Former US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Murphy said the fact that Lieberman was chosen as a vice-presidential candidate shows that America is ready for a Jew in the White House. Murphy, however, didn’t believe that if Lieberman were elected on the Al-Gore ticket, it would have a negative effect on US policy towards the Middle-East.
“I think that the fact that Lieberman is Jewish makes him neither more or less sympathetic to Israel’s survival than practically any one of his colleagues,” Murphy explained.
The former official also spoke about Iraq and US sanctions saying that he didn’t believe that there would be any changes in US policy on this issue any time soon. Regarding sanctions as a whole, Murphy said that more sanctions had been applied during the Clinton Administration than at any other time in the past sixty years and that some American politicians are now saying that the United States shouldn’t be so quick to apply sanctions in the future.
Here is more of Richard Murphy’s views in the second part of a three-part series of interview reports:
Q. Al-Gore’s vice-presidential candidate is known to be a very orthodox religious Jew. How will this effect the United State’s Middle-East policies if he makes it to the White House?
A. Because Leiberman is a Jew, this won’t distort American policy. The republicans are accusing the democrats of being too harsh on Israel. Historically, the republicans have been much better friends (of Israel), This is the rhetoric of the party out of office, it is reflected every four years. Moving the (American) embassy is one of the oldest stories. Clinton has said that he will consider it but when it came to the moment of decision, he decided that it would do more harm than good. Strangely, the matter hasn’t been at the top of the Israeli’s wish list.
They’d like it to happen, and they expect it to happen one day, but because they have a lot of other problems to straighten out, the relocation of the American Embassy has not been (their) top priority. I think that the fact that Leiberman is Jewish makes him neither more, or less, sympathetic to Israel’s survival than practically anyone else in the Senate or House of Representatives.
Q. Is America ready for a Jew?
The people who ask that most frequently are the Jews who have been quite articulate on this point. Perhaps it’s bad for the Jews to spotlight this issue too much. I admit that in American history there is a current of ant-Semitism, and the Jews from their experiences in Europe are very nervous about being in highly visible positions. I think now the time in America has come. The time had not come in the 1920’s for Al Smith (a Roman Catholic), to be elected president because it was believed that the Pope would take over the White House. When the time came in the 1960’s for Kennedy to take over the White House, you still heard some fanatics saying “look out, the Pope is coming!” Yeah, one Catholic was absolutely excluded from consideration by the electorate, but Kennedy beat Nixon when this (the religious issue) was raised in the campaign. I remember in the 60’s that it never really crystallized as an issue. And I think that it shows that society had moved that much further. Now a Jew will be accepted, but there will be some that will be against him because he’s a Jew.
Q. There seems to be an improvement of the ties with Iran, Sudan, and other Arab countries that have been accused of supporting terrorism. Is there a new US policy towards the region and fundamentalist movements?
A. In the first place, there is really no improvement in Iranian-American relations. From the American side, it (the attempt to normalize relationships) has been actually lead by Clinton. I can confirm that it wasn’t the result of staff (advice), or anything prepared, but within a week of Khatami’s election in 1997, Clinton stood by Tony Blair’s side in London at a press conference and the words “I congratulate Khatami on his elections”, or words to that effect, just came out. Six to seven months later, Khatami goes on CNN and talks about his dialogue of civilizations, and we will welcome cultural, and educational exchanges with anyone. I think the estrangement between the Americans and the Iranians has gone on too long. I hope that there will be a better relationship. But, so far, there has been no significant improvement in Iranian-American relations, which I regret. I do, however, give credit to Clinton for consistently following his original instinct that the time has come. His administration did, for instance, put the Mujahideen Khulq on the list of terrorist organizations. They did, however, take food and medicine off the sanctions list worldwide. The inspiration for that came from trying to make a gesture towards Iran. Iran has not responded and basically in Tahran today, there’s still enough internal disagreement about policies that the relations with America is not a leading item in their minds.
There is not conspiracy with Iran against Iraq. I think that probably Iran regards Iraq still as its major threat but when you listen to talk about the great Satan, and the imperialist presence in the Gulf, you wonder is a duality, or a lack of reality is involved? Can the hostilities of eight years of bloodshed a billion casualties be forgotten? We’ve had serious differences with Iran and we have our complaints, and they have complaints. It seems strange in this day and age that official dialogue is considered a gift from one government to another; it should be a normal state of affairs. I don’t like what you stand for, you don’t like what I stand for, but let’s see if we can work something out.
Sanctions, unfortunately, did become a very important instrument in American foreign policy pushed by both the executive and legislative branches, the Congress, and the White House. More countries came under sanctions, and more sanctions were placed worldwide, under the Clinton administration than had been placed in the past 60 years. There are some people in the leadership of the Representatives and the Senate, however, that now realize that they have got to be more careful. They realize that you shouldn’t automatically impose sanctions if you dislike another government’s actions or policies. You need to think about the costs and the benefits. I hope we will all see, many years from now, a more rational use of sanctions than has been the case to date.
As for better relations with the region, it’s my hope, as I said with respect to Iran, that American initiatives will be answered. In the case of Iraq, Sadam Hussein is in a box, and America is in another box. The policies are frozen and I don’t see any early change. I have a suspicion that all that the Security Council is prepared to do would not be enough to satisfy Iraq that wants to abolish sanctions, it wants to be totally free of all restrictions. The region has reasons to suspect President Saddam’s intentions, and the choice for him is to be completely free, or staying where he is. He does not want a half measure of lifting some sanctions, but keeping other sanctions and continuing the embargo on military supplies. I don’t think the Security Council will move all the way.
Q: Do you believe this is tied to the peace process and Iraq’s response to any steps to help solve the Arab-Israeli conflict ? Specifically, there is talk about settling Palestinian refugees in Iraq.
A: The American administration has established its policy towards Iraq, and improving relations with the country. I believe that this is tied to the end of the Saddam regime. So in effect, as nice as it would be to have Iraq back supporting the peace process, I’m not sure that would change our policy which, in my opinion, has put American policy in a box, in a frozen situation.
Q: Has there been a change in the policy of the United States to the Middle-East. It seems, for example, that there is an easing of sanctions against Iraq, and Iran has been accusing the US of supporting the opposition to create internal conflict within the country. What are the new US strategies towards the region ?
A: The sanctions have not done what we hoped they would do, which was to remove the regime. They have hurt the people and kept the regime so they have been self-defeating. Efforts were made as early as 1991, within months of the end of the war, to get food and medicine to the Iraqi people, and that was rejected for five years by the regime. Iraq’s government considered that to be interference with the country’s decision making and interference in its internal affairs. Five years later, they finally accepted it. Now there is no limit on Iraqi oil production, but there is the powerful limit on how they can spend their money. Their income is supposed to flow through the United Nation’s committee that deals with Iraqi revenues and decides the types of imports which will be allowed. Every effort is made to prevent both the purchase of military items, and the import of dual-use items, such as fertilizers and certain pesticides, which are unfortunately the basic elements for some poisonous gases. The committee tries to ensure that none of these items is approved. The deepest irritation for the Iraqi regime is, I believe, that it cannot spend the money it gets as it wishes. The regime has benefited from being able to accuse the Americans, the Saudis, and the Kuwaitis of killing one million and a half civilians, and five thousand Iraqi babies per year because of the imposition of sanctions. The regime has used this very effectively to weaken the pro-sanctions lobby and divide the Security Council on the whole issue of dealing with Iraq.
Q: What about the Iranian accusations ?
A: The Iranian accusations are, as far as I know, totally false. I know of no such efforts to work with the opposition in Iran, and the opposition in Iran is what, the Mujahideen Khalq, and we have labeled them as terrorists. We have no relations with them and we do not support them. I think we’ve learned to be very realistic with the Iranian situation by admitting American ignorance of what’s going on inside the country, and not getting involved. Certainly there are critics off and on. You’ve seen the press getting slammed and shut down in Iran as the conservative elements get the upper hand. But the press has certainly conveyed critical comments on the way the government was carrying on this or that policy in the past. This clearly means that they don’t all speak with one voice inside Iran, but I know nobody dumb enough in Washington to think that they can play with internal Iranian politics.
© 2000 Al Bawaba (www.albawaba.com)
