VIP CRISIS MANAGEMENT INTERVIEW - Wednesday 28th March, 2007
The crisis group's CEO and President would be immediately
recognisable to most Australians - former foreign minister Gareth
Evans.
GARETH EVANS, CRISIS GROUP PRESIDENT: The jury is still out on
Ban
Ki-moon's likely effectiveness in this respect, and that of the team
underneath him. But it sure as hell isn't for want of trying on our
part to try and set the agenda.
The former Labour foreign minister Gareth Evans - these days
Brussels-based - it has headed up the International Crisis Group for
the past six years.
GARETH EVANS: Nonetheless, we are all acutely aware that a
precipitant
withdrawal could make the present bloodbath look very much worse.
His board boasts genuine international heavyweights, movers
and shakers
like billionaire philanthropist George Soros. 4-star general Wesley
Clark.
CHRIS PATTEN, LAST BRITISH GOVERNOR OF HONG KONG, (1992-1997):
Give us
a presentation on trends in armed conflict.
The former governor of Hong Kong Chris Patten. The former
president of
Chile Ricardo Largos. The former Canadian PM Kim Campbell. The former
Dutch prime minister Win Kok. And the former golden boy of Malaysia and
politics, the now out-of-jail Anwar Ibrahim. In fact the Crisis Group's
list of board members with clout in world politics and business goes on
and on. So being here on the spot, we managed to buttonhole a few of
these would-be world savers to find out why they think the world needs
the International Crisis Group.
GEORGE NEGUS: How should I address somebody like yourself at this point
in your life?
WESLEY CLARK, NATO SUPREME MILITARY COMMANDER (1997-2000): Oh, you can
call me 'General' or 'Sir'.
General or sir?
WESLEY CLARK; You can call me Wes.
GEORGE NEGUS: As a person with your background, a military
background,
a highly decorated military background now working with an organisation
trying to stop conflict, how do you reconcile those two things? To an
outsider, this seems like a strange organisation for someone like
yourself to be associated with.
WESLEY CLARK: Really, you think people the military are people
who
wanted to start conflicts?
GEORGE NEGUS: No, I was just wondering how you ..
WESLEY CLARK: Do you think that?
GEORGE NEGUS: No, probably not.
WESLEY CLARK: OK, I use the International Crisis Group to try
and
prevent conflict. When I was working in the Balkans in the '90s, the
International Crisis Group had the best people on the ground and gave
me the best picture of what was happening on the ground. That is why I
joined the board because I think they're an effective preventive
diplomacy organisation that can help stop war.
GEORGE NEGUS: Well, that proves the point.
WESLEY CLARK: And nobody wants to stop war more than people in
uniform.
GEORGE NEGUS: Would you describe - as a former American
presidential
candidate - would you describe the US at the moment in the world, so
far as conflict is concerned and the crises that we face, as part of
the problem or part of the solution?
WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think there's no question that America's
legitimacy has been compromised by an unnecessary action in Iraq, that
has been not only unnecessary but been poorly handled in the aftermath.
We really need to rebuild American legitimacy. I just came back from
the region, talked to the leaders of several countries over there and
at a lot of places, so forth - they want American help. They don't want
to see us turn tail and leave. And the American people don't want to
leave.
GEORGE NEGUS: How did you get involved with the ICG? It is not
a
well-known organisation in Australia, unfortunately.
CHRIS PATTEN: Really easily. When I was Europe's commissioner
for
external relations, I found that when I was going on visits to
difficult places, I was relying far more on the ICG reports than on
anything else.
GEORGE NEGUS: Amazing collection of people, amazing array of
people
with clout.
CHRIS PATTEN: And when they first went to the British
Government to ask
for money, the official they talked to in the Foreign Office said,
"Just let me get this straight - you want us to give you a golden stick
so you can beat us over the head?" And the interesting thing is that
the British Government, for example - which we are not always very
complimentary about, and which we sometimes give what some would regard
as unwelcome advice to - is now out biggest supporter.
GEORGE NEGUS: What would you think it is the most dire crisis
in the
world today? What is the worst conflict or other kind of area that we
have to be looking at?
CHRIS PATTEN: I am myself am very nervous about Pakistan and
Afghanistan. I am not convinced that having generals in charge of
Pakistan is all that stands between us and the collapse of civilisation
as we know it.
GEORGE NEGUS: A regime change there wouldn't go astray?
CHRIS PATTEN: I think an election there would be an awful lot
of help.
GEORGE NEGUS: A full and free one.
CHRIS PATTEN: And if you look at Afghanistan at the moment,
there is no
question that a lot of the insurgency in Afghanistan is being organised
from outside. There is no question that al-Qa'ida are based in the
frontier provinces in Pakistan. So I am worried about Pakistan and that
whole play of issues from Central Asia through to the Middle East. But
we if we sorted out Israel and Palestine - and everybody knows, what
the settlement will be at the end of the day, that is what is so
frustrating.
SHLOMO BEN AMI, ISRAELI FOREIGN MINISTER (1000-2001): There is
not
going to be in the foreseeable future a heavenly peace in the Middle
East. One needs to be realistic. What we need to achieve is a political
solution to have internationally legitimised borders between Israel and
the Arab world. Will this usher in a heavenly peace for the entire
Middle East? I don't believe so because there are so many other
problems. You need to think in terms of the stability of the regimes,
the integration of the masses, the question of democracy. And there are
other issues in the Middle East - the Kurds, look at what is going on
in Sudan with Darfur. So there are many problems that are not related
with the Arab-Israeli problem, yet, nonetheless, dissolution of the
Arab-Israeli problem would be a major, major contribution to regional
stability.
GEORGE NEGUS: People like Ehud Olmert, for instance, does he
listen?
Could he care less what the International Crisis Group thinks? Or the
Hamas leaders?
SHLOMO BEN AMI: Well, I think that there is here a unique
combination
of respectability and credibility of people and the message. After all,
having been in government, I can tell you that governments don't think,
they don't have time to think.
GEORGE NEGUS: That is a very damning comment.
SHLOMO BEN AMI: Yes, this is the simple reality. I mean, you
are
chasing the urgent matters rather than the important matters.
GEORGE NEGUS: The immediate becomes the urgent.
SHLOMO BEN AMI: Yeah, exactly.
GEORGE NEGUS: You talked about working on, moving on a crisis
before it
becomes a conflict. What do you think, from this group's point of view,
or your own, should be done about Iran?
WESLEY CLARK: Iran? I think we have to talk to the Iranians.
GEORGE NEGUS: That's a situation that could go from crisis to
conflict?
WESLEY CLARK: The thing about it is the Iranians, first of
all, they
don't really believe there is an American threat. I do. The United
States armed forces are very, very powerful. And while I'm not
advocating the use of a threat, I think the Iranians should be very
concerned because throughout the spectrum of political opinion in the
US, politicians of every stripe have said, "No nuclear weapons for
Iran. Unacceptable."
GEORGE NEGUS: But a person with your point of view would have
to be
worried if there was an escalation, if there was an attack against
Tehran.
WESLEY CLARK: I don't think there needs to be an escalation
right now.
I think what happens, what should happen is the administration should
be talking to the Iranians. And that they should be talking to the
Iranians no holds barred.
GEORGE NEGUS: At the highest level?
WESLEY CLARK: Well, I don't think President Bush needs to go
to Tehran.
But I do think senior US leadership should be talking to the Iranians
without requiring them to halt their enrichment activities. That's like
asking for pre-emptive surrender. The question is who has the leverage
to move the United States and the Iranians into open dialogue, that is
the question.
GEORGE NEGUS: Who does?
WESLEY CLARK: Right now no-one, and that is the danger for the
whole
world.
GEORGE NEGUS Wonderful talking to you. Thanks for your time.
GEORGE NEGUS: We were talking earlier about how preoccupied we
all are
with the Middle East and the Gulf, but Zimbabwe you would think
internationally is almost a case where you could validate regime
change? I mean, what is the world doing about Zimbabwe other than
standing by and gnashing its teeth and beating its breast?
GARETH EVANS: Well, what are the options? I mean, do you send
a
military force in there? That's rather tricky to justify. Try to
encourage the South Africans to exercise their undoubted muscle and
clout? Unquestionably, yes. And the South African performance has been
lamentable. And a lot of us have not been slow, in fact, in saying
that. In terms of giving humanitarian support, putting travel bans and
all sorts of other sorts of sanctions on Mugabe and all the characters
around him, Europeans have already done that to some effect. But this
is a tough one.
GEORGE NEGUS: Are you hopeful about the state of the globe?
SWANEE HUNT: I am generally pessimistic about this because our
country,
the United States, has gone so far in the direction of creating fear
among the people, and when you get that much fear, people are much
likely to want to turn to arms. We have a lot of turning around to do,
which is one of the reasons I'm as politically involved as I am. The US
is a big part of the problem for two reasons - one is we are so
bellicose, and the second is because we have spent our treasury for the
next 40 years on Iraq, we have almost nothing to spend on development
aid which could really do something for the world.
GEORGE NEGUS: Would George Bush be among the people that you
think
takes notice of what the International Crisis Group is saying? Would he
pick up an International Crisis Group report if it landed on his desk
in the White House?
STEPHEN SOLARZ, US CONGRESSMAN (1974-1993): If George Bush
read all of
our reports, we probably wouldn't be getting the $500,000 a year that
we currently get from the Department of State. So I have mixed feelings
about whether it would be good or bad for him to actually read our
reports. I would like him to read them because hopefully he might be
persuaded by our analysis and recommendations.
GEORGE NEGUS: What would you be trying to persuade him from
and towards
at the moment? Because it is hard to believe that these people see the
Americans, or the US Government at least, as being other than part of
the problem, not part of the solution where world conflict is
concerned.
STEPHEN SOLARZ: It all depends on which country and which
region we're
talking about. But in the case, for example, of Iraq, we have strongly
urged the US to enter into a dialogue with Iran and Syria, which so
far, the administration resists. We have also called for the Iraqi
equivalent of a loya jirga, like the one they had in Afghanistan, which
would bring together the government, the major political parties and
the resistance in an effort to create a dialogue which could hopefully
result in some form of reconciliation within the country.
WIM KOK, PRIME MINISTER OF THE NETHERLANDS (1994-2002): I'm at
your
service but please be a bit kind to me.
GEORGE NEGUS: Somebody - I don't know whether it was you or
somebody in
the organisation - but someone said that where international conflict
and crisis is concerned, that Europe was punching under its weight.
GARETH EVANS: Yeah, I have said that very often. Win, you
would agree
with that?
WIM KOK: The main point I have problems within is that we in
Europe are
insufficiently able and prepared really to unite and to speak with one
voice and act with one will. Well, OK, it is always dependent on what
national politicians want to realise, their own agenda. They sometimes
have a national agenda - the French or the English or the Germans and
the Italians, and whoever. I mean, these are the biggest ones.
GEORGE NEGUS; So they are nationalists first and Europeans
second?
WIM KOK: Well, now, be careful, be not too black and white.
But there
is still room for a lot of improvement.
GARETH EVANS: You know Ken?
GEORGE NEGUS: Hi, how are you, Ken? Nice to see you. Nice to
meet you.
Good to see you.
GARETH EVANS: This is 'Cakewalk' Ken, remember?
GEORGE NEGUS: Yes I do.
KENNETH ADELMAN, DIRECTOR US ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT
AGENCY
(1983-1987): That is unfair.
GEORGE NEGUS: For the sake of those people in our country who
don't
know what you actually said, what did you say?
KENNETH ADELMAN: Well, I would rather not go into it.
GEORGE NEGUS: That it would be a cakewalk to get rid of Saddam
Hussein?
KENNETH ADELMAN: That is what I said. It has been interpreted
since
then to say our involvement in Iraq would be a cakewalk.
GEORGE NEGUS: Big difference.
KENNETH ADELMAN: Big difference, gigantic, which is certainly
not true.
GEORGE NEGUS: Why has it not been a cakewalk since getting rid
of
Saddam Hussein? I guess that's what the rest of the world is asking.
KENNETH ADELMAN: That is a very good question. And there are
two
different camps - whether it was a bad idea done badly, which would be
Gareth's view, OK, and I would say a prevailing view today, or whether
it was a good idea done badly, which would be my own view.
GEORGE NEGUS: You thought it was OK to go there?
KENNETH ADELMAN: I thought it was wonderful.
GEORGE NEGUS: The job wasn't done properly.
KENNETH ADELMAN: No, it was just done terribly.
GEORGE NEGUS: So what do we do now?
KENNETH ADELMAN: Number one - it was done terribly to allow
the
looting, or to sanction the looting. It was done terribly to get rid of
the army, it was done terribly to get rid of the civil service, it was
done terribly the way they handled Abu Ghraib. Just about everything
was done terribly. The lack of training for the first 18 months was
done terribly. Everything was done terribly.
GEORGE NEGUS: So a good idea from the point of view of the
ICG, a good
idea has become an even worse crisis than anybody would have imagined.
GARETH EVANS: I wouldn't say a good idea from our point of
view. We
didn't ever think it was a good idea.
b>GEORGE NEGUS: No, no, from Ken's point of view.v
KENNETH ADELMAN: From my point of view, yes, it was I thought
there was
a dream team in the national security apparatus in the United States
Government, it turned out to be a nightmare. I thought that removing
Saddam Hussein could be done rather effortlessly - which it was - and
we could replace him with something that was basically a decent
co-operative government in the Arab world that would not have weapons
of mass destruction, not attack its neighbours and not totally oppress
its people.
GEORGE NEGUS: All we can say is "If only".
KENNETH ADELMAN: Yeah. And I thought it was worth a chance to
do it.
GARETH EVANS: This cost Ken a lifetime's friendship with
Donald
Rumsfeld.
GEORGE NEGUS: Is that right?
KENNETH ADELMAN: And Cheney.
GARETH EVANS: These guys were very close.
GEORGE NEGUS: It's probably a safer thing not to be a friend
of Donald
Rumsfeld.
KENNETH ADELMAN: I loved him. I worked for him three times in
my life
and I certainly wouldn't have worked for him the other two time.
GEORGE NEGUS:So how has he and the administration got it so
wrong?
KENNETH ADELMAN: I think they made a lot of mistakes, I think
they were
arrogant, I think they just had the wrong premise. I don't know. It is
just a mystery. I know what went wrong, I don't know why it went wrong.
GEORGE NEGUS: When would you start moving people out? Our
Prime
Minister keeps saying "When the job is done," we can't quite work out
what he means by that.
KENNETH ADELMAN: I think turning around the situation so that
the
Iraqis can take care of it themselves. You're Australian? John Howard?
GEORGE NEGUS: Yeah, yeah.
KENNETH ADELMAN: OK. Despite all of our problems - and God
knows we
have enormous problems - despite all the screw-ups - and God knows
we've had more screw-ups over the last six years than I ever could
imagine - the United States remains a force for good in the world.
GEORGE NEGUS: Good to talk to you. Thank you for your time.
Well, Australian Gareth Evans and the high flyers from the
International Crisis Group. As their anti-war cry says, "Working to
prevent conflict worldwide". What do you think - an admirably
idealistic goal or wishful thinking?