The U.S. Ambassador to the UN, who enjoys the rank of minister, stressed that it is now time to hand over responsibilities to a transitional government in Yemen. In an interview with Al-Hayat (see transcript page-), she said that President Ali Abdullah Saleh can do so from Saudi Arabia. She also stated, “My understanding is that the GCC initiative is suspended, not discarded, and that suspension I think is designed to give President Saleh the opportunity which we encourage him to take to accept that proposal still, and we have supported the GCC efforts. We think that that approach [The GCC approach] is constructive, and we think it would implement immediately our interest in an orderly transition.” Meanwhile, Rice reiterated that, in Syria, “frankly, we have not seen steps to indicate to date that there is a genuine commitment to a political solution”. She said, “I'm not going to give you a date on the calendar. I'll tell you that we're deeply concerned, we are following it closely, we're considering what other steps we, as the United States, and we in partnership with the international community might soon take to increase the pressure on the Assad regime to adhere to the norms that we all adhere to.” Rice then denied that the administration is less enthusiastic when it comes to the issues of Syria and Yemen, and said, “They are very different instances, and I don't think it's a question of being leading or lukewarm…What transpired in Libya was unique...The Arab League had specifically and unusually, perhaps uniquely, requested that the Security Council act to establish a no-fly zone and protect civilians. And our allies were also ready and willing to participate in such an operation, and we had significant commitments from Arab countries to contribute… That's a different circumstance than in Syria or Yemen, but in both instances we have been very plain about the absolute imperative that peaceful protesters not be met with violence. In the case with Syria we have lead very serious actions to sanction President Assad and those closest to him, freeze his assets and take other steps. As the president [Barack Obama] said, he can either be part of the solution or get out of the way, and frankly we have not seen steps to indicate to date that there is a genuine commitment to a political solution.” She added, “We're following the situation very, very closely, and unless there's clear evidence that there are genuine steps being taken, not just promised, such as the release of all prisoners of conscience, then there won't be much to suggest that he is leading any kind of effective transition… The judgment is quite clear, they've got to stop shooting people in the streets- they haven't done that. They've got to stop treating peaceful protesters like animals, they've got to release, as they've committed to do, all prisoners of conscience, and lift really truly all the repressive emergency measures, and that hasn't happened.” Rice reaffirmed that “a range of steps remain under active consideration, both in Washington and here in New York and elsewhere. I'm not going to prejudge what steps may be necessary, but we're looking at the full range.” She then refused to confirm whether the withdrawal of the U.S. Ambassador from Damascus is among these steps, and said, “I'm not going to get specific about the steps that are under consideration”. Rice said, “The United States strongly supports the resolution that has been drafted, and we are, along with the Europeans, actively consulting with other members of the Security Council, trying to encourage and build support for that text. At the moment there isn't a sufficient support to ensure its passage, but we are working to try to move other members of the council who may not be in the same place we are. We think it's unfortunate, as secretary Clinton said the other day, that there isn't yet a strong consensus in the council behind pressuring Syria, but we think that pressure is necessary and we think it's important for the council to make a strong statement… and we have made clear to all concerned our strong view that we need to make a strong statement and the council ought to be heard on this issue.” Rice stressed in this regard that the European draft resolution “is not dead”. With respect to U.S. support to the Syrian opposition, Rice said, “We're not providing material support. We have made clear from a political and diplomatic point of view that in Syria as elsewhere, we believe that all those who are protesting peacefully for greater rights, greater freedom, greater opportunity, deserve the support of the United States, and indeed all freedom loving peoples.” Rice argued that in terms of the American support for the opposition in Libya and the lack of support for the opposition in Syria, “they're very different circumstances...” and said, “I have to argue that these are not analogous situations. In the case of Libya, we have internationally sanctioned action to protect civilians; we're actively part of that. We have a Transitional National Council that we view as a credible and legitimate representative of the Libyan people. We're providing non-lethal [arms] and humanitarian assistance to the people of Libya, including through the TNC, and I think really that these are quite different circumstances [i.e. between Syria and Libya]. On Turkey, which plays a key role with the Syrian opposition, and regarding the Turkish role in the Syrian affair, Rice said, “I'm not going to comment specifically on their role, but we definitely are in touch with Turkey as a key ally and partner in this and a number of other issues in the region. We talk very closely and regularly… We're interested in their perspectives and their insights, we share ours, we both are concerned about the deteriorating situation in Syria, and certainly our interest is in encouraging all those who have a role and influence in Damascus to use it towards the ends that we share.” On passing messages to President Assad through a certain intermediary that includes for an exit strategy for the regime, she said, “I'm not going to get into the private diplomatic communications, but I will say we are saying publicly very plainly what is the American position, which is what has transpired and what is transpiring is absolutely unacceptable. We condemn the violence, we condemn the actions taken against peaceful protesters, we support the universal rights of all the people of Syria, and indeed the region, to realize their aspirations peacefully. The President's [Obama] statement on this is clear as can be, and it is the policy of the United States.” She added, “We've been very clear that the actions that have been taken by the Assad government are not consistent with the actions of a legitimate and a responsible government representing the will of the people.” As regards the Syrian-Iranian relations, and Iran's roles in the region, Rice said, “Iran has played and continues to play a very destabilizing and destructive role in regional affairs, through its support for terrorism, through its state of policy to want to wipe Israel of the face of the map, through its active support for Hizbullah, Hamas, and other extremist organizations." She added, “We have long viewed Iran's role in the region, including in particular in Syria and Lebanon, as being counter-productive and detrimental to the broader interests of peace and stability. The thing that is so obvious about Iran's behavior now is that it is utterly and completely hypocritical. It claims to align itself with the aspirations of people in the region for democracy and human rights while it brutally represses its own people, and in fact lead the wave of oppression that we're now seeing manifest in other countries around the region, so Iran has thoroughly discredited itself, and I think increasingly the people of the region will see the utter hypocrisy of their position.” Rice stated, “The United States has enormous admiration for the Iranian people, and for the bravery of many thousands who, going back now almost 2 years ago, almost exactly 2 years ago, in the wake of fraudulent elections, stood up and demanded that their voices be heard and their rights be honored. We believe that the Iranian people will continue, and always at their disposal to struggle for and ultimately achieve their rights to freedom and respect for human rights, and we support that.” The U.S. Ambassador to the UN then stressed that at the International Atomic Energy Agency, "We are very deeply concerned about the recent reports, both on Syria and Iran, which indicate that both countries have flouted their international obligations. In the case of Iran they continue to violate their IAEA obligations and Security Council resolutions, and on Syria the latest report is not surprising, but deeply troubling.” She said, “We find the actions of both Syria and especially Iran wholly inadequate to the gravity of the situation, so as we always do, this week in Vienna we're working with the partners on the IAEA board to respond in a way that reflects our shared international concern about developments in both Iran and Syria… We'll see what comes out of the board meetings this week. I'm not there as I am here, so I think I defer to colleagues in Geneva about what exactly will come out of those deliberations this week, but obviously Iran is already very squarely on the Security Council agenda and its nuclear program, and indeed this week there will be attention to that in the council.” With regard to the Yemeni issue, Rice said, “I think we've been very clear, that it's time for him [Saleh] to hand over and transition responsibility, and he can do that from Saudi Arabia, or he could have done it before he left. We're not so much interested in from where it happens, but that it happens… We think it's important for that transition to occur and occur immediately, and it's less important from whence it occurs than that it occur immediately and promptly, and without any ambiguity.” On the Palestinian question and the approach of [obtaining] the recognition of a Palestinian state- given that Resolution 181 speaks of a Jewish state and a Palestinian state- versus admission to the UN, as a member, Rice refused to respond, saying only, “the US view has long been that the only way to accomplish our core shared goal of two states, a Palestinian- viable contiguous democratic Palestinian state living side by side with the Jewish state of Israel, is for there to be a negotiated solution. The issues of borders, of security, of Jerusalem, of refugees, of water are by definition exceedingly difficult and contentious issues and can only be resolved through direct negotiations…” She then said, “That can't be accomplished through a piece of paper, whether in the Security Council or the General Assembly. The United States is not going to support unilateral efforts by either party to bypass the necessity of negotiations. So that answers both your questions, in terms of the Security Council and the General Assembly. Our aim has been and continues to be encouraging the parties' return with seriousness to the negotiating table.” She also reaffirmed that “President Obama, in his May 19th speech, laid out very importantly the US perspective on how the critical issues of borders and security ought to be addressed as a basis for negotiations, and did so to underscore to the parties and the world the necessity of both coming back to the table in seriousness. That is what President Abbas says is his objective, I hope he means it. I hope the Palestinians will come to the table on the basis of what the President of the United States laid out, and I hope the Israelis will too.” Rice then stressed that “The president has not backed down, and will not back down”. With respect to Lebanon and the Special Tribunal, Rice said, “We have a very, very strong interest in Lebanon's sovereignty and viability. We have opposed all variety of efforts to weaken or compromise Lebanon's sovereignty. We remain very much committed to the tribunal, the STL, as a vehicle for ensuring an end to the cycle of impunity. We think that is essential, and it's what Lebanon has asked for, and it's what the people of Lebanon deserve.” Q: You played a leading influential role personally on the issue of Libya, but you seem to be sort of lukewarm, not as excited when it comes to Yemen and Syria. Why? A: Well, first of all, they are very different instances, and I don't think it's a question of being leading or lukewarm. We've been very consistent, as the president reiterated in his May 19th speech, that in the first instance we feel very strongly that the use of violence against unarmed protesters is absolutely unacceptable and we condemn it in every circumstance. The legitimate political and economic aspirations of the people of the region need to be respected and met- and through peaceful means. We will consistently stand up for the universal rights of every man, woman, and child in every country around the world, and we've been very very clear and consistent in that regard. That said, what transpired in Libya was unique. We had Qaddafi with a record of mass atrocities, including the 30,000 people that he killed in the streets in one day; we had him threatening to go from house to house in Benghazi and go after his people like rats and cockroaches, language that we've heard used to precipitate genocide in other contexts. He was 48 hours if not less from the doors of Benghazi. The Arab League had specifically and unusually, perhaps uniquely, requested that the Security Council act to establish a no-fly zone and protect civilians. And our allies were also ready and wiling to participate in such an operation, and we had significant commitments from Arab countries to contribute. In the face of all of that, President Obama made the decision, and it was my job here to implement it, that we would seek the authority that we got in resolution 1973 to protect civilians, and the coalition has been acting accordingly. That's a different circumstance than in Syria or Yemen, but in both instances we have been very plain about the absolute imperative that peaceful protesters not be met with violence. In the case with Syria we have lead very serious actions to sanction President Assad and those closest to him, freeze his assets and take other steps. As the president said, he can either be part of the solution or get out of the way, and frankly we have not seen steps to indicate to date that there is a genuine commitment to a political solution. Q: So are you saying that now it's time to get out of the way for President Assad? A: We're following the situation very very closely, and unless there's clear evidence that there are genuine steps being taken, not just promised, such as the release of all prisoners of conscience, then there won't be much to suggest that he is leading any kind of effective transition. Q: What's the time frame, or what's the measure of judgement for that? A: Well, the judgement is quite clear, they've got to stop shooting people in the streets- they haven't done that. They've got to stop treating peaceful protesters like animals, they've got to release, as they've committed to do, all prisoners of conscience, and lift really truly all the repressive emergency measures, and that hasn't happened. Q: You just said that hasn't happened, and if it doesn't happen he needs to step down, to step out of the way. So what are the critereas of the time frame? How much time is he given before you say that's it, that is the conclusion that US has reached. A: I'm not going to give you a date on the calendar. I'll tell you that we're deeply concerned, we are following it closely, we're considering what other steps we, as the United States, and we in partnership with the international community might soon take to increase the pressure on the Assad regime to adhere to the norms that we all adhere to. Q: Are you considering pulling out the ambassador so that you can deliver a message that you are serious about the position vis a vis the regime in Damascus? A: I think there are a range of steps that remain under active consideration, both in Washington and here in New York and elsewhere. I'm not going to prejudge what steps may be necessary, but we're looking at the full range. Q: Including pulling out the ambassador? A: I'm not going to get specific about the steps that are under consideration. Q: What about at the UN here, is that draft resolution, the European draft resolution on Syria, is it dead and buried as we hear? And we hear also that you lack enthusiasm for it because you don't want a veto, Russian or Chinese. A: The United States strongly supports the resolution that has been drafted, and we are, along with the Europeans, actively consulting with other members of the Security Council, trying to encourage and build support for that text. At the moment there isn't a sufficient support to ensure it's passage, but we are working to try to move other members of the council who may not be in the same place we are. We think it's unfortunate, as secretary Clinton said the other day, that there isn't yet a strong consensus in the council behind pressuring Syria, but we think that pressure is necessary and we think it's important for the council to make a strong statement. Q: Ambassador, you're aware that some Europeans are saying we can't wait for the Russians and the Chinese to be ready and just not do anything in the Security Council. Their idea is to pressure the Russians and the Chinese through calling on them to bear the responsibilities and put that draft resolution to a vote. A: We are very much in discussions with all of our partners on the Security Council about Syria, and the other issues of the region, and we have made clear to all concerned our strong view that we need to make a strong statement and the council ought to be heard on this issue. We are working also very closely with the Europeans on timing and tactics, and I'm sure that whatever action is taken will be one that we're all agreed to. Q: So that draft is not dead, as it's said? A: I don't think it's dead, no. Q: What about the American support to the opposition in Syria. We hear one extreme to another. Are you supporting the opposition, and how? A: We're not providing material support. We have made clear from a political and diplomatic point of view that in Syria as elsewhere, we believe that all those who are protesting peacefully for greater rights, greater freedom, greater opportunity, deserve the support of the United States, and indeed all freedom loving peoples. Q: So you have been providing support to the opposition in Libya, but you find that it's not your place to provide support to the opposition in Syria? A: First of all, they're very different circumstances... Q: Yes, but I'm just making the parallel... A: I have to argue that these are not analagous situations. In the case of Libya, we have internationally sanctioned action to protect civilians, we're actively part of that. We have a Transitional National Council that we view as a credible and legitimate representative of the Libyan people. We're providing non-lethal and humanitarian assistance to the people of Libya, including through the TNC, and I think really that these are quite different circumstances. Q: Are you in touch with Turkey, who's playing a role with the Syrian opposition, hosting them? What do you think of the Turkish role vis a vis Syria? A: Well, I'm not going to comment specifically on their role, but we definitely are in touch with Turkey as a key ally and partner in this and a number of other issues in the region. We talk very closely and regularly. Q: On this particular issue, you're in touch to do what, because they have been playing a role on Syria? A: We're interested in their perspectives and their insights, we share ours, we both are concerned about the deteriorating situation in Syria, and certainly our interest is in encouraging all those who have a role and influence in Damascus to use it towards the ends that we share. Q: Are you passing any message to President Bashar Al Assad through any intermediary or your own ambassador, and what is that message? Are you passing any messages for the exit strategy, if you will? A: I'm not going to get into the private diplomatic communications, but I will say we are saying publicly very plainly what is the American position, which is what has transpired and what is transpiring is absolutely unacceptable. We condemn the violence, we condemn the actions taken against peaceful protesters, we support the universal rights of all the people of Syria, and indeed the region, to realize their aspirations peacefully. The President's statement on this is clear as can be, and it is the policy of the United States. Q: The policy of the United States is sort of that the rgime somehow lacks legitimacy, but not completely, not yet. A: No, we've been very clear that the actions that have been taken by the Assad government are not consistent with the actions of a legitimate and a responsible government representing the will of the people. Q: Ambassador, do you worry about Iran-Syrian relationship impacting the situation both in Syria, and in Lebanon next door through Hizbullah, … that is to say some have the argument that Iran might not want to lose such a good ally in Damascus, so it might want to create a situation on the ground that would change the subject, if you will, whether through Hizbullah and Israel or otherwise? A: I think I need a little more explanation of what you're trying to ask me to answer. Q: Are you worried that Iran will take a position on Syria that through inciting Hizbullah to take action with Israel? You know over the weekend, that has been over the boarders skirmishes and live ammunition used by the Israelis on the Golan Heights, and some are worried that could happen through Hizbullah on the Lebanon front. Do you share that view? A: Let me just reiterate what is clear, and that is that Iran has played and continues to play a very destabilizing and destructive role in regional affairs, through it's support for terrorism, through it's state of policy to want to wipe Israel of the face of the map, through it's active support for Hizbullah, Hamas, and other extremist organizations. And we have long viewed Iran's role in the region, including in particular in Syria and Lebanon, as being counter-productive and detrimental to the broader interests of peace and stability. The thing that is so obvious about Iran's behavior now is that it is utterly and completely hypocritical. It claims to align itself with the aspirations of people in the region for democracy and human rights while it brutally represses it's own people, and in fact lead the wave of oppression that we're now seeing manifest in other countries around the region, so Iran has thoroughly discredited itself, and I think increasingly the people of the region will see the utter hypocrisy of their position. Q: You think that the Arab Spring will become an Iranian Spring as well, given the fact that there has been a movement in Iran that was totally uprooted- well, not uprooted, but it was repressed rather? A: The United States has enormous admiration for the Iranian people, and for the bravery of many thousands who, going back now almost 2 years ago, almost exactly 2 years ago, in the wake of fraudulent elections, stood up and demanded that their voices be heard and their rights be honored. They have not been, and we believe that the Iranian people will continue, and always at their disposal to struggle for and ultimately achieve their rights to freedom and respect for human rights, and we support that. Q: At the IAEA in Vienna, the US will do what? A: Well, at the IAEA we are very deeply concerned about the recent reports, both on Syria and Iran, which indicate that both countries have flouted their international obligations. In the case of Iran they continue to violate their IAEA obligations and Security Council resolutions, and on Syria the latest report is not surprising, but deeply troubling. And we find the actions of both Syria and especially Iran wholly inadequate to the gravity of the situation, so as we always do, this week in Vienna we're working with the partners on the IAEA board to respond in a way that reflects our shared international concern about developments in both Iran and Syria. Q: And bring both issues to the UN? A: We'll see what comes out of the board meetings this week. I'm not there as I am here, so I think I defer to colleagues in Geneva about what exactly will come out of those deliberations this week, but obviously Iran is already very squarely on the Security Council agenda and it's nuclear program, and indeed this week there will be attention to that in the council. Q: Now that the Yemeni President, Ali Abdullah Saleh, is in Saudi Arabia for treatment, should he just not return from the American's point of view, the Administration's point of view? A: The US point of view has been clear for quite some while, which is that there needs to be an orderly transition consistent with Yemen's constitution and it needs to begin now, and we think that transition has been too long delayed, and we hope that steps will immediately be taken to effect it in a lasting and meaningful way. Q: Right now, where is the GCC initiative? Do you know whether is is being embraced or put aside? Embraced by Ali Abdullah Saleh or put aside by the GCC? A: My understanding is that the GCC initiative is suspended, not discarded, and that suspension I think is designed to give President Saleh the opportunity which we encourage him to take to accept that proposal still, and we have supported the GCC efforts, we think that that approach is constructive, and we think it would implement immediately our interest in an orderly transition. Q: So would you like him to step down? Would you like him to stay in Saudi Arabia? A: I think we've been very clear, that it's time for him to hand over and transition responsibility, and he can do that from Saudi Arabia, or he could have done it before he left. We're not so much interested in from where it happens, but that it happens. Q: But now that he's there, I'm actually asking about the return, is that a worrisome development to you? Should he return? A: Look, again, we think it's important for that transition to occur and occur immediately, and it's less important from whence it occurs than that it occur immediately and promptly, and without any ambiguity. Q: On the Palestinian issue, are you willing to consider the approach of recognition of Palestinian state- given that Resolution 181 speaks of a Jewish state and a Palestinian state- versus admission to the UN, admission as a member versus recognition as a state? Would you encourage the process of recognition not admission since you do not agree to admission? A: First of all, the US view has long been that the only way to accomplish our core shared goal of two states, a Palestinian- viable contiguous democratic Palestinian state living side by side with the Jewish state of Israel, is for there to be a negotiated solution. The issues of borders, of security, of Jerusalem, of refugees, of water are by definition exceedingly difficult and contentious issues and can only be resolved through direct negotiations. Q: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu put his own conditions differently, even against the President of the United States perception of this That's why they're (Palestinians) are going to go another approach. A: That can't be accomplished through a piece of paper, whether in the Security Council or the General Assembly. The United States is not going to support unilateral efforts by either party to bypass the necessity of negotiations. So that answers both your questions, in terms of the Security Council and the General Assembly. Our aim has been and continues to be encouraging the parties' return with seriousness to the negotiating table. When President Obama in his May 19th speech laid out very importantly the US perspective on how the critical issues of borders and security ought to be addressed as a basis for negotiations, he did so to underscore to the parties and the world the necessity of both coming back to the table in seriousness. That is what President Abbas says is his objective, I hope he means it. I hope the Palestinians will come to the table on the basis of what the President of the United States laid out, and I hope the Israelis will too. Q: So the president would not back down. A: The president has not backed down, and will not back down. That is, President Obama. Q: On Lebanon and the Special Tribunal on Lebanon, some people say it is finished, over with, that there is no government in Lebanon, there is not going to be a tribunal, there is only worry and a continued state of lack of stability and instability, if you will. Do you worry about such a state of the country Lebanon, given it's geography as well? A: Obviously we have a very very strong interest in Lebanon's sovereignty and viability. We have opposed all variety of efforts to weaken or compromise Lebanon's sovereignty. We remain very much committed to the tribunal, the STL, as a vehicle for ensuring an end to the cycle of impunity. We think that is essential, and it's what Lebanon has asked for, and it's what the people of Lebanon deserve.
