Has his Bush upset his friends as much as his enemies? 19/2/02

ALLAN LITTLE:
I am joined from Washington by Frank Gaffney, the President of the Centre for Security Policy and here in the studio Sir Harold Walker. And Ali Hamid the head of the Arab league. President Bush spoke of the 'axis of evil', but in fact today he is talking much more in terms about peaceful dialogue with the states that he denounced as evil is he rowing back?

FRANK GAFFNEY:
I don't think so but I think it would certainly be, not the first instance in which a president or other heads of state couched their language a bit differently in the midst of people who are adamantly opposed to it but his position is both consistently held and correct that these are countries that pose a threat not only to the United States but to others in the region and the fact that others in the region would just as soon appease them or try to accommodate them doesn't alter the danger they pose.

LITTLE:
Is that what you think European policy amounts to appeasement?

GAFFNEY:
I do believe it does. There are certainly ways in which it is dressed up as economic opportunities, trade, some tourism and so on, but at the end of the day most of the countries that profess such an interest in dealing with the Irans and Iraqs and even the North Koreas are people who think we can tamp down their appetite for aggression, their conduct in the area of weapons of mass destruction. In North Korea's case the proliferation, world-wide of ballistic missiles by trying to accommodate them.

LITTLE:
Let me put that here to Sir Harold Walker, it is appeasement these states are believed to be proliferating weapons of mass destruction and sponsoring terrorism?

SIR HAROLD WALKER:
You have to separate the two because there is no evidence in recent years that Iraq has been sponsoring terrorism. But these problems have got to be tackled but as the American administration themselves have said this is a multifaceted war, it is politics, trade diplomacy and military action. There is a lot to be done by way of diplomacy yet.

LITTLE:
When the Northern Alliance troops walked into Kabul thanks to American boom bombs most of the people of that city celebrated, do you think that sent a shock wave around the Arab world?

ALI HAMID:
No, it didn't. Because I mean most of the Arabs we are supporting the coalition provided that the damage inflicted to the Afghani people was limited but in the case of Iraq the situation is different. The Arabs wouldn't a accept any military strike on Iraq.

LITTLE:
Since the president is in Korea, president Kim has been trying to woo his neighbour to the North, the sunshine policy, the state of the union address seems to have driven a coach and horses through all that work?

GAFFNEY:
I don't think so. I think the benefits of that work have been very modest and even within his own country, there's been a widespread sense that South Korea under Kim Dae-jung was making all of the concessions and getting nothing certainly in a diminution in threat the North pose today South Korea in return. That is the problem Kim Dae-jung has more so than the president speaking truth about the nature of the regime Kim Dae-jung is trying to deal with. The people of North Korea, to say nothing of the people of Iraq, we have already seen the people of Iran mounting public demonstrations of their antipathy to their respected regimes I think you would see the same in these other countries if we were able to help liberate them.

LITTLE:
When such hard-line rhetoric comes out of Washington doesn't it have the effect of strengthening hand of the hard-liners in cities and capitals, like Tehran, and closing off the moderating constituency of opinion?

GAFFNEY:
If there is such a thing and it is not clear, the people of Iran are rising up in part because they feel the so-called moderates aren't able to deliver or aren't trying to deliver. They don't want I think, in that country, I think in Iraq and I believe in North Korea to the extent that poor population has been exposed to any of this, they don't want us to legitimating these governments. Do we prop them up, give them life support, or help bring about their early departure from the scene.

LITTLE:
Jack Straw went to Tehran a couple of months ago. Was he giving life support to the Iranian regime?

WALKER:
Frank Gaffney has a good, tenable argument, but I would tend, not being an expert, to hold the other side. There is a way to go yet, with engagement with Iran.

LITTLE:
Is there any sort of moderating or secularising constituency in Iran? Who could you talk to?

WALKER:
The Americans don't believe it but the Europeans do. My impression is, as a lot of people say, the Europeans are right. It's a good argument.

LITTLE:
Are you surprised to hear such a gulf opening up between the Europeans and the Americans? Is this good for the Arab world?

HAMID:
Yes, it is good for the Arab world. I am not surprised that the Europeans are pursuing an individual policy which responds to their interest in the Arab world, which is disregarded by the Americans. So it seems to me that it is in the interests of the EU to have this policy and to deter the Americans from any adventure against Iraq or Iran.

LITTLE:
Let me ask you about Iraq's own role in this. For 11 years now, Iraq has been consistently obstructing the very thing it agreed to do at the end of the Gulf War in 1991, which was allow in teams of inspectors. If it allowed in teams of inspectors, we wouldn't have this problem?

HAMID:
Let me correct this statement. Not for 12 years - it is from 1998, when Iraq didn't allow the inspectors to come back. So it is only four years. I think this is a token between the United Nations and the Arab League to allow the inspectors to go back to Iraq.

GAFFNEY:
We are clear about that.

HAMID:
It is to solve the problems by diplomatic means.

LITTLE:
What about America's attitude to its allies. President Bush's father said America will work with allies where possible, and without allies where necessary. Does America actually care whether the rest of the world, even its closest allies like the western Europeans, goes along with it?

GAFFNEY:
We definitely care. We certainly prefer having our allies with us. Our experience is, by and large, the allies that matter at least - notably Great Britain - are with us when the chips are down, and when they are persuaded of the US determination to press ahead. I think that's what the President is trying to communicate here, is we are determined to press ahead because, frankly, we feel we have no choice but to do so in this second phase of the war on terrorism, but to ensure the terrorists are not able to equip themselves with weapons of mass destruction and the means by which they can be delivered over long distances, with the help of the so-called 'axis of evil countries', and for that matter some others who are helping them and helping other rogue states. This is a fundamental policy choice. I think the President has laid it out very clearly. I think what he is doing in the Pacific Rim today is trying to take that message through appropriate diplomatic channels and personal contacts, to others who also have a stake in this and who we hope will help us in the final pushes, to bring about the liberation of these long-suffering people.