who saw the need to have the boundary between new and old government. There are 27 issues left Jusuf Kalla. Most will still be me continue. So there is no discontinuity. Of course with the format and solutions that best suit current conditions.

Of the 15 programs, what the economic program became the most important priority?

Investment into the key problem. Of the needs of Rp 2,000 trillion to achieve economic growth of seven percent, the share of government budget is only 15 percent. The rest, 85 percent, from investors. That is, the government must make every effort to keep the investment climate attractive to investors.

How big is the impact of the Corruption Eradication Commission case against the investment?

If you look at the objective conditions and market psychology, not very influential. For long-term legal certainty is a fundamental factor. If not, they prefer to play in the stock market. That's what we worry about.

You follow the news about the Corruption Eradication Commission, or was given only to the special staff?

Lovable. I follow ..., ha-ha-ha ....

Problem amendment Labor Law. Kok, seemed lost. Is not it important to attract investment?

At last presidential candidate debate, Mr. Jusuf Kalla's right. Entrepreneur complaint, workers are also not happy with the Labor Law that now. There ought to be mutually agreed changes. The government will not force it, or when this should be agreed upon. The agreement the two main stakeholders is important.

But is not the amendment of this legislation is urgent?

The government will facilitate the meeting of two parties, workers with employers. Not good government to give direction from the beginning. To be sure, the amendment was not 100-day program.

Land acquisition for infrastructure also seems there is no solution. The President has issued a presidential decree, but not effective. How?

We all agreed, to build a toll road Trans-Java, the problem of land acquisition. Within one year will be prepared legislation on land acquisition for public interest.

What is it?

Direction to remove the blockage in the land acquisition. But justice must remain between land owners and the public interest. In these countries the most liberal exists eminent domain act to liberate the land for public interest. For the sake of public interest, private interest must yield. Stay the way how to weight the public interest is not too large, or vice versa.

Electrical recent weeks continued to byar-pet. What kind of government energy policy?

Electricity became the main focus for all electrical needs. Primary energy will be directed to support the settlement of electricity supply. The President was asked in today's 100 existing action plan details per region, including supply-demand balance and the projected electricity needs.

Or the basic electricity tariff will be raised because the subsidies that many people fall into actually afford?

There are three major subsidies that will be reviewed in the medium term, so that will achieve a sustainable level of subsidy and suitable (right target). Sustainable means not exceed certain limits from the state budget. Three large subsidy is electricity, fuel oil, and fertilizers.

Does direct cash assistance policy still continue?

Cash assistance will still be continued, just another form. The focus on poor families, linked to their needs. For example in the form of tuition fees or the cost of health services. Cash aid is only done during the emergency, not in normal circumstances, such as fuel prices soar, or rice.

World crude oil prices continue climbing up. Is there a plan to raise fuel prices to push subsidies?

Subsidies will still be given. Not possible in two or three years of subsidies to zero. I am myself inclined to vote subsidies more specific targets and setting the price formula is more flexible. Thus, every time there is change in energy prices, do not need a minister to decide the increase or decrease in price. Such a way that even shook the economy.

Uncertainty of oil prices is very high. Does the government consider the option hedging (hedging)?

It's a long option, but not yet implemented because it is unclear how much benefit and harm. By hedging, we can be a big profit, but also big losses. In uncertain situations, hedging does not eliminate the basic risk it. Suppose we fix the price of oil but it missed so many. We might even be to blame and legal issues.

The vice president's office will be moved to the complex adjacent to the president's office. For what reason? Is consideration mystical or so the president is more easily controlled?

Ha-ha-ha .... The reason, so that more integrated physically, rather than have to mew-mew every time we wanted to see. In addition, so that statement out to the media was also one vote. No longer what the word Merdeka Selatan (the vice president's office now) the other with the word Merdeka Utara (presidential office).

Century Bank's handling of cases is still not clear. What actually happens when it?

At that time economic conditions Gonjang-ganjing, then we take that policy. Situation from September to December last year with a condition similar to 1997-1998, when the government closed 16 banks. Capital flow occurs out and jammed interbank lending facility. Medium and small banks worst affected. They're usually rely on interbank facilities. Also rumors stuff. Fuss, Indonesia did not have a blanket guarantee (guaranteeing deposits fully), but neighboring countries have implemented a full guarantee. We save the Century in order to save the economy so that the event ten years ago did not happen.

But the cost of expensive salvation?

Century handling costs may not be completely relieved.

Does the president at that time could not calm the market?

No. The market can not be comforted by the statement the president. Markets have their own dynamics and logic. If there are problems earlier and later discovered fraud at Century, still must be investigated. But, at that time, any bank that collapsed should we handle.

At any cost?

Cost must not greater than the cost of the rescue in the event of a domino effect. In 1998, the cost Rp 600 trillion. If Century closed, still need to cost nearly USD 6 trillion.

Many are linked Century problems with the Corruption Eradication Commission case now?

Hopefully the truth will be visible. If indeed the flow of funds will be checked, I was very supportive, so that people do not diombang and forth various issues.
(www.rainbowdiplomacy.com/translate tempointeraktif.com, Nov 9, 2009)

President SBY: We have to change many things fundamentally to have a better future

noreply@blogger.com (Publisher : Danari & Danari) — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 07:43:00 +0000

Ms. Park Soo-Jin, Arirang TV : This week on Diplomacy Lounge, we have a special guest, Indonesian President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono who made his first state visit to Korea. Mr. President, thank you for taking this time to speak with us.

President of the Republic of Indonesia, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY): You’re welcome.

Arirang TV: Now, with the summit with President Roh Moo-hyun in this whole comes all several months after the Jakarta Summit where the two of you declare the strategic partnership and I understand that you made number of agreements during two days summit to help carry out our partnership. Could you tell us some the highlights from this agreement?

President SBY: Yes, when I met Presiden Roo Moo-hyun, e-xpressed my satisfaction because our bilateral cooperation as progressing well especially after we signed the declaration of strategic partnership between the two countries. And we agreed many things, we also e-xpand our cooperation in many fields, in investment, trade, energy, infrastructure building and others. And in two days summit, we actually committed to further implementing what we have a great before. So in conclusion, I would like to say that this summit is very constructive, very productive, we agreed many things, not only agreement, but we implement all agreements into real actions. And it will benefit surely for the both Korea and Indonesia.

Arirang TV: I see. Mr. President, one of the priority you set out right from your beginning of your presidency 2004 was to make Indonesia a prosperous nation by establishing a stable macro economic framework for development. How was that proposal come along and with which Korea factors do you see the potentials for preparation to reach those goals?

President SBY: That’s correct. Our challenge is to stimulate our growth, sustainable growth, to maintain our macro economic stability, to reduce poverty and to create more jobs for our people. And we actually launch what so-called a triple track strategy, a stimulating growth through e-xport and investment, generating real sector, to create more employement and to revitalize our agricultural and rural development to reduce poverty. So I should say that strategy is pro growth, pro job and pro poor. And with Korea under the strategic partnership, we could develop more. We welcome Korean enterprises for cooperating with us in Indonesia, Korea has capital, financial capital, technology, know how and we could combine potentian then our cooperation will generate our economy in general. And later on, base cooperation will also achieve our economic objectives. So, I should say that our cooperation is really very much inline with our own objective in achieving economic development. And I believe very strongly, will benefit also to Korea as well as Korean companies.

Arirang TV: Well, turning to Indonesia’s status in international arena which appears to be growing. In January this year, Indonesia joined the UN Security Council as the Non-Permanent Member. On what issues that Indonesia want to make the most impact ... your term?

President SBY: Yes Indonesia wants to play better roles in international arena. We are obliged to be part of the global action in maintaing peace, stability and security across the globe... We have to have a voice, a great of voice in The UN Security Council to the decision making process. And Indonesia is hoping that we could play role more and for example ending conflict in the Middle East, solving problem of the so-called security in the Korean Peninsula and other conflict areas. Indonesia will of course e-xpress her opinion properly and we do hope with our contribution the decision taken by the United Nations will be a proper, addresing the real issues on the ground. So Indonesia will continue to do so in making of course our world saver, a better and more prospeous.

Arirang TV: I see. Well, Mr. President, I understand you e-xpress interest in taking on media involved to help settled North Korean nuclear issue, taking advantage of your country’s ties with both Korea. But your previous plan to meet North Korean Leader, Kim Jong-Il in Phongyang were cancelled. At this point, do you have any plan to visit North Korea?

President SBY: Yes, ... quite clear. Indonesia wants a stable, a peaceful of Korean Peninsula. We do hope also that any security issues can be solved peacefully, diplomatically. And we welcome the progress of the Six-Party Talks, we welcome the closer of the nuclear arsenal in North Korea. And I do hope that everything is moving well. I maintain my communication with government of North Korea, I dispatch my special envoy to meet the leader of North Korea and I send a peer message that Indonesia want to be part of the solution, if Indonesia is asked, we are willing to complement to the ongoing of peace talk now to ... for e-xample a dialogue and communication between DPRK are ok. So Indonesia will continue to do so, maintaining a good relationship with Republic of Korea and also maintaing our communication with North Korea with the aim or having again wise and peaceful solution in this region.

Arirang TV: I see. Well it seems like the Korean Peninsula is not the only tra-ce where Jakarta can e-xercise its diplomatic influence. Indonesia has the world largest moslem population, giving that fact and Indonesia’s effort to ... up terrorism in wake up the Bali Bombing 2002, do you see posibilities for Indonesia to take on a unique role to better engage the Islamic world of other cultures?

President SBY: Yes actually we have engaged continously with our friends in the Middle East and we maintain our cooperation and communication with all Islamic countries. And our view is quite clear that actually Islam must be able living together with democracy and modernity. We want a moderate Islam, we want a peaceful Islam, the true teaching of Islam. This spirit encourage Indonesia to engange properly with other nation in relation of, for e-xample Islam and West relation. So, Indonesia will continue playing role in reaching the West and Islam in facilitating inter-faith dialogue, inter-civilazation dialogue and others. Because for me, we could always find proper solution in any problem. With that spirit, this is correct, Indonesia is a country with the biggest moslem population will continue playing roles in again, having a better relation between Islam, Islamic countries and the rest.

Arirang TV: Now, I can caught about bring out the latest hostage taking of Korean volunteer workers in Afghanistan, ... the rules of diplomacy don’t always applied. What is you take on the situation?

President SBY: Firstly, I feel very sad to hear that one of Korean Citizen has been killed in Afghanistan. I watched television this morning. I did say, Prime Minister Korea yesterday and even before President Roh Moo-hyun on this issue. I do hope that negotiation can be continued. And I appeal also the release of the hostages, and I do hope that all hostage can be free and return home safely. And I have the view that we have to continue negotiation, lobby, meeting with all ... to release all hostages. And I always believe that there is an opportunity, there is always room to continue negotiation and lobby that things that I would like set Indonesia stand ready to be part of this solution, to help our brothers, citizen of Korea to do what we can do in freeing the hostages.

Arirang TV: Let’s hope that the hostages will be released safely soon.

President SBY: Yes, we’re hoping this as well.

Arirang TV: Well now, let’s talk a little bit about your vision as the leader, among the Indonesian public, you widely known as the thinking general and became Indonesia first directly elected President. I understand you wrote a book called vision for change, a kind of manifesto for the future of Indonesia. Could you tell us about that visions and what ... are for other country?

President SBY: Yes, firstly I have to say that Indonesia is in a great transformation now a days. Indonesia is on the move. We have to change many things fundamentally to have a better future. But I realize fully that there are many challenges, resistents and problems. But we are conducting a chance. But I have to go through, the show must go on, that’s why I try with all stakeholders in Indonesia with other national component in Indonesia to continue this reform, democratization and rebuilding our economy after the crisis.

What we are doing now is to build better governance, good governance, is to maintain our national unity, national cohesion, reforming all policies, regulations, the economic policies, social policies, security and others. And it is, in my vision that we have to be part of the global community with our own sovereignty, our own identities and value. With that I believe very strongly, Indonesia will change for the better by endeavouring this speed journey. And I will be part of this journey and now given a mandate to lead our nation. So I will do my best in changing Indonesia for the better future.

Arirang TV: Well, if I may at this point, talk a little about man behind the presidency, I understand that to you and your family, Korea may held the special meaning given that your father in law was the first Indonesian Ambassador to Korea and that you visited Korea at among that time on your twenty. Would you like to share your memory ... e-xperiences with us?

President SBY: I visited firstly Seoul in 1976, and when I went back to Korea in 2005 attending APEC Meeting in Busan, I was so surprised that Korea is progressing dramatically, everything is changing. You are becoming the properous nation, the advanced nation with a high technology in your disposal. So, I have to learn a lot from your country and my wife told me as well that even she had been here for almost 2 years back in the 1970s, she also surprised with the dramatic change and progress that she sees here in Korea. So, of course both my wife and I are proud to be friend of Korea and we are please to develop this cooperation and friendship and hopely with that memory, we could do better in fostering our bilateral friendship and cooperation.

Arirang TV: Well, we will come to the end of today interview. We appreciate your sharing, your insights and personal story with us.

President SBY: You’re welcome.

Arirang TV: Once again Mr. President, thank you for taking the time out of your visit schedule here in Korea to stick with us. It’s been a pleasure having you in our programme.

President SBY: You’re welcome.

Arirang TV: This is end Diplomacy Lounge with our guest, Indonesian President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. Thank you for watching.
Interview Arirang TV, South Korea, With President of The Republic of Indonesia, July 26, 2007 (www.rainbowdiplomacy.com/www.presidenri.go.id)

Gus Dur: That way, God will allow it

noreply@blogger.com (Publisher : Danari & Danari) — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 04:35:00 +0000

1 Nov 1999, Wahid interview: Another berry off the same bush!

From an interview with Abdurrahman Wahid and the magazine Expresso it is clear that it's business as before in Indonesia.
"Support for the militias will cease": Wahid

Tony Jenkins -- Abdurrahman Wahid, better known in his own country as Gus Dur, spoke to the Expresso in the lobby of the Hotel Mandarin at the start of the Popular Consultative Assembly (MPR), the body that has just elected him President of Indonesia.

Expresso: If you were elected President, would you respect East Timor's independence?

Gus Dur: I have said on many occasions that we will respect the plebiscite and obey international law.

Expresso: Would you immediately establish diplomatic relations with Dili?

Gus Dur: We are going to establish diplomatic relations, but only at charge d'affaires level, because we have to maintain Indonesia's sovereignty and self-esteem.

Expresso: Why should treating Timor Loro Sae as an equal affect your sovereignty and self-esteem?

Gus Dur: I am sure you understand what I mean. East Timor was a very difficult and emotional problem for many Indonesians. It is better not to discuss certain matters.

Expresso: Are the military the problem? Will you be able to convince them to stop supporting the militias in West Timor, and to allow Timor Loro Sae to live in peace?

Gus Dur: Yes, the military are a problem. If necessary, we shall make changes in posts in the TNI (Armed Forces) in order to stop the support for the militias. But we have to be fair to the Armed Forces. Not all of what you in the international media say about the TNI is true. For example, you reported that the militias had killed Xanana Gusmao's father and brother, but now we know that it was not true. Much of what happened in East Timor was the result of a campaign by the integrationists, not by the military.

Many members of the TNI are respectable people. They consider themselves the cornerstone of the building of our country.

Expresso: It appears that the Army is training Timorese militias to embark on guerrilla warfare.

Gus Dur: I can assure you that I shall take that matter in hand. It will not happen. I shall undertake responsibility for that personally, and it is going to stop.

Expresso: But the Army has already shown that it is not prepared to give up its political power and the role it plays in Indonesian civil society.

Gus Dur: We have to maintain the "Double Function" of the Armed Forces for another five years, until the next elections. The "Double function" is related to the personal income levels of military personnel. First, we have to solve that problem. But they are not likely to take part in the next elections, in 2004.

Expresso: Do you think that the Army is going to accept your authority?

Gus Dur: The military accept me as President. I have already told the TNI that we ought to separate the Ministry of Defence from the Cabinet of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Minister must be a civilian.

Furthermore, we have to alternate all the branches of the Armed Forces - Army, Navy and Air Force -- so that no particular one is dominant. The Armed Forces are our adversary, not our enemy. We have to change their hearts.

Expresso: What do you think about the investigation into atrocities committed in East Timor? Do you accept the international commission, or will you be insisting on a national investigation process, like President Habibie?

Gus Dur: I do not like these national-level investigations. They cannot guarantee an impartial investigation. I do not believe that the national (human rights) commission will be able to carry out such a task. I am a member of that commission and I know that it will not implement justice. Only an international commission can do justice in this case.

Expresso: Was General Wiranto responsible for what happened in East Timor?

What would happen if the international commission were to formally accuse him of war crimes?

Gus Dur: No comment.

Expresso: Pressure from separatists exists in other parts of Indonesia, such as Aceh. How are you going to deal with the problem?

Gus Dur: I want to decentralise power -- a lot of power -- to the regions. I supported the holding of a referendum in Aceh. But we cannot use the world "federation". It is a word with negative connotations in Indonesia because of its association with the Dutch colonial past. They used the federation as a means of dividing and dominating the Indonesian people.

Expresso: Corruption is extremely destabilising. How will you deal with it?

Gus Dur: Suharto ought to be investigated and tried by a court. That would serve as an example. Once he is sentenced, we could then negotiate with him in order to recuperate the country's money. That way, we would not be so dependent on aid from the international community. It would also contribute to restoring our national pride.

Expresso: The most powerful political force in Indonesia is that of the students on the streets. Will you be able to control them?

Gus Dur: There is no student power. What we have are small groups of students, and the men who are behind them are all hooligans. That is why there are hooligans among them. I do not like violence. I am a follower of Mahatma Gandhi. I told the students that we can exert pressure without resorting to violence, and that we can move towards democracy without violence; that way, God will allow it. (Expresso - October 23, 1999)

CNN interview with Russian Prime Minister VLADIMIR PUTIN

noreply@blogger.com (Publisher : Danari & Danari) — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 05:35:00 +0000

Matthew Chance: Many people around the world, even though you're not the president of Russia anymore, see you as the main decision maker in this country. Wasn't it you that ordered Russian forces into Georgia and you who should take responsibility for the consequences?

Vladimir Putin: Of course, that's not the case. In accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the issues of foreign policy and defense are fully in the hands of the president. The president of the Russian Federation was acting within his powers.

As is known, yours truly was at that time at the opening of the Olympic Games in Beijing. This alone made it impossible for me to take part in preparing that decision, although of course, President Medvedev was aware of my opinion on that issue. I'll be frank with you, and actually there is no secret about it, we had of course considered all the possible scenarios of events, including direct aggression by the Georgian leadership.

We had to think beforehand about how to provide for the security of our peace-keepers and of the citizens of the Russian Federation who are residents of South Ossetia. But, I repeat, such a decision could only be taken by the president of the Russian Federation, the commander in chief of the armed forces, Mr. Medvedev. It's his decision.

Matthew Chance: It is very interesting that you are talking about Russia's imperial history in this region because one of the effects of Russian intervention in Georgia is that other countries in the former Soviet Union are now deeply concerned that they could be next, that they could be part of a resurgent Russian empire ... particularly countries like Ukraine, that have a big ethnic Russian populations, but also Moldova, the central Asian states and even some of the Baltic states. Can you guarantee to us that Russia will never again use its militarily forces against a neighboring state?

Vladimir Putin: I strongly object to the way this question is formulated. It is not for us to guarantee that we will not attack someone. We have not attacked anyone. It is we who are demanding guarantees from others, to make sure that no one attacks us anymore and that no one kills our citizens. We are being portrayed as the aggressor.

Putin: Chronology of War in South Ossetia
I have here the chronology of the events that took place on August 7, 8 and 9. On the 7th, at 2:42 p.m., the Georgian officers who were at the headquarters of the joint peacekeeping forces left the headquarters, walked away from the headquarters - where there were our servicemen, as well as Georgian and Ossetian servicemen - saying that had been ordered to do so by their commanders. They left their place of service and left our servicemen there alone and never returned during the period preceding the beginning of hostilities. An hour later, heavy artillery shelling started.

At 10:35 p.m., a massive shelling of the city of Tskhinvali began. At 10:50 p.m., ground force units of the Georgian armed forces started to deploy to the combat zone. At the same time, Georgian military hospitals were deployed in the immediate vicinity. And at 11:30 p.m., Mr. Kruashvili, brigadier general and commander of the Georgian peacekeeping forces in the region, announced that Georgia had decided to declare war on South Ossetia. They announced it directly and publicly, looking right into the TV cameras.

At that time, we tried to contact the Georgian leadership, but they all refused to respond. At 0:45 a.m. on August 8, Kruashvili repeated it once again. At 5:20 a.m., tank columns of the Georgian forces launched an attack on Tskhinvali, preceded by massive fire from GRAD systems, and we began to sustain casualties among our personnel.

At that time, as you know, I was in Beijing, and I was able to talk briefly with the president of the United States. I said to him directly that we had not been able to contact the Georgian leadership but that one of the commanders of the Georgian armed forces had declared that they had started a war with South Ossetia.
George replied to me - and I have already mentioned it publicly - that no one wanted a war. We were hoping that the U.S. administration would intervene in the conflict and stop the aggressive actions of the Georgian leadership. Nothing of the kind happened.

What is more, already at 12 noon local time, the units of the Georgian armed forces seized the peacekeepers' camp in the south of Tskhinvali - it is called Yuzhni, or Southern - and our soldiers had to withdraw to the city center, being outnumbered by the Georgians one to six. Also, our peacekeepers did not have heavy weapons, and what weapons they had had been destroyed by the first artillery strikes. One of those strikes had killed 10 people at once.

Then the attack was launched on the peacekeeping forces' northern camp. Here, let me read you the report of the General Staff: "As of 12:30 p.m., the battalion of the Russian Federation peacekeeping forces deployed in the north of the city had beaten off five attacks and was continuing combat."

At that same time, Georgian aviation bombed the city of Dzhava, which was outside the zone of hostilities, in the central part of South Ossetia.

So who was the attacker, and who was attacked? We have no intention of attacking anyone, and we have no intention of going to war with anyone.

During my eight years as president, I often heard the same question: What place does Russia reserve for itself in the world; how does it see itself; what is its place? We are a peace-loving state and we want to cooperate with all of our neighbors and with all of our partners. But if anyone thinks that they can come and kill us, that our place is at the cemetery, they should think what consequences such a policy will have for them.

Putin: Personal Relationship with Bush is Damaged
Matthew Chance: You've always enjoyed over your period as president of Russia, and still now, a very close personal relationship with the U.S. President George W. Bush. Do you think that his failure to restrain the Georgian forces on this occasion has damaged that relationship?

Vladimir Putin: This has certainly done damage to our relations, above all government-to-government relations.

But it is not just a matter of the U.S. administration being unable to restrain the Georgian leadership from this criminal action; the U.S. side had in effect armed and trained the Georgian army.

Why spend many years in difficult negotiations to find comprehensive compromise solutions to inter-ethnic conflicts? It is easier to arm one of the parties and push it to kill the other and have it done with. What an easy solution, apparently. In fact, however, that is not always the case.

I have some other thoughts, too. What I am going to say is hypothetical, just some suppositions, and will take time to properly sort out. But I think there is food for thought here.

Even during the years of the Cold War, the intense confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States, we always avoided any direct clash between our civilians and, most certainly, between our military.

Putin: US Created the Conflict in Georgia for Political Purposes
We have serious reasons to believe that there were U.S. citizens right in the combat zone. If that is the case, if that is confirmed, it is very bad. It is very dangerous; it is misguided policy

But, if that is so, these events could also have a U.S. domestic politics dimension.

If my suppositions are confirmed, then there are grounds to suspect that some people in the United States created this conflict deliberately in order to aggravate the situation and create a competitive advantage for one of the candidates for the U.S. presidency. And if that is the case, this is nothing but the use of the called administrative resource in domestic politics, in the worst possible way, one that leads to bloodshed.

Matthew Chance: These are quite astounding claims, but just to be clear, Mr. Prime Minister, are you suggesting that there were U.S. operatives on the ground assisting Georgian forces, perhaps even provoking a conflict in order to give a presidential candidate in the United States some kind of talking point?

Vladimir Putin: Let me explain.

Matthew Chance: And if you are suggesting that, what evidence do you have?

Vladimir Putin: I have said to you that if the presence of U.S. citizens in the zone of hostilities is confirmed, it would mean only one thing: that they could be there only at the direct instruction of their leaders. And if that is so, it means that in the combat zone there are U.S. citizens who are fulfilling their duties there. They can only do that under orders from their superiors, not on their own initiative.

Ordinary specialists, even if they train military personnel, must do it in training centers or on training grounds rather than in a combat zone.

I repeat: This requires further confirmation. I am quoting to you the reports of our military. Of course, I will seek further evidence from them.

Putin: US has Foreign and Domestic Problems
Why are you surprised at my hypothesis, after all? There are problems in the Middle East; reconciliation there is elusive. In Afghanistan, things are not getting any better; what is more, the Taliban have launched a fall offensive, and dozens of NATO servicemen are being killed.

In Iraq, after the euphoria of the first victories, there are problems everywhere, and the number of those killed has reached 4,000.

There are problems in the economy, as we know only too well. There are financial problems, the mortgage crisis. Even we are concerned about it, and we want it to end soon, but it is there.

A little victorious war is needed. And if it doesn't work, then one can lay the blame on us, use us to create an enemy image, and against the backdrop of this kind of jingoism once again rally the country around certain political forces.

I am surprised that you are surprised at what I'm saying. It's as clear as day.

Putin: We Didn't Open Pandora's Box
Vladimir Putin: As for Russia's prestige: We don't like what's been happening, but we did not provoke this situation. Speaking of prestige, some countries' prestige has been severely damaged in recent years. In effect, in recent years our U.S. partners have been cultivating the rule of force instead of the rule of international law. When we tried to stop the decision on Kosovo; no one listened to us. We said, don't do it, wait; you are putting us in a terrible position in the Caucasus. What shall we say to the small nations of the Caucasus as to why independence can be gained in Kosovo but not here? You are putting us in a ridiculous position. At that time, no one was talking about international law; we alone did. Now, they have all remembered it. Now, for some reason, everyone is talking about international law.

But who opened Pandora's box? Did we do it? No, we didn't do it. It was not our decision, and it was not our policy.

There are both things in international law: the principle of territorial integrity and right to self-determination. What's needed is simply to reach agreement on the ground rules. I would think that the time has finally come to do it.

As for the public perception of the events that are taking place, of course this in large part depends not only on the politicians but also on how cleverly they manipulate the media, on how they influence world public opinion. Our U.S. colleagues are of course much better at it than we are. We have much to learn. But is it always done in a proper, democratic way, is the information always fair and objective?

Putin: US Provoked the War
Matthew Chance: Let's go back to the assertion that the U.S. provoked the war. Diplomats in the United States accuse Russia of provoking the war by supporting the separatists in Abkhazia and South Ossetia by arming them, by increasing forces in the territories and by recognizing their institutions ... basically giving them the green light to go ahead and operate de facto. Wasn't it Russia that really caused this conflict?

Vladimir Putin: I can easily reply to this question. Since the 1990s, as soon as this conflict started, and it started in recent history because of the decision of the Georgian side to deprive Abkhazia and South Ossetia of the rights of autonomy. In 1990 and 1991, the Georgian leadership deprived Abkhazia and South Ossetia of the autonomous rights that they enjoyed as part of the Soviet Union, as part of Soviet Georgia, and as soon as that decision was taken, ethnic strife and armed hostilities began. At that time, Russia signed a number of international agreements, and we complied with all those agreements. We had in the territory of Abkhazia and South Ossetia only those peacekeeping forces that were stipulated in those agreements and never exceeded the quota.

The other side - I am referring to the Georgian side - with the support of the United States, violated all the agreements in the most brazen way.

Under the guise of units of the Ministry of the Interior, they secretly moved into the conflict zone their troops, regular army, special units and heavy equipment. In fact, they surrounded Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, with that heavy equipment and tanks. They surrounded our peacekeepers with tanks and started shooting at them point blank.

It was only after that, after our first casualties and after their number considerably increased, after tens of them had been killed - I think 15 or 20 peacekeepers were killed, and there was heavy loss of life among the civilian population, with hundreds killed - it was only after all that that President Medvedev decided to introduce a military contingent to save the lives of our peacekeepers and innocent civilians.

What is more, when our troops began moving in the direction of Tskhinvali, they came across a fortified area that had been secretly prepared by the Georgian military. In effect, tanks and heavy artillery had been dug into ground there, and they started shelling our soldiers as they moved.

All of it was done in violation of previous international agreements.

It is, of course, conceivable that our U.S. partners were unaware of all that, but it's very unlikely.

A totally neutral person, the former Georgian Minister of Foreign Affairs Ms. Zurabishvili, who is I think a French citizen and is now in Paris, has said publicly, and it was broadcast, that there was an enormous number of U.S. advisers and that of course they knew everything.

And if our supposition that there were U.S. citizens in the combat zone is confirmed - and I repeat, we need further information from our military - then these suspicions are quite justified.

Those who pursue such a policy toward Russia, what do they think? Will they like us only when we die?

Matthew Chance: Thank you.
(Transcript: CNN interview with Vladimir Putin (CNN) - CNN's Matthew Chance interviewed Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Thursday. August 28, 2008 / Photo: blogs.rockymountainnews.com)

‘HUNGRY FOR CHANGE’ Obama's afterglow

noreply@blogger.com (Publisher : Danari & Danari) — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 02:02:00 +0000

A NEWSWEEK exclusive interview.
A day after winning the Iowa caucuses, already campaigning hard in New Hampshire, Sen. Barack Obama sat down with NEWSWEEK's Richard Wolffe for an interview in a teacher's office at Concord High School. Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: What does your win in Iowa say about America today?
Barack Obama: It means that America is hungry for change. The way young people, old people, independents, crossover Republicans poured out was a testimony to the American people's desire to move beyond the broken politics of Washington. You know, when the American people get it in their minds that they have the power to change things, it's very hard to stop them.

People are saying there's something historic here as well: an African-American presidential candidate winning in a predominantly white, an overwhelmingly white, state.
Against some very strong candidates. I think there's no doubt that it's a measure of our progress as a country. I've said from the beginning I had confidence in the American people. Race is no doubt still a factor in our culture. But people want to know who is going to provide health care that works, schools that work, a foreign policy that works. If they think you can do the work, I think they are willing to give you a chance.

Does it change the psychology of voters elsewhere, black and white?
Yes. I think there's no doubt it's pretty difficult for people to make an electability argument against me when I was attracting more independent and Republican support than any other [Democratic] candidate. And this is what we've been saying throughout the campaign. Everybody had been pooh-poohing it, but you saw it in action yesterday.

Your wife has said this comment about [how] you're not going to do this again. Another four years, another eight years and you'll be disconnected from real people. What does that say about Washington?
I think it's not just Washington. I think Washington is an especially virulent aspect of what happens when people in power are only talking to other monied power interests. They forget that there are an awful lot of people out there who are working just as hard, in many cases more honorably, but are still struggling.

What is the hardest thing you've done, and what does it say about your capacity to lead?
Look, let me address what you're interested in. What happens if there's a 9/11, and how would you respond to that? All I can say is this: during the course of my life, a life in which I wasn't born into privilege, I made some bad decisions early in my life, but as an adult I made a series of choices that I'm very proud of. I got to work on behalf of people who needed help, to advocate for the dispossessed, and [took] a lot of risks when a comfortable path was before me. So I think my judgments over the last 25 years indicate somebody who handles just about anything that is thrown at him.
If people have doubts about that, just look at how we've handled this campaign, where others who supposedly are far more seasoned and ready to lead maybe haven't always handled the pressures or the ups and downs of the campaign as well. I've said from the outset that starting from scratch, starting from zero, we've built the best political organization in the field. And I think that yesterday confirms it. I have managed this operation without any drama. My staff is famous for being courteous and treating people with respect.

At some point people have to stop asserting that because I haven't been in the league long enough, I can't play. It's sort of like Magic Johnson or LeBron James keep on scoring 30, and their team gets wins but people say they can't lead their team because they're too young.

By running for president in a post-9/11 world, you are saying to parents in New York, Washington and the rest of the country that they can rely on you to keep their children safe from harm.
Yes, I am saying that.

Why should people believe that?
Because I have a 9-year-old and a 6-year-old in Chicago who I intend to keep safe from harm. The notion that I would put them in harm's way makes no sense. Look, the question presupposes that there's somebody out there who has gone through 9/11. Who is that person other than George W. Bush? And I think we know how that worked out.

There was a meeting in late October [a strategy session at a Chicago supporter's apartment] where [a top adviser] was encouraging you to kneecap Hillary Clinton and you said, "I don't want to win that way."
There's certain things I won't do.

How do you draw the line? Where do you draw the line?
I think it was Justice [Potter] Stewart during an obscenity case, when they asked him what obscenity is, he said, "I know it when I see it." I know where I think you cross the line into the dark side of politics. I have no problem contrasting my policy positions with others. I don't mind others drawing contrasts with my policy positions. The latest gambit by the Clinton folks on health care is something that I think is misleading, but I don't think is out of bounds. They believe in a mandate, having the government force everybody to buy health insurance, and I focus more on cost. I think that's not a practical or the best approach. For them to say that means I would leave 15 million uninsured [is misleading]. I think the average person out on the street would assume that means I would just leave them uncovered. [In fact,] this is [what economists project to be] the 3 percent of the population whom the Clintons assert do not want health care and would not buy it even if it was offered at an affordable cost. I might have arguments with them about the content of their negative ad, but I don't think it's out of bounds. On the other hand, if I see the flurry of e-mails that are going out--we haven't traced these to anybody, but they're in the ether--talking about me being a …

Jihadi?
A jihadi, exactly. That's the kind of stuff if I found out anybody on my staff was involved, I would fire them.

When you do it in your stump speech, you say they wanted me to kneecap her, do a Tonya Harding. That's your finance people?
I think that's a mischaracterization. I think it's accurate that there were some people who thought that we really needed to go hard negative. But I think that was more coming from, frankly, you--the pundits.

© 2008 www.newsweek.com / www.toonpool.com