Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Saturday Morning News

Reporter's Notebook: The Escalating Crisis in the Mideast

Aired March 30, 2002 - 08:40   ET

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

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: More now on our top story, the escalating crisis in the Middle East. We will discuss the strategies and complexities in our "Reporter's Notebook."

And joining us to do that is CNN military analyst, retired General Wesley Clark, reporter Aza Deh Moaveni of "TIME" magazine, John Vause in Jerusalem; also joining us as well, James Rubin, former assistant secretary of state out of London --- an illustrious panel indeed. They will be taking your questions. Time now to call us, 404-221-1855 is the number. We apologize. That is not a toll-free number. We don't have the budget for that.

All right, let's get right to the e-mail. This one goes to General Clark. "General Clark, what are your thoughts on the United States entering the conflict in the Middle East? How would it benefit the United States? Secondly, if we do enter on behalf of Israel, could we expect suicide bombers to try to enter our country? Finally, if we entered the conflict, what exactly would be the role of the U.S. military?" That comes from Robert Todd in Toledo.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, there is no reason for the United States to enter the conflict at this time. If we put troops on the ground, we are not going to be any better at stopping suicide bombers coming into Israel than the Israelis themselves are. In fact, we are going to be less effective. So we have to keep our own forces out of that area for a while.

Of course, we are in the conflict. We are very much engaged in that. We are known as the major backer in the world of Israel, and the United States' prestige is engaged in this. And as Vice President Cheney found when he went around the Middle East looking for allies to support action against Iraq, he found that in the minds of all the Arab leaders, they see a solution to this crisis as a precondition for moving on to deal with the problem of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

So we are engaged. The question is: How much should the United States be doing diplomatically to resolve this conflict right now?

O'BRIEN: James Rubin, is the Bush administration doing enough now? For a long time, there was a sense of detachment over this issue, or at least that was what it appeared to be. What is your sense? Is it a proper level of engagement right now? JAMES RUBIN, FMR. ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, it's very hard to know what is going on behind the scenes, but I think Vice President Cheney has now been in the region. He has met with the leaders. He has met with the Israeli leaders. He has offered to meet with Chairman Arafat. General Zinni, the special envoy, reports directly to the president and to the secretary of state is there, is staying there.

So, clearly, we are engaged at a fairly high diplomatic level right now, but given how seriously the situation has deteriorated, and given the determination of the Israelis not to make concessions in the face of terrorism, and the determination of the Palestinians to use violence to achieve those concessions, right now, it doesn't seem like U.S. engagement is making much of a difference.

O'BRIEN: Let's get a phone call in. Phil is on the line. He is in Missouri this morning, and therefore, you have to show him. Good morning, Phil.

CALLER: Good morning, Miles. I am concerned -- first, let me premise the question by saying that I believe that Mr. Arafat has shown for years that he is an ineffective peace broker. I am concerned about the power vacuum that would occur were he to be killed in his compound or with were he to be replaced, and the galvanization that would occur against the United States and Israel, and how it would cause the coalition against terrorism to possibly fall apart and galvanize the Arab and Islamic states against the United States and Israel. Who do you see stepping into the shoes of Arafat and being a possible viable peace broker, who could interact with Israel in a way that this situation could be resolved?

O'BRIEN: Aza Deh, do you want to take that one? The potential successors to Arafat and the implications of all that seems to be the question.

AZA DEH MOAVENI, "TIME" MAGAZINE: Sure. Well, Yasser Arafat has never groomed a successor. I would say, in fact, he has actively sort of discouraged anyone rising up in the ranks politically to sort of compete with his recognition and leadership of the Palestinian people. So there really isn't anyone waiting in the sidelines to come in. And the three or four men who, you know, might have seniority in the Palestinian leadership wouldn't necessarily, you know, have viably different stances on the key issues in Yasser Arafat, so I don't think that his personality or his presence is the defining issue.

In terms of, you know, the coalition falling apart or the killing of Yasser Arafat leading to some sort of mass Arab or Islamic action, I think that is unlikely. I think what we saw this week in Beirut is that the Arabs are ready to negotiate or are prepared to recognize Israel if the necessary compromises are made on the Israel side.

O'BRIEN: All right. Let's get to another e-mail, shall we? Mark is in Jackson, Mississippi. He has this. General Clark, we'll probably start out with you on this and take it over to John Vause as well. "Why aren't the Israelis going after the groups who have explicitly claimed credit for the recent terrorist attacks, i.e. Hamas, Islamic jihad, et cetera? It seems that by going after Arafat, they are isolating the non-guilty party?

CLARK: I think two things. First, we are not seeing everything that the Israelis are doing. They have been going after Hamas and Islamic jihad for some time, and of course, Hamas is one of the organizations that we are going after as well. But they also believe that Arafat and the people around him have something to do with synchronizing and orchestrating these attacks. There has been for a long time a divergence of opinion. Some people believe that Arafat can control it and is responsible; others believe that he doesn't quite have the control over it.

But I think that the weight of the U.S. opinion is that Arafat, if he is not totally in control, he is substantially in control. He can, more or less, orchestrate these attacks, maybe not every specific, but he does have substantial power there. So it's not illogical that the Israelis are going after him.

O'BRIEN: All right. I am sorry. Somebody was talking to me, so I'm not sure what you said there at the end. And I apologize, General.

CLARK: I was saying, Miles, that it's not illogical for the Israelis to go after his organization, because it's involved in orchestrating and coordinating the attacks.

O'BRIEN: All right. This might be a good follow-up for John Vause on that same subject. This comes from Jamila Bilal: "Stop blaming Arafat for the actions of his oppressed people. If a country would control all of its citizens, then we might not have all those jails in America, which are full with criminals." Good point, Jamila.

JOHN VAUSE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Miles, what the Israelis are basically saying is that these terrorist attacks are basically not only out of the control -- oh, sorry. They are saying these terrorist attacks are basically being controlled by Yasser Arafat. He is saying, well, what they say is that while he may not give the direct order for the Al Aqsa Martyr Brigades, for example, to go out and blow themselves up at a hotel in Netanya as we saw this week, it's as good as a wink and a nudge to go out and do it.

You know, you have got to understand the way these terrorist organizations work. There is no specific structure in the fact that there's a commander and a lieutenant, and it's all organized like an army. These are much like the IRA in the fact that if somebody knows somebody knows somebody, and it's all done with a wink and a nudge. And what the Israelis have been saying is that Yasser Arafat has been -- this is their words -- basically implying that these people should go out and do these attacks.

So while they admit -- even the Israelis admit that Yasser Arafat will not stop 100 percent of the suicide bombings, they say that he is not doing enough to control the ones that he can, and hence, there is that demand from the Israelis and also from the U.S. envoy here, Anthony Zinni, for Yasser Arafat to address his people in Arabic. That is a key point, to publicly address them in Arabic and denounce the terrorism and call for an end and to call for a cease-fire -- Miles.

O'BRIEN: All right. A lot of criticism that he says something different in Arabic than in English. Let's take a break. When we come back, we'll take some phone calls, more e-mails. As a matter of fact, Gene (ph) in New Jersey, we ask you to hang on the line for just a couple of more minutes. We will take your call as soon as we come back -- stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O'BRIEN: All right. We are back with our "Reporter's Notebook." And we're continuing our discussion. Gene (ph) has been very patient, spending his own nickels on the line here from New Jersey. Gene (ph), you are on the line -- your question please, sir.

CALLER: Patience is my middle name.

O'BRIEN: We appreciate it.

CALLER: OK. Anyway, in the event that the United States would back Israel in the Middle East, do you think that the Arab nations would unite behind and form a block against the United States and use oil as their major weapon?

O'BRIEN: Jamie Rubin, why don't you go first on that.

RUBIN: Well, first of all, I agree with General Clark that it's not really conceivable the United States would enter this conflict militarily. The only real use of U.S. troops I could imagine would be in the aftermath of a cease-fire or even a permanent settlement, where American troops might be needed to secure that settlement. But if, conceivably, the U.S. did do that, I don't think oil would be chosen as the weapon.

The Saudi regime, the one way in which it demonstrates its longstanding alliance with the United States is to try to avoid a situation, where Iraq or other countries can use oil against the West or against the United States. And unless we did something truly dramatic, I doubt the Saudis would cut off oil supplies, and they can certainly top off any of the supplies that might be cut off by other Arab leaders. But I really don't think this is a likely scenario.

O'BRIEN: General Clark, do you want to weigh in on that a little bit?

CLARK: Well, I think it's clear that there is some degree of concert and cooperation between Arab leaders, and there is no doubt that they want a resolution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and they want the United States to take a more active role, and they are nudging us in that direction.

At the Arab League summit, when the Saudi representative was embraced by the deputy leader of Iraq and kissed on both cheeks, that was a sign of a rebuff to the United States. That was an indication that they are not going to support us going after Saddam Hussein right away. O'BRIEN: All right. Let's get back to an e-mail, and we'll send this down to Aza Deh. It's a two-part question, and you can answer one or both, or neither if you prefer. "Is Ariel Sharon not considered a terrorist for the killings he commanded in 1982" -- referring to Lebanon -- "and the killings he is commanding now?" And then an unrelated, second part to that question from Liz: "Why is it that the U.N. cannot ever implement the U.N. resolutions they approved to fix this problem?" Do you want to take either of those, Aza Deh?

MOAVENI: Sure. Well, going back to Arafat's role -- I mean, in Sharon's role in 1982, I think that a fact-finding commission in Israel found him indirectly responsible for the death of civilians back in Lebanon, which I think this is what is being referred to. Whether that is considered terrorism goes back to how this individual, you know, caller would refer to terrorism. But that is an Israeli fact-finding commission finding the leader of Israel indirectly responsible for, you know, what would be considered war crimes.

For the U.N. being able to sort of see through its resolutions on the ground, the U.N. doesn't really have the means and, you know, the U.N. doesn't have a military presence. And the U.N. is not intended to be carrying out any of its resolutions. The U.N. has a political role in encouraging the parties to a conflict to come together. If it is requested, it can send peacekeepers to observe what the outcome of any sort of negotiations on the ground, but to the extent that it should be responsible for seeing its own resolutions through, we have to remember that the U.N. is to the extent of its capacity, you know, only able to do what its member states decide that it can do.

So it goes back to what are the decisions being taken in the Security Council? What are the relevant players encouraging the U.N. to do?

O'BRIEN: All right. I am told the time has expired. John Vause, I had a real tough one for you too, and I know you are upset that we are not going to get to you. So we appreciate you all -- James Rubin, General Wesley Clark, John Vause, Aza Deh Moaveni -- I appreciate you all being with us and taking some great questions via e-mail and on the telephone. Thank you, viewers, for participating. We only scratched the surface as always, and we do appreciate your support.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com