Return to Transcripts main page

DIPLOMATIC LICENSE

Current Events at the United Nations

Aired July 31, 2004 - 21:00:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN KERRY, U.S. DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: We need to make America once again a beacon in the world. We need to be looked up to, not just feared.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What are you feeling?

MUHAMED SACIRBEY, FMR. U.N. AMB.: Fresh air. Freedom is strange after you've missed it for so long.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it was Alfred Kahn (ph) who was told he can't use the word inflation, he has to use the word banana. So, you know, if you wanted to use the word banana, so long as it's clear as it equals sanctions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD ROTH, CNN ANCHOR: Did Democrat John Kerry reveal to voters and the interested international set what his plans are for Iraq, the United Nations and America's role in the world?

Welcome to DIPLOMATIC LICENSE. I'm Richard Roth.

Kerry told the adoring conventioneers on his first day in office he would send a message to the U.S. armed forces saying each person will never be asked to fight a war without a plan to win the peace.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KERRY: I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a president who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to America taxpayers, reduce the risk to America soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.

Here is the reality: that won't happen -- that won't happen until we have a president who restores America's respect and leadership so we don't have to go it alone in the world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROTH: Kerry said the United States needs to rebuild its alliances before the terrorists win. Kerry has been bombarded by Republicans for flip-flopping on issues, such as voting for the war with Iraq, but then not voting in favor of further military spending.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KERRY: Now I know that there are those who criticize me for seeing complexities, and I do, because some issues just aren't all that simple. Saying there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq doesn't make is so.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROTH: To cheers, Kerry added, "Fighting a war on the cheap doesn't make it so, nor does proclaiming mission accomplished on that aircraft carrier make it so."

Fighting a war on the cheap is something this program is quite familiar with, but let's get some other perspective now on the senator.

From Washington, we make a seat for Charles Kupchan, senior fellow and director of Europe studies, Council on Foreign Relations, a former National Security Council official under president Clinton; and Thomas Donnelly, resident fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, specializing in defense and national security.

Mr. Donnelly, did you learn anything new about John Kerry's policies on Iraq from this speech?

THOMAS DONNELLY, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: Nothing really new, I'd have to say. This is pretty consistent with what his campaign has been saying all along.

But, you know, to say it and make it the primary focus of his acceptance speech means that he's stuck with it now, and certainly saying that there is an alliance to be had in Iraq doesn't make it so either.

ROTH: All right. Charles, what did you think? Did Kerry really clarify what he intended to do as president, or are these speeches at the conventions never really going to go into that much detail, and he did say if you've got any questions, go to his Web site.

CHARLES KUPCHAN, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: I think he focused on the big ticket item, which is how is America going to use its primacy, how is it going to wield its power, and I think the Bush administration has been operating under the assumption that the stronger the United States is and the more it pounds its chest, the more other will get in line and follow it, and I think Kerry sees it differently.

He thinks the United States should have superior power, but legitimate that power, lead through example and persuasion, be respected and not just feared. And I think that's the main message he got across that night, and he did a good job of doing so.

ROTH: Tom, the senator said we need strength but not through tough words.

DONNELLY: Well, look, the rhetoric doesn't matter that much, but the reality does. The senator acts as though the measure of victory in the war on terrorism is in Paris or Berlin rather than in the Middle East and the streets of Fallujah or the hills of Afghanistan, and the question which he pretty assiduously dodged throughout the course of his speech is what actually is he going to do, which is a reasonable question to ask a wartime president.

ROTH: Charles?

KUPCHAN: I think he does have a plan for Iraq, which is not that different than the Bush plan, and that is to continue to see this through and to try to help democracy emerge in Iraq, but I think he's got a plan to do so that to some extent limits the continuing cost of the United States, and that is to engage the international community more, to get more help from our NATO allies so that the United States is less overextended in Iraq.

And to some extent, both Bush and Kerry, I think, have backed away from the initial belief that we're going to see democracy thrive anytime soon. Even Bush has said let's get some of these old remnant regime members back, let's rebuild the Iraqi Army, and that's because I think Iraq has been much, much tougher to stabilize than the Bush administration ever believed.

And Kerry is right, we did not as a country have a plan for getting us out of Iraq, and we're now finding that that has left us in the soup in a big way, and that's why I think Kerry said very clearly last night, America should fight wars of necessity and not wars of choice.

ROTH: Well, you mentioned alliances. I found it curious -- I want you to hear a portion of the speech. Kerry said he would like to use the United Nations more -- before he came to Boston, in various speeches -- but we didn't hear the United Nations mentioned in the speech. Instead, a rather coded remark, perhaps, about the United Nations and other global groups.

Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KERRY: Let there be no mistake. I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and a certain response. I will never give any nation or any institution a veto over our national security and I will build a stronger military.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROTH: All right, Tom Donnelly, was he -- he didn't want to mention the word United Nations? What do you think there?

DONNELLY: Well, apparently not. Look, we all wish that there were other institutions or allies to share the burdens with besides Great Britain and a few others, but the practical fact of the matter is that there are not.

The point is not to respond to attacks but to prevent attacks from happening. We already know that there is an enemy out there and it's a multifarious and multidimensional enemy, and they're coming after us.

It will not do to sit at home, no matter how good how homeland defense is, to sit at home, to try to play defense entirely in this world. We have to strike the enemy where he lives and that is the big difference between the candidates. I mean, you know, it's hard to say which way the election is going to go, but there is a pretty stark difference here.

ROTH: Charles Kupchan, I mean, you were with the Clinton administration at one point. Does Kerry face being tarred with the, you know, the eight years of Clinton in office and not being tough enough on terrorism? How does he go about changing that image despite his I'm reporting for duty and the presentation of his shipmates of a swift boat on the stage?

KUPCHAN: I think that 9/11 is really a break point for all American politicians because it has changed the way we debate national security.

As Tom said, it does mean that on occasion we may have to act before they act because we can't wait around for something awful to happen in the United States, and I think Kerry is quite forthright on this question.

He said that we will not wait for a green light before taking steps to defend the United States, and over the course of the convention, not just in Kerry's speech but over the four-day period, one speaker after another made it very clear that the United States will go after al Qaeda and destroy it.

So on this particular issue, I don't think there is a great deal of daylight between the Kerry camp and the Bush camp. 9/11 America has to some extent gotten rid of some of the differences between Democrats and Republicans on the use of force, and Kerry's experience as a soldier, I think, puts him in good stead in that respect.

ROTH: Tom, does Kerry already have the overseas vote, even though they don't vote, these other countries? Or did he do something in the speech that might cause some to say, well, maybe we shouldn't be too hasty about favoring a one-term Bush administration.

DONNELLY: Look, I think he's got the European vote and he probably has the vote in, you know, Riyadh, for example, but where he probably hasn't got the vote is on many of the streets of Iraq.

If you were Prime Minister Allawi in Iraq, how would you hear that speech, about bringing American forces home? For John Kerry, the measure of success is getting out of Iraq whereas I would say for George Bush and, I think more broadly, the success is measured by our ability to transform Iraq and the Middle East into a place where it's safe for us to go about our business.

Our friends and our enemies I think we have to ask ourselves, what did they hear last night when John Edwards -- pardon me, John Kerry -- was talking about the Middle East.

KUPCHAN: Just a quick comment on what Tom said. I didn't hear anything in the speech about the United States getting out of Iraq. I heard more about efforts to get help to get allies to come in, but he did specifically say, Richard, when he mentioned 40,000 troops, that they would not go to Iraq, that they are going to be brought in to help prevent the United States from being overextended, to prevent what he calls the backdoor draft, that is relying upon the National Guard and Reservists to fill out our needs.

So this is overall an effort to strengthen the military and to ensure that we don't find ourselves stretched too thin, as we do today in Iraq.

ROTH: What about North Korea? Didn't get much of a mention. Iran didn't get a mention. Both of these countries looming problems in the months ahead -- Tom.

DONNELLY: Nor did you hear anything about China for that matter. Unquestionably the largest great power question for the future is whether China can be integrated into the current liberal world order or whether it will try to upset that order.

So, you know, when you come down to specifics and you ask yourself how might John Kerry govern, still great questions to be answered.

KUPCHAN: I think, though, if you look at some of the statements that have come out of the Kerry camp on Iran, on North Korea, it's clear that the Democrats are prepared to take a pretty forward-leaning stance on neutralizing the nuclear programs there, including in the North Korean case direct talks with Pyongyang. So there I think there is I think a clear difference with the Bush administration.

In addition, I think Kerry is right to point out the fact that we ought to be focusing on al Qaeda, on Iran, on North Korea, rather than focusing on Iraq, where we didn't find the WMD and we didn't find the clear and present threat to American security that should have been there had we been justified in going to war.

ROTH: Tom, you mentioned Berlin and Bush's interests there. I guess you were also commenting on the fact that he talked to the little boy about riding his bicycle into East Berlin when the city was divided. Do you think that's really going to get a lot of votes in Texas, California, battle ground states like Ohio and Pennsylvania?

DONNELLY: No, but it's interesting the way John Kerry tries to lay claim to legitimacy as a potential commander-in-chief. It's through that kind of personal experience, or his experience as a lieutenant in Vietnam.

Nobody doubts John Kerry's patriotism or his service to the nation, but the question is, is his view one of a lieutenant on the frontlines or a child in Berlin, or is the view of a commander-in-chief that faces the kinds of agonizing choices that we face in the 21st century.

The question is not can you lead a platoon of men, but can you lead a nation.

ROTH: Charles, who is going to be on his foreign policy team? It's already sort of a shadow government out there. Briefly, who are some of the names -- who do you think would be a secretary of state, national security advisor, probably there are some familiar names to viewers overseas, people who served Clinton and other Democratic administrations.

KUPCHAN: People that are closest to the Kerry camp at this point are Senator Joseph Biden, Richard Holbrook, both of them are mentioned as potential secretaries of state. I would presume that Randy Beers, who is his chief foreign policy advisor, would be a leading candidate to be the national security advisor.

And there are other Democrats, many of whom did work in the Clinton administration, who at this point are in either the inner circle or the outer circle, trying to give Kerry advise on foreign policy, and at this point I think you're right to say it is pretty much a shadow government. It is a machine that at this point is up and running pretty smoothly.

ROTH: Tom, he said, "I will have a defense secretary who will listen to his military advisors, I'll be a commander-in-chief who will never mislead us into war." Is he boxing us, the Americans, into a situation here? Will some of these statements come back to haunt him, like no new taxes, or is this all just campaign rhetoric?

DONNELLY: Well, look, I think it's even more dangerous than that. Any leader who supposes that he won't make a mistake that costs the United States lives I think is looking for a level of perfection that no wartime leader can ever possibly hope to achieve.

I think it's far better to be humble in entering the office of commander-in-chief, of president of the United States in a time of incredible turmoil and conflict. And as George Bush found, the world that he faced was not the world that he thought he was going to face during the campaign.

So I fear that even if John Kerry has the best intentions, that the United States can't really afford to wait for the period while he figures out what the real shape of the world is and the campaign promises that he makes get tested against the real world.

ROTH: Well, we'll see how it goes as the Kerry campaign takes to the bus. We don't have any balloons to celebrate your appearance here, as they did in Boston, but we want to thank Thomas Donnelly of the American Enterprise Institute, expert in military and defense issues, and Charles Kupchan at the Council on Foreign Relations, former Clinton administration official. Thank you both.

Our two guests were free with their opinions on the elections race. Not so some voters at the United Nations. Numerous Council ambassadors at the Security Council declined to comment on the speech or didn't hear it.

One man who doesn't vote, the Arab League's Yachyan Mamsani (ph), hopes whoever is president will focus on the Middle East peace process.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

YACHYAN MAMSANI (ph), ARAB LEAGUE: We hope that President Kerry, if he becomes the president, that he will do that, as well as we hope that any other president, President Bush or somebody else, will also do the same. We'd like to see some really fair look at our problems.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SACIRBEY: I've seen so many other individuals in prison who just don't have anyone, guilty or not, responsible for crimes or not, if you don't have someone outside in the world who believes in you, who is there to support you, you are a long way to losing the battle, not only to winning your case in that jail, but just for sanity.

ROTH: You are looking at a man who not too long ago was the United Nations Ambassador Muhamed Sacirbey, Bosnia's first envoy to New York at the United Nations, got out of jail this week in New York, and not with a board game free pass. His family, led by wife Susan, friends and people who wanted to remain anonymous but help, had to put up a huge some in order to meet the U.S. government's bail demands.

He had traveled the world for Bosnia, but now Muhamed Sacirbey, former ambassador at the United Nations, was just glad to see the outside world after being released from a U.S. prison.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What are you feeling?

SACIRBEY: Fresh air. Freedom is strange after you've missed it for so long.

ROTH: Sacirbey was arrested after the Bosnian government sought his extradition for an investigation of alleged embezzlement of nearly $2.5 million when Sacirbey was a one-man diplomatic gang representing the fledgling country at the United Nations during the Balkan Wars.

SACIRBEY: It's very simple. The money was spent for Bosnian purposes, under the authority given to me by President Izetbegovic. No money went into my pocket.

ROTH: Sacirbey was once Bosnia's foreign minister, present at the crucial Dayton Peace Talks which ended the war in Bosnia. He blames political enemies in Bosnia for his arrest but feels some American officials helped lead a smear campaign to keep him silent about recent Balkan history, including war crimes.

SACIRBEY: I don't think the Bosnian government really wants me. I don't think anyone really in Bosnia wants me. I think this has been an excuse for another purpose.

I actually first hold people in the U.S. government responsible. I think some of them didn't know why this was happening, what the ultimate motive was, but they should have known better than to go along with a scheme.

ROTH: After 16 months in jail, Sacirbey was released after his family and friends put up a total of $6 million in bail and bond money to get him out and to make sure he doesn't try to flee.

SACIRBEY: Probably they didn't expect that I would last in here 17 months. They probably expected I would fold, go back to Bosnia, to an uncertain future. Maybe (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I'm not sure what the expectation was. But I think I feel much stronger.

ROTH: Sacirbey is not really a free man. He is under home detention and must wear an electronic ankle bracelet. Sacirbey will continue to fight extradition to Bosnia, but this time from home on Staten Island, across from Manhattan.

SACIRBEY: As much as I'm avoiding to go to Bosnia, I also feel a commitment to those responsibilities that I see still unfulfilled from the time I was the ambassador to the United Nations, the time I was the foreign minister. I am very anxious that the people, the victims of (UNINTELLIGIBLE), receive justice.

ROTH: He says in jail he learned more about what's right and wrong with the world.

SACIRBEY: You either make the best of it or it takes the best of you, and I think I've had a rebirth. I have a new sense of purpose.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ROTH: After weeks of nibbling over the text, the U.N. Security Council took a stand on the Darfur crisis in Sudan on Friday. 13 countries said yes to abstain on a resolution which starts a slow-moving clock on imposing sanctions on the government of Sudan.

The United States led the drive for this resolution, but to gain more votes it agreed to drop mention of the word sanctions, substituting language that could trigger them. However, first the government of Sudan is being given at least 30 days to corral the Janjaweed, the armed militia terrorizing hundreds of thousands of refugees caught in turmoil in between tribal groups.

The United States told Sudan it has not lived up to commitments to crack down.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN DANFORTH, U.S. AMB. TO U.N.: The government of Sudan has left us no choice. It has done the unthinkable. It has fostered an armed attack on its own civilian population. It has created a humanitarian disaster. So the resolution just adopted is our necessary response if we are to help save the people of Darfur.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROTH: China and Pakistan abstained on the resolution. They expressed concern about challenging Sudan with sanctions when the government says it's trying to improve conditions there.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Pakistan did not believe that the threat or imposition of sanctions against the government of Sudan was advisable under this resolution.

Pakistan trusts that the Security Council will not need to take such further measures.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROTH: The resolution states that United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan report back in 30 days to the Security Council on the level of compliance by Sudan.

The government in Khartoum says that it has sent hundreds of police and judicial investigators to Darfur. Ambassador Elfatih Erwa said Sudan has never denied there was a problem. Khartoum insists the fault lies more with two rebel groups that began fighting with government forces last year.

In the Security Council Sudan's ambassador said while he doesn't believe in conspiracy theories, he wonders why the United States had its draft resolution ready weeks ago, even before the team of Annan and Powell diplomatically tag-teamed the Sudanese government to get that joint communiqu‚ agreeing to control the militias.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Would Sudan have been safe from the hammer of the Security Council even if there was no crisis in Darfur? And is the Darfur humanitarian crisis the Trojan horse? Is it a noble humanitarian objective adopted and embraced by (UNINTELLIGIBLE) people who are advocating an invisible agenda.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROTH: Later the ambassador said his government will do the right thing. Kofi Annan, traveling in Africa, in a printed statement said he urges all actors, that's countries and armed militias, not TV stars, to play their part now to ease the suffering of the people of Darfur.

That's DIPLOMATIC LICENSE. I'm Richard Roth, in New York. Thanks for watching.

END

TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE THE SECURE ONLINE ORDER FROM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com