Washington-On the eve of his highly anticipated trip to the Middle East, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden emphasized in an interview with Al-Hayat the need for “bold steps” from Palestinians and Israelis to make progress on the Peace Process, and promised a “sustained and active” American role in the upcoming proximity negotiations. Mr. Biden talked about the lack of trust for the Iranian leadership and expected from China, a member of the P5+1, to “fulfill its responsibilities” on the issue of sanctions. He also expressed a sense of urgency in “reintegrating” Iraq into the region while remaining committed to the timeline that the administration has planned for the withdrawal. Following is the transcript of the interview: - Your visit to the Middle East comes at the height of a new push to resume negotiations. What will the U.S. role be in any proximity talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians; will you be proposing a set of ideas? A: As the President has said, we remain committed to achieving peace in the Middle East because it is in the interests of Israelis, Arabs, and the United States that we do so. But as the President also pointed out, this is very hard work, and we need the parties to take bold steps if we are to make progress towards peace. We have always known that negotiations will proceed on a variety of tracks, some direct and some indirect. Given the current environment, we think it makes sense to explore a re-launch of negotiations through a mix of such tracks. We have assured both parties that we will play an active and sustained role throughout the proximity talks, including sharing messages between the parties and by offering our own ideas and bridging proposals as needed. But if this process is going to produce real results, both sides must demonstrate that they will make a serious, good faith effort to overcome their differences and take the needs of the other side into account. - How important it is to reach an agreement during President Obama's tenure? We are committed to doing our part for peace. That is why Senator (Envoy George) Mitchell is in the region to try to help the parties address all the permanent status issues that need to be resolved to reach an agreement. Significant progress requires that the parties take bold steps forward, and to meet the expectations of all sides, we will need to see more of that in 2010. - The administration has been trying to impose more sanctions on Iran. How confident are you that the Security Council will adopt new measures, despite China's continued opposition? A: President Obama made an unprecedented effort to reach out to Iran and to offer its leaders a pathway to a different future. But instead of embracing the opportunity, Iran's leadership continues to violate its international obligations. The international community discovered a secret nuclear facility at Qom, Iran announced it would enrich uranium to 20 percent and build more enrichment facilities, and it rejected a proposal by the International Atomic Energy Agency – supported by Russia, Europe and the United States – to provide fuel for a research reactor that makes medical isotopes. The logic of our dual track approach, which all the members of the P5+1 accepted, was that there would be engagement and incentives offered, but if they were rejected, there would be consequences. We are acting now to make both tracks, not just one track, credible, and expect that China will fulfill its responsibilities as a member of the P5+1.. - What impact you would like those sanctions to have? What is the backup plan if the UNSC doesn't pass a new resolution or instead endorsing one that doesn't have the desired impact? That is why we are now consulting intensively with our international partners about the sanctions that Iran's continued defiance demands. I am not going to get into specifics, but our effort is serious. As the President has said, countries that break the rules must be held accountable and sanctions must exact a real price. - How much are you concerned about an Israeli unilateral strike against Tehran, or the possibility of a proxy war between Hizballah and Tel Aviv with the pressure mounting on the Iranian leadership? A: Our focus now is on the dual track strategy. But we have long been clear that we do not believe Iran has demonstrated the peaceful intent of its nuclear program. Its leaders have given the international community no basis on which to trust them. I think the latest report by the International Atomic Energy Agency lays this out pretty clearly. Beyond that, I don't want to get into hypothetical scenarios. -What are you hoping for the next government formation, do you think it will be able to put to rest outstanding national issues like Kirkuk or political reconciliation? A: This Sunday, the people of Iraq went to the polls to choose their own leaders. As President Obama said, by any measure, this was an impressive display of democracy and an important milestone in Iraqi history. Hundreds of political parties fielded thousands of parliamentary candidates, men and women. Millions of Iraqis exercised their right to vote. We know that the voting was the beginning, not the end, of a long electoral and constitutional process of counting ballots, certifying results, seating a parliament and choosing new leaders and a government. All of this will take time. There will be difficult days and more violence. No one should seek to influence, exploit or disrupt this time of transition for their own selfish interests. Now is the time for every neighbor and nation to respect Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity, to develop productive, normalized relations with Iraq and to speed its full reintegration into the region and the international community. A new Iraqi government will face difficult decisions on Iraq's future. But we are seeing that the Iraqi people want disagreements to be debated and decided through a political process, not violence. And we believe they can and will use that political process to resolve outstanding issues like Kirkuk. - What future do you see for U.S.-Iraqi relations? Any concerns about a hegemonic Iranian role after the U.S. withdrawal? As they forge their future, the United States will fulfill its obligations. Today, for the first time in years, there are fewer than 100,000 American troops in Iraq. Our combat mission will end in August, and all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by the end of next year. But while the nature of our engagement is changing, we are not disengaging. To the contrary, we want to sustain and build a strong relationship with Iraq, with an emphasis on diplomatic, political and economic engagement that builds new bonds of commerce, culture, education and exchanges. - The return of the U.S. ambassador to Damascus signaled an important progress in the bilateral relation. Have you sensed any change in Syria's behavior in approaching the issues of concern (Iraq, Peace Process, Lebanon)? A: President Obama, from the beginning of this administration, made it clear that the United States would seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. This approach guides our foreign policy and we remain committed to improving relations between the United States and Syria through sustained and principled engagement. We look forward to the arrival of our new ambassador-designate in Damascus, once he is confirmed by the U.S. Senate, to address our concerns and interests with the Syrian government through continued high-level dialogue. The recent trips to Damascus by U.S. Special Envoy Senator Mitchell and Under Secretary for Political Affairs William Burns reflect our commitment to seeing if it is possible to put our relations on a new footing and move ahead on Israeli-Syrian peace—something we see to be in the interests of both parties and the region. - What is your reaction to the trilateral meeting last week between the Syrian President Bashar Assad, Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah and the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? While we do not have any illusions about our differences, we hope that Syria and the United States can find ways to work together to promote peace and stability in the region. Time will tell if that is possible..
