2003 Issam M. Fares Lecture
Questions and Answers
February 26, 2003

PRESIDENT BACOW: The first question is an amalgam of a couple of questions, and I took the liberty of putting them together, so it's not specifically identified with one individual. In 1991, you worked tirelessly to assemble an international coalition to support military action in Kuwait. The United Nations Security Council gave its blessing to the intervention, and the U.S. was joined by an extraordinary coalition in a concerted action to overturn Iraq's invasion of its sovereign neighbor. Many viewed your efforts as really heralding a new day in international cooperation. Today the U.S. is poised to launch a preemptive military action against Iraq possibly without U.N. support. The difference between your policy of coalition building and respect for the United Nations, and that of the current administration is striking to some. Are you troubled by the willingness of the U.S. to act unilaterally without broad based international support?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I agree with the President, it would be much better to act with as much international support as possible. The difference between '91 and today is that the objective was clearer, in a way, back when I was President. You could see the occupying forces. You could get the reports of the brutality of the Iraqi soldiers to the Kuwaiti women, and to the torture of the young men. You could see that the forces, in my view, were determined to go even further south to try to take over -- that was my view -- to take over Saudi Arabia. Today it's less clear.

The violations of the U.N. resolutions by Saddam Hussein are clear. But, the question is how much does he have in a way of weapons of mass destruction? That could be debated. But, I think, most people conclude that he has not done what he was called on to do, to fully disarm. So, it's a little fuzzier today.

But, then you have another ingredient today that we didn't have back then. You saw September 11th. Now, I'm not saying that this is a big conspiracy between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, but the United States must do what it can to protect itself and its friends against the use of weapons of mass destruction. And here's somebody that's violated these norms. And, I think, that it is understandable we're trying to get him to live within those resolutions, and whether we stay together enough to make him change his ways without fighting, I don't know, I just don't know.

Q: The next question comes from Aaron Markovitz Schwam who is an undergraduate student here. Mr. President, why is it that you elected not to follow through with support for the Kurdish and Shi'ite uprisings in Iraq following the first Gulf War? As we sit on the eve, or in the midst of another war, is this a decision that you regret?

A: Well, it wasn't a decision really. Here's the thing. We had a mission. And the mission was not to invade Iraq. It wasn't to kill Saddam Hussein. It wasn't to free the Kurds in the north, or the Shi'ites in the south. The mission was to end the aggression. And we tried to do it peacefully. And we tried to do it by diplomatically. And when that didn't work, we fought "the mother of all battles," as Saddam Hussein called it. It lasted one hour in the sands of Kuwait. And we came out, and we kept our word to the United Nations, and to our coalition partners.

But, if we had tried to go in there and then create just more instability in Iraq, I think it would have been very bad for the neighborhood, vis-à-vis Iran for example. And so, if there's a perception that we said, "You go and rise up and we'll help you," that's an erroneous perception. I did say, "I'd like to see the Iraqi people take care of their own problems," because frankly I, and most other leaders in -- well, all the leaders in the Gulf, and Mitterand and, I think, the Brits, certainly -- in Turkey and Mubarak all felt that the people from within would take care of Hussein. That he couldn't exist, you see. So, I was wrong in that. But, not wrong in going to continue the battle. And not wrong in taking military action that might destabilize Iraq in the center, and that very important center in the neighborhood there.

And so, there is this misperception, and I'm glad to have a chance to clear it up.

Q: Next question comes from Seth Purcell, who is another undergraduate student. Mr. President, recently Thomas Friedman wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times in which he implored the United States to consider Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq in exile. Friedman proposed this as a peaceful alternative to war. If America's true intention is regime change in Iraq, would you support such a move -- as a private citizen, of course?

A: As a private citizen, I'd be carrying a sign saying, "Yes, that's a great thing to happen." I'm not sure I think it will happen. But, if we were putting forward a unified opposition, if we were unified in opposition to Saddam Hussein, if he didn't think he could divide us, if he didn't misread large demonstrations in Europe, I think there would be a good chance that he would get out of there. And, I think, everybody would support it. And I'm sure the administration would.

Q: The next question comes one of the members of our faculty, Bruce Boghosian, a mathematician. While you were Vice President and then later President, the administration provided substantial amounts of arms to Saddam Hussein. He was the same man then as he is now. He had already accumulated weapons of mass destruction and used them against Iran and against his own people. Was this a mistake? Do you regret it?

A: I think what he's referring to is that some arms were shipped to Saddam Hussein when they were in the middle of the battle with Iran. Not after that. I don't think we did that. They got on me about extending agricultural credits to him, because we thought that there would be a chance to modify his behavior by helping out his people. But, I don't believe we did do that. But, I think, the reason that it might have happened in the Reagan administration is that they did not want to see Iran prevail in that war. And so there was Henry Kissinger. I was U.N. Ambassador when the war between India and Pakistan was on. And they were talking about Kissinger tilting towards Pakistan.

Well, in this instance, we probably did tilt towards Iraq. And some were very hopeful that Saddam Hussein would not go down the path he has now gone. So, there is a different feel. I never thought he'd actually go into Kuwait and do what he did. But, I don't think many other people did too, because the man just flat lied to Mubarak and to King Hussein.

Q: The next question comes from another ex-baseball player at Tufts, our former Provost, Sol Gittleman. Menacham Begin's settlement policy began nearly 30 years ago. Do we have any controls on the Likud policy and Sharon? Your Minister Baker was the last one to try. And since then it seems that no one has.

A: Well, actually, you don't have control over a sovereign country. I remember refusing to give Israel loan guarantees for settlements, if they continued to build settlements in the occupied territories. I said, "We're not going to do it." And I paid a hell of a price for it. But, I think, all of us felt that again we would like to see Resolution 242 going forward with. I was encouraged under Bill Clinton when Barak got together there at Camp David and then the Oslo Accords came, and everybody was saying, "This might work; there might be a chance for real peace. The parties are talking to each other."

But, I don't remember the Baker mission particularly being involved in that. But, he was a very active, and very good Secretary of State, in my mind, and he tried very hard to be a catalyst for peace there.

Q: For our last question, President Bush, we're going to take you back to China. And this question comes from a Fletcher student, Irving Chang. As a former U.S. Ambassador to China, what can the U.S. do to improve China's human rights policy? It's known that China has helped North Korea's nuclear program, along with other nuclear proliferation deals, with countries such as Iran. And why shouldn't we list China as one of the evil axis? Are we nurturing China, a giant future threat, as many countries did when Hitler's Germany was rising to power?

A: Look, I lived in China as the Ambassador in 1974 and 1975. China is now where we want to see them in terms of human rights today. But, China is so far advanced over where China was back then that it isn't even debatable. It is not even debatable. Now, China I do not think seeks hegemony. I do not think China wants to take over the world. They're feeding one billion two hundred million people, and they're doing it pretty darn well. And the reason they can do it is they've got a market economy model now working. Working wonders. They've unleashed the entrepreneurial spirit of China. And so, yeah, they fall short on some ways. But, they can also work very closely with us in other ways.

And I found that you can't remake everybody to be just like we look at it from Tufts University or Texas on human rights or on refugees or on anything else. And there's a proud sovereign country. I think leave out the Middle East right now, but I think it is perhaps the most important bilateral relationship the United States has in terms of whether your kids, my grand kids will live in peace. I think it is that big. And we do not want to "make an enemy" out of China. And there's many things where we can work constructively with them. And sometimes they can be difficult, and I think sometimes they think we're difficult.

But, I don't see China as anything but a potential partner and ally certain in the near term. And I don't think the fact that they might abstain on a resolution, or even vote against a resolution means that we ought to turn on China. Everybody is not going to do it exactly our way, whether it's on human rights or on the economy or these other things. And so you're speaking to one who believes in the importance of the relationship. And I've been invited by Jiang Zemin to go back to the Olympics. My only problem is I might not be alive by then. But, I want to go. And, I think, it's a good thing the Olympics are going to be in China. So, that's it.

[Back to Former President Bush's Remarks]

Additional Coverage:
[President Bacow's Remarks]
[Issam Fares's Remarks]
[Leila Fawaz's Remarks]