Text 4119, 315 rader
Skriven 2007-02-23 23:31:18 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0702239) for Fri, 2007 Feb 23
====================================================

===========================================================================
Interview of the Vice President by Greg Sheridan, the Australian
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release Office of the Vice President February 23, 2007

Interview of the Vice President by Greg Sheridan, the Australian Altitude
Restaurant Sydney, Australia

˙˙White House News


1:10 P.M. (Local)

Q Sir, welcome to Australia. And thank you very much for making time to see
me.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It's great to be back.

Q Of course, I wanted to ask you a couple of questions about Iraq. But I
wondered, sir, if I might start with Iran. And I'd like to ask you how
dangerous for the world would a nuclear-armed Iran be?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the danger would be considerable for
several reasons. We've seen Iran in recent years is now led by a man who's
radical by most definitions -- Mr. Ahmadinejad, who espouses an apocalyptic
philosophy. And has made threatening noises about Israel, about the United
States, and others. They are the prime sponsor of Hezbollah. They have
worked to support Hezbollah, working through Syria, in the conflict with
Israel last summer in an effort to try to topple the government of Lebanon.

They, working through Hamas, have added to the difficulties of trying to
get some kind of peace process started with respect to the Palestinians and
the Israelis. They clearly frighten most of their neighbors in the region
out there. I've heard from most of them about their concerns about Iran
trying to assert itself and dominating the region. They also occupy one
side of the Persian Gulf. And that gives them the capability to interfere
with about 20 percent of the world's daily supply of oil, 18 million
barrels a day that flows in the Straits of Hormuz. And obviously a large
part of the world's oil production is within range of Iranian military
capabilities. So if you add to all of that nuclear weapons, I think it
would, in fact, constitute a significant danger -- not just on a regional
basis, but clearly to the potential to have an impact far beyond that.

Q And, sir, how far away from having nuclear weapons, do you think Iran is?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, we -- I think your best guide there probably is
the work done by the IAEA. They still have inspectors going into Iran. And
you can get various estimates sort of what the point of no return is. Is it
that point at which they actually possess weapons, or would it come sooner,
say at that point when they had mastered the technology but perhaps not yet
produced enough fissile material to have weapons?

Those are all debatable points. But we don't believe they have any at
present, but we do believe they are working to enrich uranium to levels
that will make it possible for them to produce a weapon.

Q How bad is their interference in Iraq?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It's been a problem. It's a complex relationship
between Iraq and Iran. And their neighbors -- one thing. They fought a very
bloody war in the '80s. On the other hand, there are common ties of family
and religion back and forth across that border. In terms of their
activities, we've made it clear we believe they have engaged in providing
improvised explosive devices, for example, to insurgents inside Iraq that
have been used against coalition forces. And of course, we've taken action
recently to crack down on identifiable Iraqi agents operating inside Iraq
-- Iranian agents operating inside Iraq and made it clear that we think
that their conduct there has been inappropriate.

Q So would you share Senator McCain's formulation that the only thing worse
than a military confrontation with Iran is a nuclear-armed Iran?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I believe that it's important that Iran not acquire
nuclear weapons. And I would guess that John McCain and I probably are
pretty close to agreement on that issue.

Q Sir, on Iraq, what will success look like?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the general consensus would be a
situation in which the Iraqis are self-governing and capable of providing
for their own security, able to function without allowing their nation to
become a safe haven for terrorists or a threat to their neighbors. And I
think we've made significant progress in that regard. Political progress
has been pretty impressive. They've been through three national elections.
They've written a constitution. The government that's now in power has been
in place about nine months. They've come a long way from the days when
Saddam Hussein was the dictator in Baghdad. They've still got a long way to
go. They know that -- a lot of work to do in terms of getting government
functioning efficiently the way it needs to function in terms of providing
for basic services and so forth.

The other piece of it then, of course, would be for them to have security
forces that are capable of dealing with any security threat so that they no
longer require significant coalition presence.

Q Sir, without providing the terrorists a date, do you have any sense of a
time frame for when that might likely evolve, that situation?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't think you can put a timetable on it. I think to
some extent it clearly will be determined by conditions on the ground. I
think it's -- I've heard the argument made that the terrorists will give up
when they become convinced that the rest of us aren't going to quit, that
in fact, we're not talking about a situation in which there's no violence.
That's unrealistic, but I think we do need to make enough progress so that
the level of violence is less than what it has been in recent months.

Q Sir, Australia has been in Iraq and Afghanistan with the United States
from the very beginning. But the troop numbers have been relatively small.
Do you believe the Australian contribution has been meaningful --
militarily meaningful in both those theaters?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Oh, I think it has. We like very much working with the
Australians, and they have been there from the very beginning. SAS troops
are great, work closely with our guys in the special ops field. And I think
the contribution has been significant.

Q Would it be a significant setback if all Australian combat troops were
withdrawn from Iraq?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, it would clearly be a disappointment from our
standpoint. I think the United States, I believe, will stay until we've got
the job done right. We deeply appreciate Australia, the Brits, others
who've been there from the beginning and made a contribution and been
willing to get into the fight with us. It's my belief that we all have a
stake in getting the right outcome in Iraq. This isn't just a U.S. policy
or a U.S. problem.

I think back to what happened in Afghanistan when we were actively involved
in Afghanistan in the '80s supporting the mujahideen in their battle
against the Soviets. And after that was over with, we all walked away. And
what we got for that was a civil war inside Afghanistan, followed by the
emergence of the Taliban, and, of course, by 1996, it became a safe haven
and a refuge for Osama bin Laden. Training camps were set up that trained
terrorists -- maybe as many as 20,000 terrorists in the late '90s that
struck us on 9/11 and killed 3,000 of our citizens, and killed a number of
Aussies in Bali not too long after that, and have struck an awful lot of
cities in between. The world cannot turn its back on what happens in that
part of the globe anymore and expect not to be affected by it.

Given modern technology, given the development of the extremist Islamic
movement, if you will, given their desire to get their hands on ever
deadlier technology to use against us and their willingness to strike
virtually any place in the world, it's foolish for people to think we can
walk away from a situation like Afghanistan or Iraq and be secure in own
homes. We've learned on 9/11 in the United States that that's really not
the case.

Now, the U.S. is obviously actively involved in the effort. I think the
rest of the world needs to recognize that this isn't just a U.S. problem.

Q Sir, under President Bush and Prime Minister Howard, the U.S.-Australia
alliance has become very close. There's a new level of intelligence sharing
and so forth. Have you been happy to participate in that process? Would you
say the alliance is now closer than it was when President Bush came to
office, closer than it's been perhaps?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It's the closest I've ever seen it. But it's been close
before. I don't mean to suggest it hasn't been. I worked closely with
Australia when I was Secretary of Defense. Kim Beazley was my counterpart
in those days. But there is a special relationship. Part of that is John
Howard. We know him very well. I knew him before I ever became Vice
President. I did work in Australia between my time as Secretary of Defense
and when I became Vice President. And it also meant a lot that he was in
Washington on 9/11, and that we've been in this global conflict from the
very beginning.

Q The new arrangements between Australia and the U.S. in areas like
intelligence, do you think they'll outlive President Bush and Prime
Minister Howard? Do you think there's a new institutional closeness between
the two countries that will live on?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I hope so. I think the -- the bilateral ministerials
we've done on a regular basis now for several years -- defense and foreign
policy -- foreign ministers come together, sometimes in the U.S., sometimes
here; the trilateral relationship we're talking about now with Japan as
well as Australia and the U.S., I think those are institutional
arrangements that hopefully will last beyond any one particular government.

Q Sir, you've been Vice President a long time now --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It seems like it -- six years. (Laughter.)

Q What's the highlight for you personally of being Vice President, your
time in office?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: What's the highlight? I'm going to have to think about
that when I get out of office and I have time to do it. Clearly, our
administration has been dominated by the events of 9/11 and the aftermath.
That has clearly become front and center in terms of our concerns and we
spend our time, how we spend our resources. And I think in terms of
accomplishments, the fact that we've defeated all attempts to strike the
United States again for the last five years doesn't mean we won't be hit
tomorrow. They're still out there trying hard, but it has been over five
years now. And we have disrupted attempts to launch further attacks against
the United States. And that's not been an accident -- a whole raft of
strategies and policies behind that in terms of being aggressive, going
overseas, going after the terrorists and terror-sponsored states; the
measures we've taken at home to improve our security arrangements, to
reorganize our intelligence capabilities, to establish our Terrorist
Surveillance Program and financial tracking programs, other things that
we've been able to do that have helped us, especially also work with allies
to defeat the terrorists.

Q Sir, are you concerned about the growth of anti-Americanism around the
world, that this compromises the ability of free people to achieve the
security ends that are necessary?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, there's a certain amount of that, I suppose. I
think it probably waxes and wanes. Driving through Sydney is I notice a lot
like driving through New York City. You get some waves and then you get
some other waves. (Laughter.) And that goes with living in a democracy. And
our best friends and allies are democracies and people have and are
encouraged to express their opinions. And that's as it should be.

On the other hand, I think viewed from my perspective, that the United
States has a unique role to play because we have capabilities nobody else
has. And that sometimes places a burden on us. And we -- especially after
9/11 felt required to take action that not everybody agreed with. But then
we had firsthand experience of the consequences of a failure to act. And so
I think one of the results of that is some people who disagree with those
actions or I think in some cases may hope that it's not necessary to be as
aggressive as we've been take exception to the policies that we put in
place. But I also like to remind them they weren't there in New York and
Washington on 9/11 when we lost 3,000 one morning to 19 guys armed with
airline tickets and box cutters.

And the thing that we have to concern ourselves with these days is that the
next group of terrorists that find their way into an American city might
have a nuclear weapon or a biological agent to unleash.

Q Do you think that's a realistic danger, sir?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think that's the biggest threat we face, and we have
to do everything we can to guard against that. And that's our -- my job,
the President's job, to see to it that we succeed at that. Sometimes we
step on a few toes in the process, but I think it's necessary.

Q Sir, looking back now you would say the strategic calculus, it was right
to mount the Iraq operation?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q The benefits outweigh the negatives?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I do, indeed, believe that. I think 9/11 changed things
to the point where we could no longer afford to ignore what was going on in
Iraq. Saddam Hussein had started two wars. He'd violated I think some 16
U.N. Security Council resolutions. He was a designated state sponsor of
terror. He was making payments -- $25,000 payments to families of suicide
bombers. He had previously produced and used chemical weapons and
biological agents and tried to produce nuclear weapons. He was a
significant danger, and the world is better off now that he's dead and that
there's a democratically elected government in his place in Baghdad and
that the Iraqi people are, I think, well on the road to establishing a
viable democracy.

I think long-term when we look back on this period of time, that will have
been a remarkable achievement. We're not through yet. We've still got a lot
of work yet to do, but I think given the scale of change that we're
attempting here, that the fact that we're not finished yet shouldn't be all
that surprising to anybody. And the consequences of our suddenly deciding
that it's too hard and that we should pack it in and go home would be
enormous, that we've got people especially in that part of the world --
hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of them -- have signed on in
this global conflict with the United States, the backing and support of
thousands of people who have signed on in the security services in Iraq, or
the millions who voted, or men like Karzai, President of Afghanistan; or
Musharraf in Pakistan, they didn't have to make the choices they've made;
they made the choices to sign on with the United States and our allies to
fight the extremists. If the United States were suddenly to decide Iraq's
too tough and we're just going bag it and go home, I think you'd have
devastating consequences for all of those people who are betting, in
effect, that farm on their willingness to sign on and join with the U.S. in
this struggle.

Q And the same must apply to the U.S. allies, too, sir.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the more allies we have and the more
committed they are to the effort, I think the quicker we can anticipate
success. But I don't think we can afford to anticipate failure. And I think
we have to continue to do whatever is necessary in order to get the right
outcome in Iraq.

Q Finally, sir, on North Korea. Do you have any reason to be optimistic
that deal will hold given North Korea's history?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: One can always hope. The thing that's different this
time is that we've had the six-party process. The Chinese have been
actively engaged in the endeavor and the Japanese, as well the South
Koreans and Russians and the U.S. That's significant because China has more
trade and commerce with North Korea than anybody else. I think the North
Korea nuclear test last fall sort of reinvigorated that whole process and
forced all of the governments to look at and contemplate a nuclear-armed
North Korea. Can I guarantee this will work? No. The group came to an
agreement in September of '05, and in effect, what this does is it
represents a first step in implementing that agreement.

We recognize North Korea has a history of violating international
agreements and not living up to their commitments, but this is structured
in such a way that benefits flow to them based upon their fulfilling their
obligations. And we'll see.

Q Yes, indeed. Sir, thank you very much, indeed.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you.

END 1:35 P.M. (Local)

===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/02/20070223-9.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)