Return to Transcripts main page

DIPLOMATIC LICENSE

Current Events at the United Nations

Aired October 1, 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)
GEORGE W. BUSH, U.S. PRESIDENT: I believe I'm going to win because the American people know I know how to lead.

JOHN KERRY, U.S. DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: I believe that when you know something is going wrong, you make it right.

RICHARD ROTH, CNN ANCHOR: Why do you want to be the next U.N. secretary-general?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROTH: There was only one TV program that could stop me from watching baseball's New York Yankees clinch another division title, the U.S. presidential debate, round one.

The playoffs, you might say.

Welcome to DIPLOMATIC LICENSE. I'm Richard Roth.

I wasn't alone. People in Iraq and around the world tuned in, although residents of Baghdad may have thought they were living in the 51st U.S. state, Iraq so dominated the coverage.

President Bush and challenger John Kerry disagreed on diplomatic efforts to prevent the war and differed on what to do now about Iraq.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KERRY: What we need now is a president who understands how to bring these other countries together, to recognize their stakes in this. They do have stakes in it. They've always had stakes in it.

The Arab countries have a stake in not having a civil war. The European countries have a stake in not having total disorder on their doorstep. But this president hasn't even held the kind of statesman-like summits that pull people together and get them to invest in those stakes. In fact, he's done the opposite. He pushed them away.

When the Secretary-General Kofi Annan offered the United Nations, he said, "No, no, we'll go do this alone."

BUSH: I know how these people think. I deal with them all the time. I sit down with the world leaders frequently and talk to them on the phone frequently. They're not going to follow somebody who says this is a wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time. They're not going to follow somebody whose core convictions keep changing becaues of politics in America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROTH: The first U.S. presidential debate was on foreign policy and we have two experienced diplomats with us. They are used to negotiating -- not here though. They support different candidates for the White House.

Jack Matlock, who was the U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. He even has a new book out called "Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended." Mr. Matlock prefers John Kerry.

In Washington, former U.S. Ambassador to Colombia Thomas Boyatt joins us, a long diplomatic career including postings in Upper Volta and Chile. Mr. Boyatt prefers President Bush.

Jack Matlock, why would other countries, such as France and Germany, now rally around and contribute troops just because John Kerry says he's going to have a summit?

JACK MATLOCK, AUTHOR: Well, because it's in their interest to certainly help get us out of this mess that we've gotten into in Iraq, a mess that they warned us not to get into, and I think they're going to be much more likely to respond to a President Kerry than they will to President Bush, given what's happened in the past.

ROTH: Ambassador Boyatt, do you agree?

THOMAS BOYATT, FMR. U.S. AMB. TO COLOMBIA: Well, I don't -- I don't agree. I don't think -- no matter what happens, I do not believe that France and Germany are going to come forward with troops.

ROTH: Why do you think President Bush would make the better leader when last night it seemed all he could say was that John Kerry changed his mind?

BOYATT: President Bush understands strategically, he's got it right. He understands that you cannot fight the war on terrorism with the weapons of the Cold War. I don't think Senator Kerry or the Democrat Party or my friend Jack Matlock and other ambassadors ironically called Ambassadors for Change understand that.

They want to go back to a policy based on the policy tools of the Cold War. Containment.

MATLOCK: I don't think we want to.

(CROSSTALK)

BOYATT: Well, let me finish. Let me finish and say what they are. Containment, static alliances and disarmament negotiations when what we really need is preemption, alliances of the willing and the able and negotiations to reduce the nuclear threat.

MATLOCK: Well, we don't reject preemption when there is an immediate threat, and that's very clear. And we know that some things can't be contained. But we don't believe in making the problem worse by going after the wrong target at the wrong time.

BOYATT: Well, whether it's the wrong target or not is a matter of judgment. I happen to think it was absolutely the correct target.

ROTH: But why did they botch the plan? I mean, what does that say about leadership, if the Bush administration may have wanted to go in, and many thought Saddam Hussein should be removed, but how do you not plan for what Kerry called the peace?

BOYATT: Well, first of all, they didn't botch the combat portion of the situation. In fact, if anything, they were too successful. They won several days, perhaps even weeks, before they thought they would win.

And, you know, I agree. They made a mistake. They made some assumptions about what the post-war problems would be. Burning oil wells, internal refugees, fighting among the ethnic groups. And it turned out to be a different set of problems.

But that doesn't mean that the strategy was wrong. That simply means that the.

(CROSSTALK)

MATLOCK: Whether the strategy is right or wrong, if you don't conduct it in an effective way you create more problems than you solve, and I think it is very clear that Saddam Hussein at that time was not the threat to the United States that a number of other countries were. And in particular, to finish the job in Afghanistan.

It seems to me that if a surgeon goes in to take out a cancer, it's not good enough to take out 2/3 of it and then go on do something else and leave that other 1/3 there to metastasize. And that's what we did.

ROTH: But, Ambassador Matlock, what is the Kerry plan? I mean, he talked about two divisions and the summit. I don't know. Did he really convince viewers or voters that he's going to do something different other than staying the course in Iraq?

MATLOCK: I think he will be doing something different, but this is not the mess he got us into. Let's not forget that.

We're saying he's better able to get us out. Yes, I think we need to reinforce our troops there. We need to give them more support. We need to get more international support for the various efforts -- reconstruction and otherwise -- and I think he was very precise about that last night.

BOYATT: You know, in the United States we have a statement which is - - an adage. Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. And the fact of the matter is that Kerry's policies imitate Bush.

Last night he was preemptor-in-chief, prepare for preemption. Last night, to some degree, he was unilateralist-in-chief. He wants a unilateral negotiation with the North Koreans. And as to their plans for the future of Iraq, they both say more nations to help us, elections, train up the Iraqis so that they can take care of the security situation themselves and then, you know, withdraw.

(CROSSTALK)

MATLOCK: But he's shown his incompetence in carrying out the various things that he set forward and he has not set the right priorities and this is not imitation. I think that clearly we face the same problems, but John Kerry has given them different priorities, and I think his priorities are much better. And I don't think this is a replay of the policy of the Cold War at all.

ROTH: All right, I'm going to play moderator for two seconds again.

The candidates never mentioned on Thursday night North Korea in their convention speeches, but it was the other major topic at the debate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KERRY: Bilateral talks which put all of the issues from the Armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues and the nuclear issues on the table.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you're opposed to that sir, right?

BUSH: The minute we have bilateral talks, the six-party talks will unwind. That's exactly what Kim Jong Il wants.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROTH: All right, Ambassador Boyatt, what's wrong about the United States talking to North Korea?

BOYATT: Exactly what the president said. I mean, I just -- I hope that everyone appreciates the irony of what happened here.

For two years, the Democrats have been beating President Bush about the head and shoulders because he's a unilateralist, and last night you had the Democrat candidate proposing a unilateralist approach to North Korea and President Bush defending the multilateral one. It was astounding.

(CROSSTALK)

MATLOCK: Actually, you don't -- you need them both, and I don't think he has rejected the multilateral approach. Of course you have to continue that. But the Chinese are telling us the same thing the North Koreans and everybody else in that we've also got to supplement it with a bilateral negotiation. And I think that's all that Kerry is saying. And to say this is contradiction is simply -- I don't see the contradiction.

BOYATT: What we know is what Senator Kerry -- and what he said was a bilateral negotiation. Period.

MATLOCK: To add that to what you have.

ROTH: How come nobody talked about the Middle East, which allegedly is at the root of every problem? Very briefly, Ambassador Boyatt. Was it too much a lightening rod, third rail, nobody wanted to touch it?

BOYATT: You mean the Arab-Israeli.

ROTH: Yes.

BOYATT: . dimension of Middle Eastern problem?

ROTH: Yes.

BOYATT: Probably.

MATLOCK: They weren't asked.

ROTH: All right. Well, don't ask, don't tell.

MATLOCK: And I think it is a third rail, yes.

ROTH: Let me ask you about ambassadors, former ambassadors, speaking out, now involved in a political campaign, very briefly. Is it easy, for the conversion? Is this bad? You've joined a group that -- you've criticized President Bush. Go ahead.

MATLOCK: It's not customary, but we felt very strongly that we're on the wrong track and obviously we're not on active duty. We served Republican as well as Democratic presidents. We are not partisan.

ROTH: All right, you criticize -- go ahead.

BOYATT: I want to address that. It is a terrible mistake because it politicizes the foreign service.

MATLOCK: I don't think it politicizes the foreign services one bit.

BOYATT: Well let -- Jack -- stop interrupting me. Let me finish.

It politicizes the foreign service because the foreign service must represent red and blue America both and presidents of both parties must have confidence that we will carry out their policies with integrity and lack of political nuance.

MATLOCK: They have that.

BOYATT: And what this says is -- what this says is the foreign service officers are all waiting around so that they can retire and then join political action groups. It is damaging to the career service.

MATLOCK: I don't think that's true at all. We would not have military officers who become president if they did not have the right to play a political role when they leave the service. Foreign service officers are no different.

ROTH: Time is up. I know there are foreign service officers watching around the world and maybe they will contact us.

Got to stop there, Ambassador Thomas Boyatt. You were ambassador to Colombia, you are a staunch defender of President Bush. Some more debates to come, maybe we'll have you back. Thank you very much for your patience.

BOYATT: Thank you.

ROTH: And Ambassador Jack Matlock, new book on "Reagan and Gorbachev," and a supporter of John Kerry. He talked about touring KGB facilities and looking at all of the files. We'll have you back.

Did you know that one of the leading Republicans involved in negotiating the presidential debates was once a Democrat? James Baker was once U.S. secretary of state also. In a speech at the Seeds of Peace luncheon in New York two weeks ago, Baker shared a personal anecdote.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES BAKER, FMR. U.S. SECY. OF STATE: The first circumstance was the loss of a wife when she was 38 years of age to cancer and I was left at four young sons at the time. I had a good friend in Houston who was my tennis doubles partner and he came to me, he said, "You know, James, you go to take your mind off your grief. You need to help me run for the Senate."

And I said, "Well, George, that's a great idea, except for two things. Number one, I don't know anything about politics and number two, I'm a Democrat."

And he said, "Well, we can take care of that second problem."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DOMINIQUE DE VILLEPIN, FMR. FRENCH FOREIGN MIN.: I'd like to reassure those of you who might be worried about my being here today discussing such a topic. I am here as interior minister of an allied country. I am here in the spirit of friendship and cooperation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROTH: Uh oh, that French guy was back, the man U.S. war advocates love to hate, the former French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin returned to New York this week with a speech on terrorism and French- American relations.

At the Security Council in 2003 he led the resistance against U.S. resolutions that demanded faster action against Iraq.

The United States wants the U.N. Security Council to be firmer against another nation, Sudan. Washington says it's a genocide in Darfur. 50,000 dead and more than 1 million people uprooted from homes.

There will be a commission of inquiry setup at the behest of the 15 nation Council, a vanguard of U.N. officials just returned from Darfur. The U.N. Human Rights Chief Louise Arbour said Sudanese police were not adequately providing protection and recommended thousands of international police or peacekeepers be sent to prevent government troops from intimidating refugees.

Sudan's foreign minister had his own closed-door session with the Security Council. He says Sudan will accept 3,500 troops from the African Union to monitor the police and the people they are supposed to protect.

Appearing before the Security Council was the last stop on a busy two- week visit to the United Nations for Sudan's foreign minister. DIPLOMATIC LICENSE followed along.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BUSH: At this hour, the world is witnessing terrible suffering and horrible crimes in the Darfur region of Sudan.

ROTH (voice-over): It wasn't a great start to the week, but Sudan's Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman didn't pull a Khrushchev and start pounding the table.

MUSTAFA OSMAN, SUDANESE FOREIGN MIN.: President Bush, is he the president of the world or the president of the United States?

ROTH: But he did pound the U.N. pavement, mounting a defense. First stop, global broadcaster BBC.

OSMAN: Is it live or not?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's not live, it's being recorded.

ROTH: But in immediate demand by other reporters. Talk of genocide does wonders for media interest.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We'll just do five minutes.

OSMAN: If part of the media is not fiar, then we'll get another one which is fair, that's why Sudan is open for the media.

ROTH: But critics say Sudan has not been open to cameras, unwilling to permit outsiders to see what may be happening in Darfur.

At the United Nations, diplomats can collide on the issue and in the hallway.

OSMAN: How are you? I'll see you. Thanks.

ROTH: A European Union envoy who wants a genocide investigation.

Moving on, the minister strolls past an exhibition of horror on an even larger scale: the effects of nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

But then a diplomatic delay, a meeting with the Irish. Post-game report: Darfur is in the top three on the U.N. buzz list.

OSMAN: Iraq, Palestinian, Darfur.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Every meeting?

OSMAN: Every meeting.

ROTH: Despite 50,000 dead and 1 million homeless, the Sudanese foreign minister is not shunned. Make talk, not war is the U.N. way.

Next encounter: Libya's foreign minister. His country had sanctions lifted this week by the United States. The American ambassador walks by, no contact, especially with a higher ranking foreign minister. So it made for two dips passing in the night.

OSMAN: Hello, good to see you. Thank you very much.

ROTH: After noodling with Norway, the Sudanese foreign minister got to see Khrushchev himself in the U.N. lobby.

He believes Sudan is trapped not in a Cold War but in a campaign war.

OSMAN: Becaues of the competition, of course Democrat and the Republicans, they want to compete for votes. So Kerry said it's a genocide. Then Colin Powell said it's a genocide.

ROTH: Sudan would not want to be lumped into President Bush's axis of evil, but he ran into Iran's foreign minister, who has a nuclear problem.

(on camera): Both of your countries seem to be not so popular -- hello, Mr. Minister, how are you -- with the United States.

50,000 people killed, 1 million made homeless. Are these figures out of people's imagination? I mean, you've acknowledged there is a problem.

OSMAN: Would the United States will accept that the same international committee which is going to investigate in Darfur to go on to investigate in Abu Ghraib?

ROTH (voice-over): Last stop, the lunch buffet. The last straw for the British foreign secretary.

(on camera): Diplomat to diplomat, does he get it or is he someone that is unfortunately not high enough.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's a very distinguished international diplomat, but even the most distinguished international diplomat doesn't have the whole of his society in his hands, nor should he.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hello. My name is Scott Mooney (ph) and welcome to "Imagine All The People." You are about to be part of the largest broadcast even in history. I'm speaking to you from the United Nations building in New York City. In just a few moments, Yoko Ono Lennon will step up to a podium and deliver a brief message in honor of John Lennon's 50th birthday.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROTH: How about that voice? The tones of Scott Mooney (ph), a legendary New York and music industry radio broadcaster. That tape was from October 9, 1990. A U.N. hosted event honoring what would have been the 50th birthday of John Lennon of the Beatles.

Scott Mooney's (ph) voice was still this week as he passed away in New York just days before that same Lennon anniversary date this month.

He is not the "Manchurian Candidate," but the Thai candidate and now the ASEAN candidate. Surakiart Sathirathai was endorsed by 10 Southeast Asian nations as the next secretary-general of the United Nations. He is currently the foreign minister of Thailand.

46 years old with a career moving between business, universities and politics.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROTH: Why do you want to be the next U.N. secretary-general?

SURAKIART SATHIRATHAI, THAI FOREIGN MIN.: Well, first of all, it is the consensus of the Asian group that the next round of the secretary- general should be the Asian turn, so my prime minister has discussed this with me, that because of my interest in foreign affairs and because of my experience since February 2001 and my experience in foreign affairs when I was minister of finance and policy advisor to the former prime minister, when I was involved in the peace process in Cambodia, he said that I should be interested in the post, and he said that he would be happy to support me.

ROTH: You said in your address to the General Assembly that the United Nations is in an existential crisis. What do you mean by that?

SATHIRATHAI: Because the international strategy, political landscape, in 1945 and at present is very different. The composition of the Security Council members, the members in the General Assembly and world itself, the existence of the regional organizations now and in 1945 is totally different.

So the United Nations has to look at itself and see how the United Nations will be able to respond to this present day political reality and how the United Nations can perform or function more effectively amidst this changing world.

ROTH: Who should be the permanent members of the Security Council? I don't want to blow your candidacy right now, but tell us which countries should get.

SATHIRATHAI: I'll say that (UNINTELLIGIBLE), as I mentioned (UNINTELLIGIBLE) United Nations, that I don't think it's time to play the name game or number game. I think we should look at the criteria as to what the qualifications are of a country that should be admitted as a new member to the U.N. Security Council, both permanent and nonpermanent.

For example, the ability to contribute to peacekeeping, to contribute to security and development issues. And secondly we should also look at the process through which a country would be elected.

ROTH: As you noted, an existential crisis exists. People are talking in the United States about whether the United Nations should even still exist, because it gets so deadlocked on world issues that either there is no action or the United Nations is seen as endorsing preemptive war, that it's just going nowhere.

How do you change something like that? You can't just add more seats to a different body.

SATHIRATHAI: You ask a very, very good question. But first of all, we have to make sure that U.N. reform would be able to make the United Nations relevant to the needs of the member states.

But most important, don't forget that the United Nations is compromised of member states. If you ask the United Nations to do more, member states have to do more.

ROTH: What about on a personal nature? What do you bring to the office? People have called Kofi Annan everything from he secular pope to the man who in effect let the Rwanda and Sudan genocide go on on his watch.

SATHIRATHAI: Well, I think that Secretary Kofi Annan has done a lot of good job to the peace and security of the world. I would not be able to brand myself. I would have to ask others of you to look at that.

But let me say this: I think one of the important issues that the next secretary-general would have to do, and you may think that this sounds abstract, but to me it's very important, and that is that we have to work together to promote moderation, to promote a higher level of tolerance and to cultivate a culture of peace.

ROTH: And, finally, do you think there should be smoking inside the U.N. building? This is a major issue.

SATHIRATHAI: I am a non-smoking person and I like -- I think we have to respect the rights of the people who do not smoke and the rights of the people who do smoke, so I think that people should not smoke in a public area, and there should be a smoking room.

ROTH: Thank you very much Mr. Minister. That may way heavily on how CNN views your candidacy, but we will always remain impartial as there are other likely candidates still to jump in. Thank you and good luck in your candidacy.

SATHIRATHAI: Thank you very much indeed.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROTH: Sathirathai doesn't have the job locked up. The 56-nation Asian group could receive other nominations and the Security Council really has the clout to pick and chose who will replace Kofi Anna, who indicated on DIPLOMATIC LICENSE here a year ago he's not that interested in a third term.

Do you know who should be the next secretary-general? Do you have an interesting neighbor or someone who relates well to a family of 191 crazy cousins?

E-mail me here at Diplomatic.License@CNN.com.

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