WASHINGTON, 9 November 2003 — US Secretary of State Colin Powell has admitted he does not believe that either Saddam Hussein or Al-Qaeda is behind the resistance in Iraq. In a wide-ranging interview with Asharq Al-Awsat, a sister publication of Arab News, Powell said the United States was being attacked by “insurgents” in Iraq, who “in my judgment are principally the remnants of the old regime.”
But he added he did not know who they were and said he had no information pointing to Osama Bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda network. “I have no reason to believe that they are behind it, but I can’t say they are not behind it,” he said.
Powell vowed the US would stay in Iraq until the security situation was under control and a constitution is in place and suggested the US occupation could end “before the end of next year or even earlier.”
Powell also praised Saudi Arabia for its efforts to combat terrorism and said the Kingdom had been doing “a lot of work” since the May 12 suicide bombings in Riyadh.
Below is the text of the interview:
Asharq Al-Awsat: Mr. Secretary, I would like to start with the Syrian comment about Iraq. One official was quoted as saying: “It is the occupation that increased the scale of terrorism in the region.” You may have heard this too. Second she said the US has to leave Iraq. Is this just part of this war of words between Syria and the US? Or how do you characterize it?
Colin Powell: Well, let’s go to the substance of what the individual said. The cause of the problems is remnants of the old regime and a number of outsiders who have come in. The cause of the problems is people who want to go back to the days of Saddam Hussein — filling mass graves is the cause of the problem.
We want to end our presence in Iraq as quickly as possible. We don’t want to be occupiers. It’s not America’s style. So we are going to stay there long enough to bring the security situation under control, until the Iraqi people put in a form of government selected by the Iraqi people and not determined by ex-Baathists and other criminals. They are trying to kill not just Americans; they’re killing far more Iraqis than they are Americans. And these are people who are attacking the international community; they’re attacking the United Nations; they’re attacking the people who have come to support us. We’ll stay the course. We will go after these destroyers of freedom and democracy.
Q: What is your timetable for all that?
A: Well, as you know, we have succeeded in getting the UN to pass a resolution, 1511, allowing the Governing Council to provide its plan and a time schedule by the Dec. 8. So we look forward to that from the Governing Council and not just an American diktat or a French diktat or a German diktat. The Governing Council is working on its plan now, and Ambassador Paul Bremer and I have talked about this, that it should be possible with a lot of hard work to have a constitution done in six months. It’s not a deadline, but it seems to be a reasonable estimation for the Iraqis to determine how long it actually takes.
Once you have a constitution, you can get it ratified by referendum and then you can start planning your elections. I would like to see it come to an end by the end of next year, or even earlier.
Q: Before the end of next year?
A: We would all like to see it earlier. But I’m looking at a reasonable timeframe for the plan that Ambassador Bremer is following.
Now, between now and whenever they do finish the work and have the election, we will be passing more and more responsibility and authority to the Iraqi ministries.
All sorts of things are happening now. People are organizing ministries and their other governmental agencies are starting to function. Ambassador Bremer plans to pass the authority gradually and consistent with its ability to handle authority with the $20 billion that the US Congress just approved.
Q: But the reality on the ground is quite different. There is a lot more violence. Isn’t this going to be a nightmare in the coming six to 12 months?
A: I don’t know that I would characterize it as a nightmare. It’s quiet in the north and in the south. The trouble is in the Sunni Triangle. It’s a serious problem and it manifests itself by attacks on our troops and attacks on the Iraqi infrastructure. They’re going after the Iraqi police. We’re trying to keep peace and we’ll have to deal with it. And I’m confident in our commanders and our intelligence people. This is a problem now, and I am not denying that it is a serious problem.
Q: Do you think the Sunnis feel they are not represented?
A: I think that’s part of it. They were the privileged. They were the ones who had the power. They were the ones who were favored by Saddam Hussein.
Q: And you’re punishing them for that.
A: How are we punishing them?
Q: Not having them represented on the Council.
A: No, we’re not trying to punish anyone. One of the problems of the Sunni community is the absence of the old Baath Party. They don’t have any political organizations to represent them. They don’t have political leaders to represent them who are not contaminated by their relationships. Institutions will have to be developed. The Sunnis would be best served by participating in the process of writing the constitution they will be recommending, not by terrorism.
Q: Have you ever entertained the idea or discussed it in government that America might withdraw if things get worse?
A: No.
Q: Never? And do you see any scenario that will push you out?
A: We’re going to stay and we’re going to finish this. We’re not being attacked by an army. We’re being attacked by insurgents. They don’t represent all of the people of Iraq.
Most of the people of Iraq are glad Saddam is gone. There’s nobody chanting to bring him back except for these remnants. We’ve relaxed the curfew during Ramadan. People are out, they want to shop, they want their children to go to school. Why couldn’t their children go to school last week? Was it because of the occupation or was it because of these people who are threatening to conduct attacks?
So the problem is those who are resisting the change that is taking place. Our plan ending our presence there as quickly as we can, but we are not going to turn and run because it gets difficult for a period of time.
Q: You don’t still believe Saddam is behind the attacks, do you?
A: I don’t know if he is. People were saying yes last week, that we know Saddam is behind it. I don’t know any such thing. I don’t know who is behind it.
Q: Bin Laden?
A: In Iraq?
Q: Yes. Don’t you think the suicide bombers are Al-Qaeda?
A: No, I have no reason to believe that. I’m very careful about what I say. I have no reason to believe that they are behind it, but I can’t say they are not behind it. So I tend not to make claims just for the sake of making a headline. I don’t know whether Saddam is alive or if he’s dead. If he’s dead, I don’t know where his body is. If he is alive, I don’t know where his living body is, but we’ll keep looking for him.
Q: So who’s doing it? Are these individuals who are just going out and carrying out attacks?
A: No, I think there’s a level of coordination. You may have seen the news today. We have arrested two Iraqi generals of the former regime, and they had access to remnants of the old regime, and there are some outsiders that have come in. I don’t know how many. Outsiders can’t just come in and disappear into the population. The ones who are doing it, in my judgment, are principally the remnants of the old regime who have military training, have experience, and have a goal, an equity in not allowing democracy to take place.
Q: Do you appreciate the Syrians giving you access to information about the money Iraqis deposited in Syrian banks?
A: We are satisfied that they have allowed our people to go in and examine some of the documents to return the money to the Iraqi people as soon as possible.
Q: But what about Ambassador Black at the Foreign Relations Committee hearing when he said there are activities against the US-led coalition in Syria?
A: I’m not sure I saw exactly what the ambassador said, and without having seen his statement, I’d rather not make a fast comment on it.
Q: And what about the relations between the US and the Saudis? Have you had any kind of face-to-face conversation with them? Because they still have doubts about your intention toward Saudi Arabia?
A: I met with Prince Saud Al-Faisal Friday before last in Madrid. And I met with him also in Detroit. Ambassador Prince Bandar and I have been friends for some 25 years. So I can say I stay in very close touch with them. And they know the relationship that exists between Crown Prince Abdullah and President Bush. They communicate by telephone and letters.
We have encouraged our Saudi friends to do more with respect to terrorist activity, at least within the Kingdom, and they are. The bombings that took place earlier in the year just before I arrived in Saudi Arabia (on May 12), I think that was a little bit of a shock to the Saudis, and they have been doing a lot of work since.
And so the Saudis understand that this is a threat to the people of Saudi Arabia, and not just the source of the threat to the US and other nations. I think the Saudis have also recognized that they can and should do more with respect to organizations and money, both government and private.
Q: Today you are hosting an iftar for American Muslims. At the same time, we heard a lieutenant general at the Pentagon (Gen. Boykin) is talking about Islam as the Satan. Are we seeing a war of ideas inside the Cabinet? Someone is saying something bad and someone else is hosting iftar?
A: We don’t agree with what the general said. It’s being looked into by the Inspector General. You heard the president speak on it. I’ve spoken on it. Within a few days after the Sept. 11 attacks, the president went to the mosque here. He made it clear that this is not a war against Islam, not a war against Muslims; this is a war against criminals and terrorists who sometimes hide behind their religion.
Q: US ambassadors nowadays make news. Since you are their boss, your ambassador in Egypt, your Ambassador in Saudi Arabia, and I think the new ambassador going to Syria, made noise and news. Do they have the right to speak their minds or is it a policy they follow?
A: They are representing policy and they are free to speak. I want them to speak. I was just with one of my ambassadors in Central America who made a lot of news. I won’t mention the country, although it’s no big secret. But people were talking about corruption in the government. She was speaking very consistently with what I have said on the matter. And when our ambassadors are speaking consistent with our policy, I want them to speak out. They are not clerks. They are chiefs of mission. They are very senior people who have come into the service of the nation and are supposed to speak out.
I don’t know if you have reference to a particular statement, but Ambassador Welch in Egypt is a great friend of the Egyptian people, and being a great friend sometimes means speaking out and saying things that maybe your friends didn’t want to hear. I did it with Chinese delegates at a conference at the Bush Library. And I said to them, “It is a sign of our friendship that I’m willing to tell you about the things you might rather not hear about, but as a friend I would rather speak candidly to you.”
Q: You have Mujahedeen-e-Khalq in Iraq and the Iranians still hold some key Al-Qaeda members. Are you willing to trade with the Iranians or negotiate a barter deal?
A: Well, we have the mujahedeen contained, and we have been watching the ones who are not negotiating in trade.
Q: At the moment.
A: Everything is at the moment.
Q: There is a possibility?
A: I didn’t say that.
