Ambassador Richard Haass, Director of the Office of Policy Planning Staff at the State Department, said on January 10 that Saddam Hussein must come into compliance with Iraq's international obligations and give up any weapons of mass destruction. Haass was speaking to the media in Rabat, Morocco, at the end of a trip to India and the United Arab Emirates.

"It is Saddam Hussein who must prove to the international community that he is in compliance with his obligations. It is not up to the inspectors to prove that he is not in compliance," Haass said.

"To sum it up, the burden is on Saddam to demonstrate that he is in compliance, and he has yet to meet this burden," Haass said.

Responding to questions from the press, Haass said war with Iraq is not inevitable, and that the U.S. would prefer to bring Iraq into compliance diplomatically and peacefully. But he added that if force were eventually used, the U.S. goal afterwards "would be to help the Iraqis rebuild their country."

In response to a question about new U.S. regulations on visitors from the Arab world, Haass said the U.S. is trying to find a balance between openness and security.

"The last thing in the world we want to do is discourage people from Morocco, from the Arab world, from continuing to visit the United States. At the same time, what we are trying to do is strike a balance, between retaining our openness and our welcome, while at the same time providing the necessary security," Haass said.

"We will find a way to balance security considerations with the need to remain what I think is arguably the most open country in the world," he added.

Turning to democratization, Haass pointed to Morocco as "a positive example for the Arab world, indeed for the entire Islamic world."

The United States could not and should not impose democracy from outside, Haass said.

"But we are prepared to encourage this process of reform and we are prepared to assist it using such tools or instruments as economic assistance, free trade agreements, support for elections, and the development of civil society," he said.

Ambassador Richard Haass
Director, Office of Policy Planning Staff
Rabat, Morocco,
January 10, 2003

Ambassador Haass: It is good to be back in Morocco. Normally when you come to some place and you say you have brought the rain, it is a criticism but here, I understand, it is a compliment. I have come here after a trip to India as well as to the United Arab Emirates, and I think the best way to characterize my visit here is as one of regular consultation with an important country and a close friend.

While here I had a chance to meet with several people in your government, with the Minister of Communications, the Minister of Human Rights, Minister Delegate for Economic Affairs, leading officials at your Foreign Ministry, as well as with academics and members of the new parliament. We had the opportunity to discuss in considerable depth the changes and reforms that have been initiated under the leadership of His Majesty, as well as the Prime Minister. We also, naturally, had a chance to discuss the Free Trade Agreement, and as you know, the negotiations begin shortly in Washington. As you might expect, we spent quite a bit of time as well discussing regional developments and, in particular, the challenge posed by the situation in Iraq as well as the Palestinian situation.

Let me just end by saying again how good it is to be back here. The United States sees Morocco as a positive example for the Arab world, indeed for the entire Islamic world, a positive example of a country undergoing a process of gradual democratization and economic reform. I return to Washington optimistic about the prospects for the Free Trade negotiations. I return to Washington with a better appreciation of the thinking here about the challenge of reform, and also about the questions of both Iraq and the Palestinians.

And lastly, I come away with a renewed sense of just what a good friend Morocco has been, something that we have seen underscored yet again in the reaction of the people of this country and its government to the challenges since 9/11. With that, let me end these opening comments. I want to thank the Ambassador for making this conference possible this morning, and for all she does to advance our bilateral relationship. Thank you all for having the interest and taking the time to come here.

Question: Aren't you concerned that the war in Iraq will destabilize the Arab world?

Ambassador Haass: The short answer to that question is no. But let me give a somewhat longer answer to do the question justice. The first thing to say is that war in Iraq is not inevitable. The only thing that is inevitable is that the government of Saddam Hussein must come into compliance with its international obligations and give up any weapons of mass destruction. It is our preference that this be done diplomatically and peacefully but it is essential that it be done. If it does turn out that this must be done with the use of force I believe that the case will be strong enough and persuasive enough that we will not have the sort of widespread instability in the Arab world that you suggest. I would just add one last point that it is important to remember that the principal victims of Saddam Hussein have been Arabs. No people have suffered more than the people of Iraq and of Kuwait.

Question: After weeks of inspections, you have not been able to find any weapons of mass destruction. How can you explain that?

Ambassador Haass: It is true that the inspections, after several weeks, if I may paraphrase either Mr. Blix or Mr. ElBaradei, have not uncovered what in their words was a smoking gun. Let's put that in perspective. The inspectors have had only several weeks whereas Saddam Hussein had more than four years to hide weapons of mass destruction. Second, the inspections process will continue. It is important to see it as a process; it is anything but complete. Also, at the end of the day, it is Saddam Hussein who must prove to the international community that he is in compliance with his obligations. It is not up to the inspectors to prove that he is not in compliance. One of the things that Saddam Hussein has failed to do is to clear up the discrepancy or the difference between what we know he has imported, what we know in the past he possessed, and what he has now declared to the international community that he now possesses. To sum it up, the burden is on Saddam to demonstrate that he is in compliance, and he has yet to meet this burden.

Question: It is clear that America wants to remove Saddam because despite ongoing UN inspections, the U.S. is mounting a massive military deployment. Is the U.S. planning a military attack followed by an occupation as all indications seem to point?

Ambassador Haass: Let me answer your question as best I can. It is our belief that the people of Iraq and indeed the people of the region and the world would be better off if Iraq had a very different kind of leadership. That said, our focus at this point is on bringing Iraq into compliance with its international obligations. Again, we would prefer to do this diplomatically and peacefully, but essentially the choice will be that of the government of Saddam Hussein. Obviously, we must take prudent military preparations, but again I want to emphasize that no decision has been made to use force. And, lastly, if force were to be used, our goal afterwards would be to help the Iraqis rebuild their country and make it a normal country as quickly as possible. Let me just say one more thing about that. Iraq is a truly blessed country. Let me explain that. It has the world's second largest oil reserves. It has significant supplies of water. It has very fertile soil. And it has an extremely talented and educated people. Iraq should be, in many ways, one of the most successful countries in this part of the world, or in any part of the world. The tragedy for Iraq is that amongst all these blessings it has had one major curse, and again it is the leadership of this country that has prevented Iraq and the Iraqi people from enjoying the normal, prosperous, peaceful life that they deserve. So, if things evolve so that force is used the purpose is not to occupy Iraq or to do anything than to help the Iraqi people reclaim their country and turn Iraq into the sort of country that it has the potential to be.

Question: I have to follow up if you don't mind because the answer is not very convincing. Since when has the USG ever truly cared about the welfare of the Iraqi people?

Ambassador Haass: The United States and the American people have never had a problem with the Iraqi people. Our differences have been simply with the Iraqi government. Also, even when we have had economic sanctions we have done our best to make sure that the Iraqi people could receive enough food and medicine. If there has been any suffering, if there have been shortages of supplies, the responsibility falls on the cynical manipulations carried out by this regime. I have an awful lot of personal experience. Ambassador Tutwiler and I were intimately involved with U.S. policy in the aftermath of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait. I will resist the temptation to go into a great deal of history. I would simply say that the sanctions that were put in place after the Gulf War of 1990-91, that those sanctions always allowed Iraq to import any food or medicine it wanted and the sanctions permitted Iraq to export as much oil as it needed in order to raise funds for such purposes. I am not sitting here denying that the Iraqi people have suffered, I am simply saying that the responsibility for the suffering does not belong to the sanctions or to the international community.

Question: Why is the USG position so ambiguous when most international observers believe the U.S. is planning a military attack on Iraq?

Ambassador Haass: You may know things that I don't. I grant that. I only advise the Secretary of State and the President. And it is my honest conclusion and message this morning that, to the best of my knowledge, no decision has been taken to go to war. And this should be understandable to anyone because war is always an expensive and dangerous business. No one who is a responsible leader would ever go to war carelessly or lightly. But, as I said at the beginning, we have determined, and the President has determined, that Iraq must come into compliance with its obligations, not to the United States, but its obligations to the entire international community and the United States has gone to great lengths to give Iraq a chance to do this peacefully. After all we spent two months this autumn working with the United Nations Security Council to bring about what ultimately became Resolution 1441. Now, I can't tell you what is going to happen. I am in charge of policy planning not policy predicting. But again, if I have a simple message to communicate, it is that we have committed ourselves to bringing about certain results, but we have not made any decisions about how we bring about those results.

Question: What does the U.S. expect from Arab regimes as far as the Iraqi issue is concerned? My second question is does the U.S. administration have a plan to democratize Arab regimes?

Ambassador Haass: Let me try to answer both questions. It is premature for us to speak about specific expectations, to use your word, from Arab regimes. But, I would simply say that, as the situation evolves, we would obviously want to discuss how we might respond. And, I can imagine that we would ask different Arab governments to participate or assist the international efforts in different ways. And this would depend on such factors as geography, capabilities and political matters. And I can also imagine that some governments might participate simply diplomatically, others economically, others militarily. And, if we do end up with a situation where force is used, I can imagine some governments might participate during the use of force, others might help in the rebuilding of Iraq. To use a restaurant analogy, this is very much an a la carte approach, not a set menu approach.

Let me turn to the second question. That is the question of democratization which is something that I care a lot about. As some of you may know, this is a subject I gave a speech about several weeks ago and subsequently my boss, the Secretary of State, Mr. Powell, also spoke out publicly. The United States does not have a plan for democratization, but we do have our views.

It is our view that the countries in this part of the world need to undertake political and economic reform. There is also an argument for such things as educational reform. Now, we understand that in every country, it will be different. And what works in Morocco does not necessarily, and would not be the exact formula, that would be appropriate for Egypt or Saudi Arabia. We also understand that this is something that the United States could not and should not try to impose from the outside. But we are prepared to encourage this process of reform and we are prepared to assist it using such tools or instruments as economic assistance, free trade agreements, support for elections, and the development of civil society. And we know this is something that will not and cannot be accomplished overnight.

We are encouraged by what is being accomplished and undertaken in Morocco, and we look forward to assisting not simply the government here but civil society.

Question: I would like to ask regarding your military intervention in Iraq. You mentioned that the results of the first Gulf War were not fully successful since Saddam was not removed, and he was allowed to stay. You talked of two possibilities following the first Gulf War. One was a civil war, and the other was what you called "Saddamism" or having Saddam replaced by a similar regime. How do these two scenarios after the first Gulf War compare with what we have now. In other words, what are you expecting to happen after a second Gulf war?

Ambassador Haass: The goal of the Gulf War of 1991 was the liberation of Kuwait, and that goal was achieved. After that objective was achieved, the international community put into place, through UNSC Resolution 687, a series of sanctions designed to make sure that Iraq does not again threaten either its own people, or the region. One can argue now whether these sanctions succeeded in part or failed in part, but the bottom line is that more than a decade later we still face a significant threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Our goal now is to bring about 100% Iraqi compliance with its international obligations. In principle, it is possible for the current regime to fulfill this requirement. But if the current regime is unwilling to do this, then the international community will bring about a different Iraqi government that is prepared to fulfill its international obligations.

Question: How can you explain how, a year ago the priority of the United States was to find Usama Ben Laden and the campaign against terrorism, now it is Iraq?

Ambassador Haass: The fact is that the global war on terrorism is proceeding. There has actually been extraordinary progress in implementing the specific terms of the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1373. One can measure the progress by the number of individuals arrested, or the amount of financial assets seized, or the steps taken by individual governments, to make it more difficult for terrorists to be successful. The bottom line is 16 months after September 11 the world has become a more difficult place for terrorists to carry out successful terrorist attacks. The degree of international cooperation, as well as national efforts, that simply didn't exist before. I want to be clear here. I am not suggesting that we have defeated the challenge, and I am not suggesting that the terrorists won't succeed again in the future. Unfortunately, groups such as Al Qaeda are committed and resourceful, and open societies, such as the United States, will always be vulnerable. The bottom line is that the global war against terrorism remains our highest priority. One should not assume that simply because one hears somewhat less about it that in any way it is diminished.

Question: Is UBL still alive?

Ambassador Haass: Again, I don't myself have any specific information that he is either dead or alive, but I am working under the assumption that he may well be alive, and certainly that the threat posed by Al Queda continues to exist.

Question: Two short questions. The first one, don't you think that North Korea is a bigger threat to the United States than Iraq especially since you haven't been able to document that it has WMD? Second, don't you think that America is making a lot of enemies in the Arab world by imposing new regulations on incoming visitors from the Arab world such as fingerprinting, and also through it harassment of the Arab and Muslim communities in the United States of America?

Ambassador Haass: You raise two important subjects. I will try to be both brief yet do justice to what you ask. North Korea is a significant threat, not simply to the United States but to the entire world. What I think you are seeing is the emergence of a broad and deep international consensus that North Korea must reverse the steps it has taken in the area of developing nuclear weapons. This problem with North Korea, this most recent chapter of this problem with North Korea has emerged over the past few months, unlike the challenge posed by Iraq and Saddam Hussein which is now going on for more than a decade. Again, I am guardedly hopeful that the international community will be able to come to a satisfactory resolution of the North Korean problem, working this out diplomatically. No one for a second is underestimating the significance of the challenge posed by North Korea.
But I think it is important to remember that no two situations are exactly alike, so we should not expect either the American or the international response to be identical.

On the second question you raised, let me just say I have been over the last few months to many countries in the Arab and Islamic world, and I have heard many questions and complaints about visa issues. The last thing in the world we want to do is discourage people from Morocco, from the Arab world, from continuing to visit the United States. At the same time, what we are trying to do is find a balance, to strike a balance, between retaining our openness and our welcome, while at the same time providing the necessary security. I think you have to be a little bit understanding and give us some time to get this balance right. I think a lot of progress has already been made, even if the procedures are more demanding. Hopefully the number of visas that will ultimately be extended will be at least as many as was the case in the past. But again, we will find a way to balance security considerations with the need to remain what I think is arguably the most open country in the world. Thank you.