    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George H. W. Bush (1991, Book I)]
    [March 8, 1991]
    [Pages 231-241]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Interview With Middle Eastern Journalists
    March 8, 1991

        The President. I wanted to just say a word of welcome to you all,
    and be glad to thank you for coming all this way. I think the best thing
    is just to go ahead and start, though I might say at the beginning that
    the coalition that was put together to stand up against the aggression
    has been, in my view, historic. There were a lot of predictions early on
    that one or another country would pull away or that it would fracture in
    some--and you come to me on a day when I have great gratitude in my
    heart to the leaders of the coalition countries. Well, I guess all the
    countries from which you've come having had forces there--Morocco, of
    course, in a special role, not a part of the coalition per se but
    nevertheless in the defense of Saudi Arabia, having some soldiers on the
    ground. That's a distinction that I wanted to say to you, sir, we
    understand and respect.
        But in any event, those forces that did end up in the battle did
    very well. There were predictions that some might not want to engage in
    the battle, and they did, and so we are very grateful. And I keep saying
    two things: One, this is not a U.S. effort by itself. And secondly, our
    argument was never with the people of Iraq; it was with Saddam Hussein.
        I make this point because the Iraqis tried to make it them--I mean
    ``them'' including all Arabs--against the United States. And I will
    resist that until time immemorial, because there's a feeling of
    gratitude and affection to the Arab world because so many there stood
    with us against this evil.
        But now, look, I came to answer your questions, and I'll try to do
    so. Who wants to go first?

    Security in the Persian Gulf

        Q. Sir, my colleagues have elected that I speak first. I would like
    to take the opportunity to thank you personally, the administration and
    this great country and people, for what you have done. I believe this is
    an historical stand. And as our Ambassador has said, you will go into
    history as a great leader and a great man.
        Sir, my first question is, the coalition has won the war, and I
    believe we have a great battle ahead of us, that is, to win the peace.
    What kind of arrangement do you foresee the United States, the
    coalition, and the Gulf States and, of course, the Arabs would have for
    security arrangements within the Gulf States and the Arab States?
        The President. I think this is a time, as Abraham Lincoln once said
    in our history, to think anew. And we are starting to think anew by
    dispatching our Secretary of State to the region. There will not be a
    United States plan to bring peace to Lebanon, to

    [[Page 232]]

    the Gulf, or to the Israeli-Palestine question. There will not be a
    single, sole U.S. plan. We want to be an instrumental part of it. We
    think, given what's happened in the Gulf, perhaps we have more
    credibility to be a part of it. When I spoke at our meeting to the joint
    session of Congress the other day, I spoke about our interest in being a
    catalyst for peace. And that's what Baker is out there to do.
        I would love to think that the day would come when the Israeli-Arab
    world hostility could end. And that's going to take compromise on both
    sides. We are very openminded as to how that should be brought about.
    When I talked about territory for peace, that wasn't exactly a new
    statement. We have been proponents of Resolutions 242 and 338 for a long
    time, and so have other countries, many other countries. I'd say most
    every country, but then some have pulled away from them. So, we're going
    to push, after consultation, in trying to get common ground with our
    coalition partners and then with Israel and others, to push on all three
    fronts.
        Obviously, the security in the Gulf is quite different. I will
    repeat--I don't want to lecture here, but I will repeat that we are not
    interested in a longterm ground troop presence. The Iranians, for
    example, are accusing us, or not accusing us but are very much concerned
    about that. So are others. And we would be playing right into the hands
    of our critics if we sent a signal that we wanted to leave a sizable
    U.S. force on the ground out there. We don't. Our families want them
    home.
        But on the other hand, I spelled out the other day some security
    requirements for the Gulf and what we think might be new arrangements
    that will provide for a more stable and more secure Gulf. Lebanon,
    again, and the Israeli question--these will be evolved after the Baker
    consultations.
        Q. Mr. President, President Mubarak has called once again for a
    Middle East, including Israel, free of weapons of mass destruction. Do
    you agree with this initiative and other proposals for the limitation of
    arms shipments to the region, including Israel?
        The President. You heard me speak on proliferation. I don't think
    you're going to disarm Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria--
    anybody. I think that's idealistic. I'm not implying that that--what my
    dear friend Hosni Mubarak is saying. But I would like to think that out
    of all this we could have a vastly reduced flow of arms to this troubled
    corner of the world.
        We have been very much concerned about these shipments. In some
    places we've been involved in them, to many of the countries right here
    in which your papers are located and Israel. But when I made this pitch
    for nonproliferation the other day, it is something that again we want
    to talk about within this whole concept of security and stability, not
    of just the Gulf region but of the other parts of the Middle East as
    well.
        So, I'm not certain how we'll come down, what the final arrangements
    will be, but we are very openminded about talking and then doing what we
    say after we talk, in terms of fewer weapons going into the area.
        Q. Mr. President, do you foresee any future role for Iraq and Iran
    in the security arrangement?
        The President. Roles for Iraq and Iran? Well, in the first place, we
    never have felt that it was in the interest of the Gulf or certainly of
    the United States to create a vacuum in Iraq. And we have not wanted an
    unstable Iraq. Iraq has a job to do of reconstruction. And what they
    ought to do is have a government that will signal to the rest of the
    world that they want to live within their own borders, that they are
    renouncing aggression. And indeed, they did renounce the annexation of
    what they used to arrogantly refer to as Province 19.
        So, they've got to send the signal to the world that they want to
    live within what we call the family of peace-loving nations. That is
    difficult, very candidly, for us. And one of the things Baker will talk
    about with our partners is whether it's difficult for them if Saddam
    Hussein remains in power. So, Iraq we want to see stable, living within
    its own borders with respect for its neighbors, renouncing its so-called
    claim to Kuwait, and yes, being an important part of the area.
        Iraq can be a very well-to-do country if they'd spend their money on
    helping their own people and not on arms and bullying

    [[Page 233]]

    the neighborhood, which they tried to do until they got into the war
    with Iran. Then the man changed his spots momentarily. Then when that
    war was over, he showed his arrogance and bullying again by going after
    Kuwait.
        So, the best answer, as we see it--and again, with respect for our
    partners, I want to know exactly what they think but--is for Iraq to
    live in its borders, and then it can regain the respect that they
    deserve. They've got a proud history. They've got culture. They've got
    religious traditions and all. So, we're open to that. But it's going to
    be difficult under the status quo.
        On Iran, we've had very strained relations with Iran. I have
    publicly said, and I'll repeat it--this is a unique chance to repeat it
    here--we want better relations with Iran. We have no animosity. There's
    a lot of feeling in our country about our hostages and about the
    Embassy, and there's feelings in Iran about the shooting down, which was
    pure accident, of the airbus and all of this. But sometimes when you
    have deep divisions it takes a little more time. So, we're not pressing
    Iran on bilateral relations.
        But Iran is a big country. I don't think they should be treated
    forever as enemies by all the countries out in the GCC [Gulf Cooperation
    Council] countries or others. And I don't think, as I listen carefully
    to our friends in the Gulf--I think there's an evolution process here
    towards Iran. And as Iran moves to what I hope will be a more moderate
    or a less radical role, I think that the other countries in the area
    will welcome them back.
        But they're an important country and they've got a self-respect. And
    so, we'd like to find ways to recognize that--of self-respect and their
    own sovereignty, of course. But we've got some bilateral problems.
        So, I think both of them, being of their size, of their economic
    potential, of their historic standing, have key roles to play in a
    secure and stable Gulf. But again, it's got to evolve--how that will
    work, I mean, what mechanics are worked out. Will there be an Arab
    peacekeeping force there, and can that be presented to all the countries
    as no threat to them, but as a guarantee of the security of other
    countries?
        So, we want this--remember in the early days of all this, talk about
    ``Arab solution''--King Hussein kept talking about, ``We want an Arab
    solution.'' And they had meetings and others saying ``Arab,'' and we
    understood that. We don't want a Yankee solution to the Middle East.
    [Laughter] I mean, that's not what we want.
        So, here's a chance now for our friends in the Arab world--and there
    are many, and I hope there are more than when all this started--to say,
    look, here's where we should carry the ball; here's the place we should
    have the lead. And then we stand there with our, I would say, conviction
    backed up by perhaps a naval presence that I mentioned coming up and
    down the Gulf. It has helped with stability. And I see it as that kind
    of partnership in the future, but with no rancor in my heart about Iran,
    no rancor about the people of Iraq.
        So, when I get up and say that here, I'm not just making it up.
    Because we hurt, we ache when we see a child that doesn't have enough
    food, or water that's contaminated, or something of that nature. And I
    think people in Saudi, Kuwait, Morocco--they feel the same thing when
    they see an Iraqi child.
        So, we've got to approach it in a magnanimous, compassionate way.
    But let our Arab friends stand out there and say: Here's what we
    recommend. Here's what we're prepared to do. And then have us willing to
    put our military and whatever they want behind this effort.
        So, that one is easier, it seems to me, the Gulf security including
    Iran and Iraq, than perhaps Lebanon and the Palestine question as it
    relates to Israel.
        I'm going on too long, but I want to make a point that we've been
    very disappointed in the PLO here. I mean, the PLO was anointed at Rabat
    years ago as the sole spokesmen in all of this, and they've been
    disappointing. They've moved way over too far in support of Saddam
    Hussein. They took a bet--they bet this coalition wouldn't hold, and
    they bet the United States would not do what we did. And the guy bet
    wrong.
        Here was a man that, in spite of the recent terrorist acts, had some
    standing in this country. I don't know how it is in the

    [[Page 234]]

    rest of the world, but he's lost that standing here. And that isn't to
    mean that we say to everybody that was sympathetic to the PLO, hey,
    you're bad guys; that's not it. But they've been diminished by this.
        So, their role in the security, at least for now, in my view, has
    been diminished because they bet on the wrong horse for the wrong
    reasons, the wrong motives. I mean, they did not stand up and condemn
    that aggression. And I think it has hurt some of the Palestinians in
    Kuwait who had been treated very well there. And then when the Kuwait
    thing happens, a lot of the Palestinians sided with the Iraqi invaders.
    Well, this didn't help their image around the United States. I can only
    speak for our country.

    Palestinians

        Q. What do you mean by political rights to Palestinian people in
    your speech?
        The President. About political rights? Listen, there will not be
    peace until the whole question of where the Palestinians have a right to
    be is taken care of. And some say ``state.'' It's not been our position
    in favor of the state, and there we differ with many of our Arab
    friends. But the question is, get the Palestine question resolved. And
    obviously, the framework has got to be the action taken by the United
    Nations. Or at least, that doesn't have to be the only answer, but
    that's some common ground there. That's something that Israel agreed to,
    that's something that Arab States agreed to, and is subject to a lot of
    interpretation problems. But there is a common place to start from. But
    there's got to be discussions. We can't have state of war forever and
    ever. I mean, we're in kind of a healing mode now. I'd like to heal some
    wounds. I'd like to be a catalyst that can help overcome old enmities.
        Now, maybe that's too idealistic, but even if he can't do that,
    there has got to be a resolution of the Palestine question. And we know
    it, and we feel strongly about it, and we're prepared to play a useful
    role. But as I say, people are going to have to move on all sides of
    this question. The status quo ain't going to get the job done.
        Q. You had a talk with the PLO; are you willing to resume the talks?
        The President. I wouldn't say right now. They're coming at us at the
    wrong time. I don't think they've requested that. They were broken off
    because, as you recall, some terrorists--what we call terrorism. They
    were calling it something else. But I think I would be very--and I'm one
    who wanted to keep those talks going and did as long as we could. But to
    me, they've lost credibility. They've lost credibility with this office
    right here. And the reason they have is because they behaved very badly
    to those of their own fundamental faith.
        That's not all PLO people; I'm sure there are some good people
    there. But their leadership betrayed their friends and got in with the
    wrong side. And it's going to take some time. So, I'm not in any rush to
    do that at all.

    Environmental Damage

        Q. Sir, excuse me. I have two points. The first is the immediate
    problems we are facing, and the other one is a medium-term. The first
    one is the environment. Now we have oil spillage and this fire.
        The second one, sir, I am speaking--I think the medium-range sort of
    problems in our region, to my mind, is democracy and development. What's
    your----
        The President. Okay. First, the environment. I have been surprised
    that in this country there has not been more of a highlighted moral
    outrage. I feel a moral outrage here. I feel that what he has done,
    laying waste to the assets of Kuwait, is brutal environmental terrorism.
    There is no excuse for it. There is no rationale for it. It is simply
    what we call the scorched earth policy, as he left. That is
    unacceptable.
        I think world judgment is going to take a while to mature in this
    regard. People here hate it, but there isn't that visceral feeling about
    what this man has done. As time goes by and the shooting has stopped,
    thank God, and people come back into Kuwait as they are, thank heavens,
    I think people are more and more going to be outraged by it.
        One of the reasons that we insisted on accountability and on one of
    the U.N. resolutions that called for compensation was because we felt so
    strongly about the environmental degradation. And Kuwait is entitled to
    compensation for this kind of environ-

    [[Page 235]]

    mental terrorism. And so are others who might be affected by that spill.
        So, one, we're very much concerned about it, and I think it's going
    to be a focal point. It hasn't yet been as much as I thought it would
    be--a focal point for indignation against this laying to waste, reckless
    laying to waste, of another country.
        What was your second point?

    Democracy and Regional Development

        Q. Democracy and development.
        The President. Of course, the United States, you know, we're for
    democracy. Obviously, the more democratic processes that are put into
    effect in whatever country, we rejoice in that. That's been the history
    of our country. We're not trying to dictate to some country how to do
    its internal affairs. But the more compatible the values, the better it
    is for the future. We urge as much democratic process as possible in the
    area and in all areas.
        So, we just stand as a beacon, we think, for democracy, and we will
    continue to try to do it. As you know, halfway around the world I was
    criticized for not standing stronger for democracy in China. I thought I
    stood very strongly for it. But there's a balance here between
    expressing your own convictions about your own values and having respect
    for problems that others have.
        So, on development, I think the resources are there. And if those
    resources can be turned to peaceful means, so not only a country that
    has valued peace--take Kuwait--but it has had to worry about whether it
    would be aggressed against or whether its neighbors were going to do
    something.
        But if we can get this new order out there, then I think the means
    are there for the development of the entire region. But it isn't going
    to be done with the barrel of the gun. And you can't say to Saudi
    Arabia, to Kuwait, ``Hey, trust me, all is well, throw down your arms,''
    as long as you have a situation in the Gulf that's unstable.
        Q. Well, Mr. President, one of the main reasons of instability in
    the region, originally in the Mideast, is the big gap between the rich
    and the poor countries. And recently, after the Gulf war, there have
    been many ideas proposed to tackle this problem. And I think Secretary
    Baker--he once mentioned a sort of new international development bank
    for the Middle East or something like that. What are your ideas, Mr.
    President, I mean the U.S. ideas to deal with this problem?
        The President. I don't want to try to preempt the Baker trip. He's
    going out there to discuss economic development. And there are a lot of
    resources in the area. People look at the United States and say, hey,
    there's a lot of resources in the United States, too. And there are. But
    when we tried to assist Egypt with its rather substantial debt to the
    United States, you know I came under great attack here: Hey, wait a
    minute, what the hell are you doing worrying about Egypt's debt? What
    about Iowa and Kansas and Texas and other places in our own country?
    What about our budget deficit of hundreds of billions of dollars?
        So, we are not in a great position to be putting ourselves up as the
    wealthy guy that can solve all the problems in other areas. But there
    are discrepancies in wealth in the area, just as there are in my own
    country. There are a lot of people here in poverty. Some people live
    very well. The same thing is true in the entire Middle East. But I think
    the way to work it out is through consultation and through planning and
    through regional answers to it. We can't dictate. We can't say to a
    wealthy country out there: Hey, you've got to spend x dollars to help
    your guy next door. I don't think that's the way. I mean, that would be
    really resented in that part of the world. Just as I would resent it if
    some wealthy countries in other parts, or Europe, for example, started
    telling me how to take care of poverty in the United States.
        So, again I want to fall back on the Baker consultations, which will
    have this economic ingredient, this development ingredient as part of
    it. Having said that, I think all of us as human beings have to be
    concerned when there's a lot of inequity. And I feel it here. I don't
    get given any credit in this country for feeling it, but I do. I worry
    about it. And I certainly worry about it in other parts.
        But to try to justify aggression on the

    [[Page 236]]

    basis of the haves versus the have nots is unacceptable. And I don't
    think we can ever permit that kind of demagogic rationalization to
    justify the takeover of one country by another. And I, to be honest with
    you on that point, I had never considered Iraq a have-not country. I've
    considered them a country that has tremendous resources that they
    splurged on trying to buy support with Mercedes-Benzes and arming
    themselves to the teeth so that they could bully the neighborhood. Well,
    those days are over and I'm damn proud that we had a part, working with
    our partners, in putting an end to it. I say they're over. They better
    be over, or Iraq will not have normalized relations with this country. I
    can speak for the U.S.
        Q. No, what I mean, it's not just to give. To help in development,
    because through development, this will have a solution for these
    problems.
        The President. It would be a fantastic thing to do. No, excuse me, I
    wasn't lecturing you on the fact that we don't need development. I'm
    simply saying it is something that is going to have to be addressed, but
    that we can't use--we can't permit one neighbor to take over another
    because he's doing it in the name of have or versus have not. But I
    think there's a wonderful chance now for economic development where one
    country will want to help another.
        The United States has always been in that mode, and we'll want to
    try to help. All I'm saying is we're going to need--we're not going to
    pull back into some sphere of isolation as a result of all this. But
    once again, it's with respect that I say, hey, we need some regional
    answers out here. We need some Arab solutions. And let us be a part of
    it but not try to dictate it, is all I'm saying on development and on
    how we handle the inequities of wealth versus nonwealth.

    Iraq

        Q. Mr. President, you talked about Iraq recently, and you said you
    are not going to pay any penny for rebuilding Iraq. What about if there
    is a new government of Iraq?
        The President. What we're willing to do is immediately help in a
    humanitarian way. If there's a hungry child, if there's a sick family,
    we'll go there today; yesterday we'll be there. We've always done that.
    But as you look at the overall reconstruction of Iraq, what they need to
    do is come up with a plan where they use their wealth for their own
    reconstruction, and then be able to have a good life for their people
    from there on. They can do it. They've got enormous wealth.
        And if they had a new government that had a broad futuristic view,
    that contained the willingness to live at peace with their neighbors,
    throw down these excessive arms--what they've got left, keep what they
    need for their own internal security--guarantee their neighbors they
    have nothing to fear from them, then of course we'd be willing, in a
    broad sense through these international agencies and others, to be
    helpful in terms of reconstruction.
        But it is not the case where we are going to turn around as Uncle
    Sucker, not Uncle Sam but Uncle Sucker, and turn around and start
    sending taxpayers' money that are going to rebuild the arrogance that
    has led to this instability in the first place. And I'll tell you, the
    American people feel strongly about it. And there's 265 million of us,
    and nobody feels more strongly about it than the guy sitting right here.
        We're not inhumane, but let's see the new government develop. Let's
    see them give the assurances to their neighbors they want to live at
    peace. Let's see them show the concern for their own people that they
    should have. And that means not spending it all on rifles from the
    Soviet Union or tanks, but it's on trying to help--turn on those oil
    wells, get those going again, and help their people.
        That's my point. That's what I was trying to say the other night.
    But everything takes time, too. This situation needs time. But the best
    thing that could happen is if the kind of government you asked about
    emerges; then you'd see whole new attitudes emerge in Europe and the
    United States and everyplace else.
        Q. What kind of government do you think that ought to be?
        The President. One that is compassionate and concerned about his own
    people and drops all this arrogance about the neighborhood. That would
    be a good place to start.

    [[Page 237]]

    And I have known--before the Iran-Iraq war I used to wrestle with these
    problems when I was at the United Nations. And these guys from other
    Arab countries have come up and told me this man's a bully. He'll walk
    into a room with other Arab leaders and swagger in with his--bullying
    the neighbors. And he had muscle. He had arms, when some of them hadn't
    gone to the arms route. He had an arrogant swagger that tried to
    intimidate his Arab neighbors.
        Then he got into the Iran-Iraq war and that changed, because he
    needed help. So, he turned to those against whom he'd been arrogant and
    showed a different side momentarily. Then that war ended. And what does
    he do? He brutalizes Kuwait. So, he can't have that kind of an attitude
    if he wants reasonable relations with us. And that's what I'm saying. We
    tried with Iraq. We tried just before the end of the Iran-Iraq war to
    have better relations and to see a different side. And what happens? He
    takes over Kuwait, and that was it right there. Bang--that's enough for
    us.
        And again, we're not the ones that are trying to dictate to that
    corner of the world. I've been out there. I have respect for the
    countries and their cultures and their traditions and for their
    sovereignty. And in this office, as long as I'm here, whether we have a
    big country or a small country, we are going to respect that. But I
    don't respect the bullying attitude that resulted now in the aggression
    against Kuwait.

    Relations With Persian Gulf Nations

        Q. Sir, while we are on the point, do you envisage more sort of
    cooperation with the GCC themselves on----
        The President. Yes, I think as much as possible. And I think as more
    of a security arrangements as can be arranged for and taken over by the
    GCC, the better it is. It's their neighborhood. We've got a stake in it
    for a lot of reasons--economic reasons and historic reasons--but
    absolutely. And the more vital the GCC is, the more it can say here's
    what's best for the Gulf area, in my view, so much the better. And I'll
    keep using this thing here, the telephone, and talking to these leaders
    out there. And we're going to keep up good bilateral relations with as
    many countries as possible. But the needs are regional; it's crying out
    for a regional answer to it.
        The complex problems that you ask about are a little different. It's
    not strictly regional. It's more global in a sense because it's been so
    intractable.
        Q. Well, Mr. President----
        Mr. Fitzwater. We're going to have to break, gentlemen.
        Q. The last question.
        The President. Let me--and then I'll try not to lecture you so much.
    I get all--I'm very enthusiastic about this. I remember being back as
    Ambassador at the United Nations. And I didn't know as much about
    diplomacy then, but I became very close to the Ambassadors from the Arab
    world. The day I left, they gave a beautiful going-away party, in spite
    of the fact that we had stood against them--or at least they thought,
    against them--on some of the Israel questions. I'll never forget it.
        And Bishara, who is the head of the GCC--he was the Kuwait
    Ambassador at that time. Through not only contact with him but remember
    the guy Baroody--really Lebanese--and they became close friends, and
    they taught me a lot about the individual traditions of the countries.
    Abdel Meguid was my colleague at the U.N. So when I sit down and talk to
    Mubarak, I've been conditioned and sensitized by these friends of mine
    in that area. And I want to reflect my feeling about these countries
    through how we conduct ourselves.
        One of the things that made it easier for us to commit an enormous
    amount of treasure and risk a lot of human life was that we feel this
    area and its importance more than, I think, perhaps some of my
    predecessors. That doesn't mean we're not going to have fights with
    representatives from the various countries represented here. But we
    don't want to do it out of neglect or out of failing to understand the
    intense pride of the region.
        Now, what was the question?
        Q. Sir, I do think that everybody in Kuwait and a lot of people in
    the GCC and their countries look to Mr. George Bush as a great man. And
    this is the first time in his- tory I have
    seen so many articles about the

    [[Page 238]]

    United States, about Mr. George Bush being published, not clandestinely
    like you were before, but now everything is open. What kind of relations
    do you envisage between this country and the Gulf GCC?
        The President. Well, again, I think it has to be one of mutual
    respect. I think it has to be one who fiercely recognizes and is willing
    to defend the territorial integrity of the country. I think it has to be
    one where we're forward-leaning on the peace process as it relates to
    Israel and Palestine. Because in these countries, no matter how good our
    bilateral relations, there's this feeling--hey, you ought to be doing
    more about that question.
        I see it as one where we will be tested by whether I am willing to
    do what we've said, be a catalyst for peace not just in the Gulf but up
    into Lebanon and down into the Israeli-Palestine question.
        But what I hope will happen is that because of the commitment we
    made, after great consultation--in your country's case, the Amir; the
    case of the Kingdom [of Saudi Arabia], with King Fahd himself; a close
    relationship with Mubarak--I hope that the United States will--and I
    think it is true in Morocco, although we had a little different standing
    for Morocco in this--I hope that there will be a recognition that we're
    credible friends. And this is an important point, that we have
    credibility. When we say we'll do something, we'll do it; we mean it.
        And that is an important point as to how the U.S. interacts with the
    Middle East from now on, it seems to me. If they say they're going to do
    what they say they'll do, I think that is important. I think a lot of
    lip service was given to that point, but for various reasons, including
    global reasons, Vietnam. People would--``Look, hey, do they really mean
    this? Are they really going to follow through?'' And I think that our
    credibility should be such in the area that we can work closely now as
    credible allies, credible friends.

    New World Order

        Q. Mr. President, the Gulf war is the first of its kind to take
    place in the context of the new world order. How did the new world order
    influence the way the world dealt with this crisis? And what is the main
    lesson learned from the Gulf war?
        The President. The new world order said that a lot of countries,
    disparate backgrounds, with differences, can come together standing for
    a common principle. And that principle is: You don't take over another
    country by force. So, the new world order, to the degree it's emerged so
    far, has been enhanced by this single concept that we're going to unite,
    no matter what other differences we may have had, what the bilateral
    problems may have been, and we're going to stand up against aggression.
        It was enhanced by a more viable United Nations, a United Nations
    where the big powers didn't automatically go against each other. In the
    cold war days, we'd say, ``This is black,'' and the Soviets would say,
    ``Hey, that's white.'' And you'd have a veto, and nothing would happen.
    And the peacekeeping dreams of the founders of the U.N. were dashed.
        So, part of this new world order has been moved forward by a United
    Nations that functioned. We might have still been able to stand up and
    come to the assistance of Kuwait--the United States. I might have said,
    ``To hell with them. It's right and wrong. It's good and evil. He's
    evil; our cause is right,'' and, without the United Nations, sent a
    considerable force to help. But it was an enhanced--it is far better to
    have this collective action where the world, not just the Security
    Council but the whole General Assembly, stood up and condemned it.
        So, part of it is these more viable international organizations. And
    that is where we are now. Then how we build on it is the questions that
    will be coming up, trying to give our share of the answers when Jim
    Baker comes back from these consultations.
        Q. And what is the lesson which we learned from this crisis?
        The President. Well, the one key lesson is: Aggression will not
    stand. You don't bully your neighbor. You don't swagger around the
    neighborhood with an arrogance and back it up by overwhelming force
    without paying a price. Same thing you learned in the school yard when
    you were over there in Egypt. One guy came out and tried to beat the
    hell out of you when you're in the

    [[Page 239]]

    third grade, and you'd wait for a while, and then somebody would hit him
    and he'd go back into his shell and he wouldn't do it again. And that is
    what happened in this case. Same thing.
        Q. Mr. President, I am too greedy. I want to make two questions.
        The President. You've got it. [Laughter] They have another way of
    doing it over here, saying ``and a followup,'' you know. They'll ask you
    something unrelated and call it a followup so they can get two.

    Syria-U.S. Relations

        Q. You made a step toward Syria and a good--relationship with them.
    How do you see now the relation between the United States and Syria
    regarding Lebanon, especially?
        The President. We've had some differences with Syria that we have
    spoken very frankly about regarding terrorism and other things. I think
    that because we were able to work together with Syria here and we did
    this--there was a lot of advice coming from other coalition partners
    that encouraged me to take additional steps toward Syria. Because of
    that I think we have a much better chance to work with them toward peace
    in Lebanon.
        Syria has interests there. We're not saying they have no interests
    there. But these Taif accords are still valid, and the steps that the
    Arab leaders took there in terms of getting all forces out and
    democratization or better representation in the government inside
    Lebanon, those are good things.
        But I think the key point to your question is, because we worked
    together on this one problem over here, the Gulf, and some doubts about
    each other were kind of laid to rest, we have a chance now to work
    toward the solution of other problems. And you know, they are very--we
    have said very intractable on the Israeli question, and they have said
    we have been overly one-sided. At least we're talking. And at least they
    did what they said they'd do, and we did what we said we'd do.
        And so, I think in terms of Lebanon, we've got a window--we've got a
    big door we can walk in, not a window but a door, where we can openly
    discuss things in a much better way. I know I feel that way about
    relations there. I think our Secretary of State does. And still, I don't
    want to suggest we have no problems with Syria or any other country. But
    we can talk about them more frankly without the door being slammed. And
    that can help Lebanon, that can help it.

    Arab-U.S. Relations

        Q. How do you see, Mr. President, your relation with so-called
    Arabic-solution states?
        The President. Good, and better. It depends who you mean. Morocco
    was an Arab-solution state, and I feel very respectful of and friendship
    toward His Majesty the King [Hassan II]. I mean, that wasn't strained by
    this. You've got a problem if you're referring to Jordan.
        Q. The Amman incident.
        The President. Yes, Amman. Let it cool down here, calm, take a
    little time. A little hurt feelings out there, disappointment in the
    United States still there; but a recognition that a stable Jordan is in
    everybody's interests. And I don't want to--I mean, a lot of what
    happened in the Jordan situation was aimed not just against the United
    States but some of the other neighbors in the area.
        And when that happens, I'd like to know how they feel. I'd like to
    know how King Fahd or Hosni Mubarak feels or how the Kuwaitis' Amir
    feels about Jordan--and we can help. I mean, we've had a good
    relationship with the Hashemite King [Hussein I]. But I've expressed my
    public disappointment because I think Jordan has swung way over on this
    question. And I'm not saying it was all his fault because there were
    some people out there in the streets. And they're still out there
    yelling about me, personally, and the whole United States. Obviously I'm
    just this target for that.
        But my view is, hey, we've all got to live together in peace, so
    let's take a little time now and sort this one out. We don't want to see
    a radicalized Jordan, and yet I must confess to a certain disappointment
    in terms of how that Jordanian question will--I'm disappointed with some
    of the Jordan press, frankly, that did nothing but blame everything on
    the United States. They know better than that. And yet they did it.

    [[Page 240]]

        But I've learned in life--maybe it's because I'm 66 now--take a
    little time, let it simmer, and then let's try to put together a more
    peaceful Middle East.
        So, I have no rancor or bitterness. But, again, there is an area--
    let the Arabs work their magic out here. You're talking about an Arab
    solution. Let them come to me and say, all of them, including Jordan:
    Here's the way we ought to work together. And not us try to dictate, to
    say to King Fahd, hey, you've got to do this. He wouldn't do it anyway.
    He's a strong-willed person, knows the area.
        So, my answer: disappointment. Determination to think that one day
    we'll have a better relationship with a country with whom we've always
    had a good relationship, try to recognize their problems. But it's going
    to take time. There is some hurt here, some hurt in the neighborhood;
    there is some damage to a bilateral relationship.
        Q. Mr. President, what is your message to the Arab people?
        The President. A positive signal to the Arab people and that our
    argument has never been with the Arab people, per se. And I hope that
    our participation in this coalition and, if I could move one step
    forward, our leadership of the coalition was not aimed against an Arab
    of any kind. It was aimed in favor of a principle. And that principle,
    again: You don't take over your neighbor by force.
        So, I see some demonstrations in various countries against my
    country, and I have a hurt about that. I guess every American loves to
    be loved, you know, around the world. But it doesn't work that way. And
    yet, I think some of the accusations by fundamentalists against us are
    very untrue, and I will stand up against them.
        But I think the message, it shouldn't be one of recrimination:
    ``Hey, we remember what you said; we're going to get even.'' It ought to
    be: ``Look, we tried to stand for what we think was decent and right. We
    tried to stand with respect for principles in the Arab world. We tried
    in the targeting of Iraq to be respectful of their culture,
    archeological, religious, whatever.'' And our argument isn't with Islam;
    our argument isn't with Arabs. And I will stand up against any
    discrimination against Arabs in this country publicly, openly--we've had
    groups in here--and say, ``Damn it, we hurt when you hurt.'' But what we
    stood for was something positive. And I want to keep trying in every way
    possible to get that message across. And it was a positive point about
    which many Arabs can rally.
        And I'm not a student of religion, but I don't find anything in what
    the principal teachings of Islam that put us in contradiction at all. In
    fact, the principles are the same as what--we have a diverse religious
    culture. But it's kindness, it's be good to your neighbor, it's love,
    and it's take care of children. It's all these things that--so there's
    no anti-Islam. There is no anti-Arab. Our role is trying to be positive.
    And when it's said to me, ``The Arab world will turn against you,'' I
    never believed it for a minute. And I don't have any rancor when I see
    some. But if they assign motives to my country that are not correct,
    then I'm going to fight, stand up, and say, wait a minute, you're wrong.
    And we've got some healing to do, but we also have some convincing to
    do.
        Q. By the way, Mr. President, one of the relatives of the Egyptian
    soldiers was a Christian, and he arrived in Kuwait.
        The President. Yes.
        Q. And President Mubarak ordered a special flight to get him because
    all the Moslems were buried in Saudi Arabia. But he's a Christian, he
    was buried in Egypt, and President Mubarak sent up a private flight to
    get him back home.

    Events Prior to the Conflict

        Q. Mr. President, what's the most difficult moment you've been
    through since the crisis?
        The President. Well, we had some difficult ones internally here. And
    one of them was our press was saying I had not convinced the American
    people that what we were doing as an administration was right. And
    Marlin was in on that, General Scowcroft, Bob Gates--we were all in that
    together.
        Mr. Scowcroft. And the Congress.
        The President. And then I'd say the Congress. It was argued I can't
    go to war without the Congress. And I was saying, I have

    [[Page 241]]

    the authority to do this. We had lawyers. But once Congress acted
    affirmatively, it became much clearer to the American people. And so,
    that moment as we were getting down to a congressional vote was a very
    big one.
        I don't think we ever had any real fundamental differences with the
    Arab world once we started--I mean, with the coalition.
        I'm probably forgetting something, but I can't remember exactly.
        Q. How about the Soviets?
        The President. The uncertainty of August. Well, the Soviets stayed
    with us at the U.N. And so, at the end, when they started saying here's
    a peace plan, we knew what we had to do. And I did not assign to them
    the motives that many of our countrymen did, that Gorbachev was playing
    mischief because he was being left out. I really think he wanted to stop
    short of more killing--well, I'm going to feel that way. Others disagree
    with me here. But I don't think it was ever a crisis because we knew
    what we had to do.
        Q. I see.
        The President. Now, if he'd have stood up and said, if you do that
    we're going to blast you, and we're going to lead the Third World in
    opposition--he could have done that.
        Q. Right.
        The President. And he didn't do that. So, it could have been a
    problem, but he conducted himself in that case very well. He tried for
    peace, what he thought was a fair peace, a peace within keeping of the
    U.N. resolution. I was telling him: ``No, it is not, President
    Gorbachev, it is not. Stops short; there are conditions. And we've come
    a long way; we can't accept conditions.''
        But it never got to be--I wouldn't say that one got to be--it had a
    potential of a stumbling block, but it didn't really get there. And then
    I guess the major, not bump in the road but decision on our part was,
    what happens when you commit your young people to war? How many are
    going to be killed? There was a picture in Life magazine, 50,000 graves
    dug. Argument in this country used against me, of us, was body bags.
    That's a horrible image to people across our country. You're going to
    put my son in a body bag to fight for a country halfway around the
    world? So, the actual commitment of force, whether it was first the air,
    then the ground, from the U.S. standpoint was an important decision.
        Again, we knew we had to do this. We've committed to do this. But
    the timing presented a problem and all of that. But on balance, though,
    it went, I think, fairly smoothly.
        Q. It's over.
        The President. It's over, thank God.

                        Note: The interview began at 10:18 a.m. in the Oval
                            Office at the White House. The following
                            journalists were participated: Nadir Yata of Al-
                            Bayan, Morocco; Said Sonbol of Al-Akhbar, Egypt;
                            Mohammed Rumaihi of Sawt Al-Kuwait, Kuwait; and
                            Othman Al-Omeir of Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Saudi
                            Arabia.

        In the interview, the following persons were referred to: President
    Saddam Hussein of Iraq; Secretary of State James A. Baker III; President
    Mohammed Hosni Mubarak of Egypt; King Hussein I of Jordan; Yasser
    Arafat, leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization; Abdullah Yacoub
    Bishara, Secretary General of the Gulf Cooperation Council; Jamil Murad
    Baroody, former Saudi Ambassador to the United Nations; Minister of
    Foreign Affairs Ahmed Esmat Abdel Meguid of Egypt; Amir Jabir al-Ahmad
    al-Jabir al-Sabah of Kuwait; King Fahd bin `Abd al-`Aziz Al Sa`ud of
    Saudi Arabia; King Hassan II of Morocco; Marlin Fitzwater, Press
    Secretary to the President; Brent Scowcroft, Assistant to the President
    for National Security Affairs; and Robert M. Gates, Assistant to the
    President and Deputy for National Security Affairs.
        The interview was released by the Office of the Press Secretary on
    March 10. A tape was not available for verification of the content of
    the interview.