Ambassador Ryan Crocker Interview with Dean Yates Reuters

January 24, 2008

Transcript                                                                                 

QUESTION:  Ambassador, I guess I’ll just – I’ll make a start, if that’s all right.  Iran’s fairly topical at the moment.  I’m just wondering what the latest situation was there as far as the next round of talks are concerned. 

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  Well, some time ago, in response to the Iraqi invitation, we said, you know, we’re ready.

QUESTION:  Yeah.

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  Give us about 24 hours notice.  And we’ve been waiting ever since.  So we’re set to go.  We’ve communicated that to the Iraqis.  The Iranians are, for whatever reason, holding back.

QUESTION:  Oh, really?  Okay, so they’re the ones who are causing the delays?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  Right.  But you have no – there’s no indication of what that cause might be?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  Well, again, I do not spend a lot of time speculating about how decisions are made in Iran.  And it would be just that.  After a lot of, as you saw at the end of the year, talk coming out of Iran, they want to have these discussions, and then just suddenly appears to have gone quiet. 

QUESTION:  Right.  Because I think it was early – it was early November, wasn’t it, after the Istanbul meeting or at the Istanbul meeting, when you had said even that far long ago that you expected talks quite soon.

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  And again, basically, we’re – we are and have been ready and we’ve signaled that since late last year.

QUESTION:  Right.  When we say talks with, we’re talking about ambassadorial-level talks with your Iranian counterpart or are you talking about the security committee?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  Well, there are two levels, as you know.  Our view had been, still is, that it makes the most sense to start at the security committee level and survey the issues and then report back, and on that basis for my counterpart and I then to engage to have it prepared a little bit.

QUESTION:  Right.  So the talks we’re talking about that are delayed are the talks between the two -- security committees?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  Right.

QUESTION:  Not talks between yourself and your counterpart?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  Right, although, again, we would be quite ready to do one and then do the other.  But we think there is a sequence. 

QUESTION:  Yeah, yeah.  How much is the United States getting out of these talks, do you think?  There have been three rounds so far.  How beneficial have they really been when you look back at what Iran’s role has been here?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  I don’t think you can come to any conclusions.  Going into these talks, I had the view and still have it that this would be a long, long-term, long-range proposition; that given the nature of the U.S.-Iranian relationship in general, the complexity of the issues here, that it would just be out of the question to expect quick results. 

But I continue to believe that Iran’s stated policy is actually one that does serve their long-term interests and their stated policy is support for a stable, democratic Iraq that exercises control of its own territory, doesn't threaten its neighbors.  The problem is their actions on the ground contradict their policy.  But you know, given the stated policy, given I think both the history of the Iran-Iraq relationship and a sort of a rational analysis of what would serve their interests, I would hope for some alignment there.

QUESTION:  I mean, it’s now nearly six months since I think Maliki got that – or the Iraqi Government got that pledge from the Iranians that the Iranians would do more to rein in their – the influence – the negative influences here.  How would you asses that now, where we are today?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  Again, it is extremely difficult to draw the linkages back from events as they play out here.  We have seen Muqtada al-Sadr's stand-down order of late August, seen it reiterated.  We've seen a decline in certain types of activities -- indirect fire on the international zone.  Both of those may or may not involve Iranian influence.  On the other hand, we have seen clear evidence of ongoing Iranian training of members of the special groups.  EFP explosive foreign projectile attacks, you know, I've kind of stopped trying to draw conclusions there.  They went up rather dramatically the first part of January, have come down now.  But there are so many factors that could go into that, I really can't deduce a conclusion.

QUESTION:  Right.  What do you make of the Iranian President Ahmadi-Nejad has accepted an invitation to come to Baghdad?  There's no date yet, but what do you make of that?  Do you consider it a positive thing?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  Well, it's -- that is, as I understand it, something that goes back months and months.  And as you know in the world of international relations, states are always extending and accepting invitations.  I have no idea, you know, when or if he will visit.  I would not read too much into it one way or the other, quite frankly, nor would I expect anything dramatic to come out of it.

QUESTION:  No great pledges of -- I mean, obviously there'd be pledges of support for the Iraqis, but no great changes to what's happening on the ground.  Is that what you mean?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  Well, if the Iranians decide, again, to align their actions on the ground with their stated policy, there could be lots of opportunities they could seize on to go ahead and do that.  But you know, that's the important thing, not whether or not there's a visit or what is said during a visit if it takes place, but what they actually do. 

QUESTION:  What do you make of the fact that your counterpart is a Quds Force member -- the Iranian Ambassador?  Does that bother you at all?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  Look, I deal with him in his capacity as the Iranian Ambassador.  But I think clearly that fact suggests how Iran is approaching its relationship with Iraq, which is, shall we say, not through traditional channels and state-to-state relations.

QUESTION:  Yeah.  You were just talking about Muqtada al-Sadr.  You may have seen some comments attributed to David Satterfield overnight in Al Hayat.  I was just wondering if you have any -- are you able to confirm if there have been any suggestions by leaders of the Sadrist organization or within the Mahdi army that they are willing or they want some sort of open dialogue with either U.S. military or U.S. officials?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  Well, the fact is that we do have contact with members of the Sadr trend. 

QUESTION:  But these are not -- these are more local level people, aren't they?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  Well, I don't know how you would define local.  We don't talk to, say, Muqtada al-Sadr, obviously.  We do talk to members of the trend here in Baghdad, for example.  We have always said that we consider the Sadr movement to be a political movement, part of the Iraqi political landscape.  We're certainly ready to sit down and talk with them.  We think it's important that they play a constructive role and not, as we've seen through Jaish al-Mahdi and particularly the special groups, a destructive one.  You know, the Sadr movement, as you know, has deep and important roots from the days of Mohammed Sadeq al-Sadr.  And as an expression of both the unique Iraqi identity of this country and its people and their Arab identity, I think in the '90s it was a very positive one. 

QUESTION:  But did you get any sense that the top forms of the Sadrists want to engage peacefully with the United States?  Is there anything that suggests that?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  Well, again, as we've said, we're quite ready to sit down and talk with them or any others who want to deal with this.  I guess the indication would be if they pick up the invitation.

QUESTION:  What about issuing an invitation to sit down with Muqtada, yourself and Muqtada?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  Well, it would be -- I think first we would need to be in the same country together (inaudible) spending all of his time next door.

QUESTION:  Right.  In Iran.

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  Right.

QUESTION:  Was there any conscious decision to start referring to him using the honorific Sayyid?  I notice you just used it then. 

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  I do.  I have also referred to his father that way.  I mean, it's -- that is his and his father's title.  It's something I kind of do automatically.

QUESTION:  Right.  It's just something I can't recall (inaudible) using -- American officials using before the ceasefire, for example. 

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  Well, I wouldn't read anything particular into it.  It's certainly the way I refer to figures of any political persuasion that have that title.

QUESTION:  How important is it for Iraq to cease -- that the Mahdi army ceasefire is extended?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  Well, I think it's extremely important to Iraq that they move beyond the point, that Iraqis move beyond the point where ceasefires on the part of militias are a factor.  In a sense, the very fact that Jaish al-Mahdi has announced a ceasefire suggests the extent to which they are part of Iraq's problem.  And I think it's extremely important as we move through 2008 that Iraq find a way to deal with militia presence, because it is absolutely contradictory to the development of a stable, secure state.

QUESTION:  But do you think, like, this issue -- the ceasefire expires, theoretically, around the end of February.  Could this be one of the critical moments in 2008 for Iraq -- what happens with this, what Muqtada al-Sadr decides to do?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  Well, certainly it could be.  But my own analysis -- not just mine -- that ceasefire was declared in the first place because the Sadr trend itself needed it, that the reaction to the militant activities of Jaish al-Mahdi was negative and growing on the part of the Iraqi population.  And I think Iraqis, Shia as well as Sunnis, are saying clearly they've had enough of this kind of violence disrupting and destroying their lives.  The Sunnis have said it with respect to al-Qaida and its associated groups, and I think that's what the Shia population is saying about Jaish al-Mahdi, special groups and others.  And I think clearly any organization or trend or figure who wanted to have a political future in this country has to take that into account.  There is -- as you know, I mean, there is a different feel, a different atmosphere around now.  Just as there was a vicious spiral after the 2006 bombing of the mosque in Samarra, there is perhaps something of a virtuous cycle going where repudiations of militias in one area reinforces the same thing in another.  If al-Qaida is out of Sunni neighborhoods, I think Shia neighborhoods take a look and say, well, why on earth would we want a militia on our backs when we're not threatened?

So again, I'm not making any rosy predictions here, but I don't think by any means that Jaish al-Mahdi or Sayyid Muqtada hold all the cards on this.

QUESTION:  Right.  Do you think this year could be a turning point for Iraq?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  Well, I guess it's the way all our minds work; you tend to want to take events and put them in a framework of time.  You know, who knows?  We may be already on the other side of that turning point.  We'll have to see how events play out.  I mean, I do think that there are clearly different emphases.  You know, yesterday I was out on Mutanabbi Street, you know, the site of that horrific car bomb.

QUESTION:  The book street.

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  Exactly -- a little over a year ago – then I went down through the Sharja market, also the site of two bad car bombings, and wound up having lunch at a newly reopened restaurant on Abu Nawas.

QUESTION:  You should have popped into our office for a couple of seconds.

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  Well, you're right across the way there.  And you know, in talking to people on Mutanabbi Street, nobody is talking about security anymore.  They're comfortable.  They're open.  They're doing business.  Now it's we need services -- the damn municipality, you know, where's the water, how come they didn't finish the sewer project, how come we have to rely on generators?  So you know, this will be a year in which security gains will have to be protected and consolidated, but the focus is going to have to be on things like services, on economic opportunity and job creation -- all things that were real hard to do a year ago, between hard and impossible, because of the security environment.  So that is a turn, if you will.  You know, it's already underway.  There is nothing, however, inevitable about it that we just progress from success to success.  It could be undone.  But clearly, the country is in a far better place now than last year.

QUESTION:  Do you see a certain degree of momentum building on the reconciliation at a national level?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  I do.  And again, with violence down, things impossible previously become possible.  Just, you know, watching activities in the Council of Representatives this last week or so, they've really never been so intensively engaged on issues of national legislation as they have been since the beginning of the year.  You know, the budget, provincial powers, accountability and justice -- which they've done.  They even altered the design of the flag.  All of these, of course, contentious issues before, during and after that.  That's still very much part of the landscape.  But the fact that they are all in there -- you know, every political persuasion is part of the debate -- suggests and engagement in the system that, frankly, I find pretty encouraging.

QUESTION:  Is there no going back to the dark days of 2006 and early 2007?  Do you think those days are behind Iraq?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  Well, that's what I'm very careful not to start predicting.  Enormous damage was done during that period.  Intense bitterness remains.  And there are a lot of challenges that are going to have to be carefully and effectively managed to ensure that there is no return, because to be frank, all of the good things that have been accomplished over this past year I think could be reversed.  So no one should go into 2008, I think, with any false set of expectations that it's all safe now, it can be reversed.  I think you've got to continue to build, motivated by the intense commitment to see that there is no backsliding, but not to assume that the country is safe.

QUESTION:  Last year there was always this talk of the window of opportunity and that window of opportunity was closing for reconciliation at sort of a broad national level.  Do you think that window of opportunity – image if you like – is still valid.  That it’s still – these things have to be dealt with in a short period of time?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  Well, I think events are unfolding at about the pace that one could expect.  To have argued that national – major steps toward national reconciliation – must take place during the period in which levels of sectarian violence are extremely high; it’s just – it’s unrealistic.  The violence had to come down.  That has happened.  It needs to come down further.  It certainly needs to be sustained.  But, this has just been a period of really a few months that we have seen that line go down so sharply.  So, if you will, I think that the window really just opened in a meaningful way in the latter part of 2007.  And you’re seeing now responses to it.  I’m not sure ‘window’ is the best metaphor.  It’s more like a passageway through which blockages are removed.  I think what’s important is that the process continue.  I don’t think it’s an issue of ‘Well if provincial elections aren’t held by May, than the window closes.’  I think that pushing for that and other things – but the question is what’s important.  One success kind of shapes the environment to make others progressively easier.  That’s kind of what I would presume.

QUESTION:  Did you expect provincial elections to take place this year?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  Well, again, I’m hearing a new (inaudible) – on that, as well as so many other things.  I was hearing or, most of 2007, was yes, there needs to be provincial elections but it’s difficult; they could be destabilizing; we’ve got to be cautious.  But I’m hearing now – from all the parties – is ‘We’ve got to have those elections.’ 

QUESTION:  This year?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  This year.

QUESTION:  Right.  How significant would that be?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  Oh, I think it could be hugely important in the political development and political stabilization of the country.  In some areas it will bring into the political institutions those who were out of it because of the boycott.  It will allow political forces that may have emerged or strengthened since the last elections their chance to use their influence.  It will all be, I think, a very important, very positive, business. 

QUESTION:  There has been a sense that the provincial powers law needs to pass first.  How important is the provincial powers law?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  It is important, in part because of the almost universal view that they have got to get that done before they move on to elections.  But it is very important in other ways to – there is a lot of tension and stress in the system because governors are not sure of the extent of their authorities.  There’s a constant push-pull between the center and the provinces and it really does need to be resolved.  And this legislation, this debate, is dealing with – certainly for an American with our historic experiences with existential issues – are there emergency conditions under which a governor may take command of central forces?  You know, this gets right down to the essence of a state.  Should the prime minister be able to fire a governor?  You know, in America a governor can be charged with a federal crime, charged in a federal court, sentenced to 20 years in a penitentiary.  And he’s still the governor.  Because the federal government, they can imprison him, but they cannot take away his position.  So, that’s what they’re working on.  And I don’t think it’s going to be today.  I think it is going to be fairly soon.

QUESTION:  Another piece of legislation (inaudible) is the prisoners law, the amnesty law.  What could this do to the whole international reconciliation issue?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  Well again, amnesty is part of reconciliation.  There’s no question.  There is discussion on what the breadth and scope of an amnesty should be and whether this current draft should be – should or can be brought because there are constitutional restrictions on amnesties as well.  So I don’t know how fast it will progress.  But the fact that a draft has been produced and there is a debate over it, again, I find quite encouraging.  The Prime Minister has told me that – told me some time ago – that a general amnesty was a high priority.  But again I don’t think the timing is coincidental.  You could not have brought that kind of bill forward at the height of violence last summer.  Now you can. 

QUESTION:  Just in terms of the bilateral agreement that the United States and Iraq is going to work on:  What will those talks actually do?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  Well we are both in the process of putting together negotiating teams.  I would expect that’ll take a few more weeks.  I would expect that we’ll be ready to sit down in February.

QUESTION:  What sort of level will those talks be held at?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  Well again, we’re still putting all this together.  I think clearly, for both of us, the hard work of negotiation would be at the sub-ministerial level.  That’s certainly how we would approach it.  I would certainly expect to have a significant role in all of this as we move forward.  But given the importance to both of us, this will also have oversight at the highest levels of both governments. 

QUESTION:  What is your vision of this bilateral agreement – how it should look?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  Well, it will have several elements, of course.  I think it’s extremely important because what it will do is frame the bilateral relationship for the years and the decades ahead.  How will our two states relate to each other.  Part of that will be on security, and we’ll be spending a lot of time on these negotiations working through those issues because, as you know, Iraq’s stated position that 2008 will be the last year Iraq will be under a Chapter 7 resolution.  So, working out the legalities of a continuous U.S. force presence will be a key part of this.  But I think it’s also going to be important in shaping the future of our economic interaction and of our overall political relationship.  It will be very much negotiation between two sovereign states.  And a guiding principal for us going forward with this, to ensure that not only what we do but how we do it will reinforce and strengthen Iraq as a sovereign nation.

QUESTION:  When March comes around will you also be presenting to Congress with General Petraeus much like you both did in September?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  Well, I can just say that as a matter of principle to which we both subscribe, what we do, we’ll do it together.

QUESTION:  Right.  Do you think that March – when you both present this testimony – do you think that the security situation might take more of a back seat, compared to September when it was really the -- sort of the Iraqi issue beneath the political situation?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  I think that, again, there is a progression and clearly as security stabilizes more tension is taken by everyone – first and foremost by Iraqis themselves – on all the other things that need to get done.  And that is certainly the political agenda – just the things we were taking about – but it’s also economic development; delivering services and so forth.  That said, it would be dangerous to take security gains for granted.  You simply cannot do that.  We certainly do not.  The Iraqis do not.  And I’m confident that the American people will continue to appreciate that the focus and a commitment on maintaining and improving security is going to continue to be vital to keep the conditions that permit all these vital reinforcing steps to go forward. 

QUESTION:  Is there any timeframe [for when] General Petraeus will make this testimony?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  Nothing has been set definitively.  This will be determined by Congress, and when they decide a time. . . . .

QUESTION:  It will be March.

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  I can’t say that for sure.

QUESTION:  Just wondering how things are going with the new U.S. Embassy, with respect to the move.

AMBASSADOR CROCKER:  It’ll be a phased process.  I would – and again, there’s a series of checks, inspections, re-inspections to be absolutely sure that everything is done and done right.  Those are still underway, so I can’t talk about a specific timetable.  But I would hope that we would begin – begin that move sometime in late Spring.

(End of transcript.)

# # #