Text of interview with US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad with Al Hayat's Raghida Dergham:


Raghida Dergham: You met with Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon who told me in an interview earlier this week that he is not giving up on a reconciliation in Lebanon over the tribunal. Things have happened since and lots of activities have taken place. What impression did you come up with after meeting with him. Is he going to Lebanon?

Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad: Well I don't want to speak for him but it is clear and that is based on the report that Nicola Michell provided as well as his discussions with relevant Lebanese the prospect for giving an internal solution to the problem does not look good. I cannot anticipate that he plans to go anytime soon to the region so now it is up to the security council talking to the secretary general listening to him and talking to the Lebanese and hearing from them as to the next step.

Q: What do you want to hear from the Lebanese as to the next step?

A: We want to hear on an appropriate time from them the Prime Minister and the leaders of the majority block in clear terms that this internal blockage that is taking place in regard to moving forward on the tribunal the agreement that Lebanon has made with the United Nations to implement and that they need the help of the Security Council

Q: You mean you need something official from the Lebanese government?

A: I think that was implied clearly in Michell's report I think the Lebanese leaders might consider that it could be useful in terms of generating the kind of momentum that is needed in the security council for them to express themselves and I think that could be useful.

Q: I thought that Secretary General Ban Ki Moon is the one who needed to give his report; he said to me that he needs to give his report versus Michell's report. Are you waiting for a report from Ban Ki Moon?

A: I don't know about the report but we are waiting to hear his opinion his views his assessment and his advice and his guidance I think we will have that in the coming days

Q: When? What do you mean by coming days? End of this week?

A: Probably by next week than by the end of this week.

Q: Would that be the trigger to move towards the chapter seven resolution?

A: As I said that is an important report or advice or comment or analysis to hear then we will consult each other and we have started already started talking with each other about it and there is also the issue of what role Lebanon the Prime Minister and the majority might play in the right circumstances ... so there is a number of things that have to take place so we will be working on it and will focus on it; this is an important issue and if the Lebanese people look like they need our help we will respond favorably to them and not let them down.

Q: So you already started to walk through the next steps that will be taken here in the security council towards the chapter seven resolution or is it a chapter seven resolution?

A: These are issues that we will discuss with other members and my responsibility is not just the US permanent representative, but also the president of security council this month, and it is out of view and I am speaking now as the US representing it has to be on the chapter seven to make it mandatory to set up this tribunal, based on the agreement that UN made with Lebanon since the Lebanese cannot do it themselves for reasons that we all know and they look to us to help. It is my view and my recommendation to my colleagues that we need to respond favorably to the need of the Lebanese for our help; we shouldn't let them down.

Q: As president of the security council are you working towards having the tribunal through chapter seven be adopted during your presidency before the end of the month?

A: Well that depends on what we hear from the secretary general and the Lebanese and if the recommendations and the request is to do it this month then I think that is reasonable and we have to do it as expeditiously as possible.

Q: Back to you as the representative of the United States to the United Nations is it your assessment that the Russians will come along in the final analysis if and when it is proven that parliamentary constitutional way had met the deadlock?

A: Well I don't want to speak for the Ambassador Vitali Churkin from the Russian government. We have not engaged him seriously at this point; you have heard that Ambassador Churkin public statement few days ago for where they stand so we will see. We have to do the hard work off and hearing from the Secretary General and the Lebanese and perhaps then getting everybody or the sufficient numbers to pass the resolution and to support the idea.

Q: I guess it will be kind of difficult for any permanent member of the security council to veto such a resolution given the fact that the security council had been towards the agreement to establish the tribunal and that it went thru the constitution process and met a deadlock and back here?

A: Your assumption is a reasonable one; but we will have to wait and see.

Q: Do you have a plan B in case the Russians do use the Veto?

A: Not right now because we are even prior to the implementation of plan A in the sense that we are waiting to hear from the Secretary General there is a scenario of a Lebanese role again and we are consulting with others so it will be kind of premature to speculate before we have started moving on this one.

Q: I understand you have eleven votes yes and no veto's. Is it an assumption because apparently that Capitals have been working on this?

A: The Capitals do talk and we are in the picture but I think it will be premature for me to give you any numbers.

Q: In the last couple of days Hezbollah has taken a position that has been interpreted by some to be packing away from the points understanding made when adopting resolution 1701. Is this from your point of view a violation of 1701?

A: I am not focused on it in terms of 1701 but in terms of the internal developments of Lebanon. What Hezbollah is doing is not very encouraging and we believe that the Prime Minister and the majority have a reasonable knowledge to dealing on variety of issues including on the establishment of the tribunal and there was an election that was fair and there is a parliament with a majority but that is not being allowed to make decisions and that is unfortunate.

Q: What about the shipments that were in the last report of 1559...by the way what did you think of it?

A: Well I did not read it in details but from what my staff has told me about it is that it does point out true problems in regard to shipment of arms and that is disturbing.

Q: To everybody or to Hezbollah?

A: To Hezbollah in particular yes.

Q: There are resolutions that say that it is forbidden to source so what do you hear about the promises made to the Secretary General by the Syrian leadership to make sure there is reactivation of a certain border agreement?

A: We were talking to Secretary General of course and we were also talking with Security Council members about some appropriate actions we might consider and in fact take.

Q: So do you think there is prohibition at all at this point or you are still investigating?

A: The report indicates based on my understanding that there is a problem so we need to consult the secretary general ask him what to do and also my colleagues but I think that there is a need for a response to it.

Q: Some in Lebanon have interpreted the meeting between Secretary Condoleeza Rice and Foreign Minister of Syria Walid Mouallem in Sharm El Sheikh that a deal is in the making and the United States is going to give up its requirements for normalization with Syria and the tribunal. The real deal is that The United States is desperate to get out of Iraq, it is going to make any deal over Iraq and going to sell Lebanon?

A: I want to assure your viewers that there was only a discussion on Iraq and the focus of discussion was our concern in regard to people who are suicide bombers coming across the borders from Syria into Iraq and there was no discussion of Lebanon and for dealing with the situation in Iraq to bring stability to Iraq to help Iraqi people and decrease the level of violence; we said we are willing to talk to anyone and we are willing to collaborate with anyone but there wont be any deal in regard to Lebanon.

Q: So the requirements for normalization with Syria remain the same including the requirements related to Lebanon in that equation?

A: There is no change at all and the discussion was purely focused on Iraq and seeking Syrian cooperation to help a neighbor in difficulty and we have said repeatedly that we are willing to help with anyone.

Q: There is another view that says also that if the United States is willing to accept that Syrians can control on the borders with Iraq that means that the United States is accepting to reward the Syrians because as they can control it they can also unleash it. Are you rewarding Syria?

A: It is not a matter of reward at all because we are not saying if you do this we do that in exchange, that would be rewarding behavior I don't believe that in a toolbox an element of pressure and an element of engagement are rewards; I don't view it that way because you have to apply the right mix of pressure and engagement to achieve results so we have to wait and see.

Q: When I was in Sharm El Sheikh and of course the Secretary of State was there and so was the Foreign Minister of Iran and it looked very odd; it looked like the American delegation was desperate to run into the Iranian delegation. It looked like there were many efforts made to bring you together and it didn't work. What is going on? Why are the Iranians not responding to you?

A: I believe that there was a short meeting involving  our side, from some of our people and the Iranians. I have said before that for reasons of Iraq, given the suffering and the violence there, we are willing to engage with anyone. Iran is an important player affecting Iraq and it behaves at times as a friend of the new Iraq; after all they tried to get rid of Saddam long time ago and they could not, and at the same time it's a friend of the opponents of the government, providing arms, money and intelligence in a direction of times to people who are involved against the government. So I hope we get them to take off from one of their tracks, the track that seeks to destabilize Iraq.

Q: Apparently President Talibani said that Iraqis were trying to play a role getting the United States and the Iranians together.

A: That is true. I have asked the President of the United States for the authority to engage the Iranians; as I have that authority. When I was in Afghanistan and I had met with the Iranians there in order to see if they could cooperate in regard to helping Afghanistan; and that was hard, but several Iraqis including President Talibani and some others were trying to facilitate in meeting....

Q: So you get there. I remember It was last March I think, when you were supposed to be meeting with them and it didn't happen. Look at them, you are ready to meet them they avoid you; just like they did in Sharm El Sheikh!

A: But there was also a time in which they came and they applied to a visas and they wanted to come and meet but we were not present. That was during the period when there wasn't an Iraqi government and it took longer than anticipated to put the government together but we didn't want to meet with them because everyone in the region would have thought that we got together to put the government of Iraq together and that had to be put together only by the Iraqis, so we did not meet the other time. You are right that we could not have that meeting, but it was sometimes because of their issues, and some other times because of our issues; but we did meet in a regional context when I was Ambassador in Iraq, and we had a meeting in Baghdad.

Q: So why is it not logical to just sit with them and put everything on the table. Why only exclusively on Iraq when you need to have a conversation with Iranians to stop also the regional expansion of the raise of doing things...why only Iran? Why is it always bits and pieces?

A: The criteria is when we think it is useful, and we felt at one point it will be useful to talk with them on Iraq they got to the nuclear issue or other issues, it's a question of judgment; and right now our position is to talk about other issues and that is the requirement of the UN security council that they suspend their enrichment in a verifiable way. Then of course we will sit with the Iranians to talk about a variety of issues.

Q: So conceivably if they suspend uranium and they go on out of Hizbollah, you would just say this is good and we will just be easy on other issues?

A: No no, that doesn't mean we will be easy on other issues; these are very important issues. The future of Lebanon is very important to the US, the future of Iraq is very important to the US, the future of Afghanistan is very important to the US. We think for the whole region and where we are thru the security council process now the law has decided decisions by the security council that it is mandatory for Iran to suspend its enrichment program, and there is no indication that they are budging; and therefore their action is an impediment to increase engagement by us and by others to them; and if there is a choice of either suspending the enrichment and increase engagement with the world or staying on the path that they are now and increase the isolation and pressure. We are not against Iran having a civilian nuclear program; it's just the enrichment that will give them the ability to enrich weapon level and that is not necessary and we are opposed to it as is the world?

Q: But the US is seen to be unable to do anything because it is tied up in Iraq and that the erosion of the engagement with Iran finds at least to isolate them, so therefore it is seen as unable to have options with Iran. Is the movement of the neighborhood in the gulf any indication that there is in fact something else?

A: Right now the hope is on getting a diplomatic resolution of this issue; but as a matter of principle and a matter prudence you cannot exclude other options should diplomacy prove to be ineffective. And we have to give diplomacy the time it requires, and that is where we are now.

Q: How much time?

A: You know we can't predetermine that. There are discussions going on, Mr. Solana has met with Mr. Larijani and they will meet again. There is not anything to show so far, but we are in a phase if diplomacy right now.

Q: In the last couple of days there has been this declaration in Gaza about the kidnapping of the journalist from the BBC. The fact that this has been apparently activated to be of a relationship with AL Qaeda. Is this a turning point from your point of view?

A: I don't have anything on that in terms that I don't judgment or assessment at this point; but you know that Al Qaeda is a global terrorist organization, but I have nothing specific that got to me about that kidnapped journalist in Gaza.

Q: When will the US be willing to really actively say to Israel we have had a plan which is the vision of the President of the US, the road map. Is the US ever going to be able to tell to the Israelis -you know that we have national interest in that region and you need to look us in the eye and start to deal with that. Would you ever do that?

A: Of course we have a great national interest in the middle east and indeed the whole world has a great interest in that region; because at the present time the future of that region is the defining issue about time. and to make that region of the world be a normal region, functional region, you need to deal with a number of key issues. One of them is the issue of the Palestinian-Israeli issue, and the President has laid out his vision very clearly of two states, living side by side in peace; and we're working on bringing that about. The secretary had conversations when she was in the region. There are discussions with regard to the next steps by the quartet. The possibility of another quartet meeting is there, and so there has to be a clear belief on the part of the people in the area that the US is committed to the goals that the president has outlined, a responsibility that all sides have in order to achieve that vision; and we're going to continue to work with them. There was -- there was a speech, but there was talk of when it could be. There was an effort to have it on a particular day and that has not worked. So there is a discussion of when the quartet might meet.

Q: There is talk of bringing the Arab peace initiative to the security council as part of this movement for peaceful resolution. Would you welcome that?

A: This has not been brought up to me, or best to my knowledge, the security council yet. So I have no comment on that. But, I think the extent to which any effort that promotes this vision that I talked about and that is practical in terms of moving forward of course deserves to be supported.

Q: On Iraq. even the UN has really not been very active. I know Sharm-El-Sheik, the compact, which is very important and we've covered that fully, I'm just wondering in as far as a return to the collective approach through the security council to Iraq, in dealing with Iraq. Basically, almost to convince everybody you know that the page has turned, and we can share the pie, we can share the future together. Is this something you want to do, is this something you're looking for as the ambassador who has been in Iraq and is now to the United Nations?

A: Oh I believe that there is a much greater role that the UN can play, and I will work with the Secretary General and my colleagues on the security council; including those that did not support the initial military move that the coalition made into Iraq, that no matter what you thought of the initial move, now the situation in Iraq is in everyone's interest for the violence to come down, for there to be a national compact between Iraqis as well as greater international participation to help the Iraqis.

Q: Explain - Why is it in everyone's interest?

A: Well, for sectarian violence to escalate, to bring in even - Iran and the Arabs into the conflict -- for the sectarian violence to spread will destabilize further the region; that is in no one's interest. For Al-Qaeda to take control of a part of Iraq, even Iraq's resources, and use strategic location that will make Afghanistan the Taliban a child's play, given the resources of Iraq, that's in no one's interest. A conflict emanating from the Kurds of Iraq taking matters in their own hands and going their own ways thinking Iraq isn't gonna work, that could bring the Turks, the Iranians in another kind of regional problem, that's in no one's interest.

Q; How are you going to resolve the Karkuk problem?

A: That is one of the issues that the UN needs to play a role and start a deliberation that I hope -with other members, we can come to an agreement to what the UN role could be.

Q: Please elaborate.

A: Based on the Iraqi constitution, there is to be a referendum to determine the status of Karkuk, and the future of Karkuk; but there is a lot of requirements for a successful referendum to be held. These requirements- identifying them, making sure they satisfy in a way that brings Iraqis together, the UN can play a role and therefore be a good intermediary in terms of keeping Iraqis to be on a process of a successful conclusion.

Q: The Vice President Dick Cheney is in the region. Certainly, Iraq must be the priority. But also Iraq has become at least seen, or perceived by some as a point of contention between the US and its need to get out of Iraq and some Arab neighbors of Iraq - Saudi Arabia and others. How true is this? Is there any contention over Iraq? Is there a problem because of the view of Maliki's government which is seen by many of the Gulf states as a party and not a government?

A: Well, there is a perception on the part of some of the Arab States that the government in Iraq has not been as responsive to the needs of all Iraqis as it needs to be. And some of them have their own ideas as how the government...as to what's the best way to go forward for the future of Iraq. In our view the Maliki government is an elected government. ... So we believe that we have to all work with the government that is the result of the legitimate process representing Iraqi parliament to bring about reconciliation. We agree with our friends in the Gulf throughout the region that there is a need for reconciliation, that there has to be a national compact of Sunni Arabs and Shia Arabs and that there has to be a fair distribution of resources, of power, economic and political and the constitution needs to be amended, and the beatification needs to be changed.

Q: But there are no timelines. You haven't put any timelines. Or did you? Is September the time that everybody's been talking about as the defacto timeline for everything?

A: Well, we have had a series of benchmarks that the Iraqis agreed to themselves, and we believe it's important to have benchmarks to "incentive" Iraqis to move on making decisions. But there is some disagreement here in the United States with some people in Congress. How draconian do you want to be in response to a benchmark timeline we missed. For example, if you say the oil law must be in place by the end of May. What if they were 90% of the way and then they need a couple of weeks, should you do something draconian automatic as a response. there are some tactical differences, but I think everyone agrees there is a need for incenitvizing Iraqis to move forward and I think that's something that we share with the Arab countries and the Arab world.

Q: Hoshyar Zebari, the Foreign Minister of Iraq, said to me that it's absolutely crucial in the next few months. Basically he was even putting into the equation the disintegration of Iraq. Do you share that view? Do you feel that Iraq could be disintegrated?

A: I believe that it's crucial. The next few months are crucial. Because first, the suffering of the Iraqi people. There is a loss of patience with the American people, you know the situation with regard to Congress. So therefore it's absolute and necessary for Iraqi leaders to move forward and make the necessary compromises among themselves. To move to the national compact which is needed....as far as the breakup of Iraq is concerned, during my period in Iraq talking to Arabs, Shia and Sunni, I did not see an inclination towards dividing the country between the two. I mean there is a history of Kurdish nationalism, but at present the Kurdish leadership has stated publicly that within the current constitutional framework of federal Iraq, they're satisfied to be a part of Iraq. There is a danger though that if Iraq was to go through premature US withdrawal or failure to make necessary compromises, and violence escalates, the central government is not able to carry out their responsibilities, the Kurds might be (unintelligible) to calibrate and calculate. It's hard work and we're working with Iraqis to avoid that scenario, and definitely we're against that precipitous withdrawal; and we'd like to get others involved to stabilize Iraq. And that's where my point ... it's in everyone's interest for Iraq to succeed although you may have been of a different view on the initial US coalition to move into Iraq.