|
|
 |
Interviews
United States Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee represents the 18th congressional district in Houston, Texas. She has served on the judiciary committee and the homeland security committee. Recently, reporter Rami Eljundi caught up with the congresswoman as she visited Qatar. In an exclusive interview with World Internet News, Jackson-Lee talks about the Middle East.
What is your evaluation of recent events in the Middle East?
It is a disappointment that we have not under the present administration been able to use diplomacy in a more effective way, particularly as it relates to Iraq and certainly to the crisis in the Middle East between Israel and the Palestinians. A noteworthy example is the whole scenario of the leadings to the war in Iraq. Many of us who do not consider ourselves intimidated from the potential of conflict or war, we are aware that we live in a very difficult set of international circumstances. So, we do not accept any accusations of our positions being characterized as anti-patriotic.
How do you view the Bush Administration overall?
We view the path of the present administration as corroding the international standards the United States had as a negotiator, a mediator and a compromiser for good. Frankly, we lost our way. We did not allow the UN inspectors to proceed in completing their work and did not allow a vigorous international debate before the decision was made to go into Iraq. There were those of us who voted ‘No’ even based upon the overwhelming evidence that this administration tried to present. We have come to the understanding that much of what the members of Congress heard was misrepresenting and misleading. So, that counters what we have been known for in the United States and that is our diplomacy, our willingness to listen, our ability to negotiate. I am very proud that through the years as member of congress, I have been able to engage in the Mideast process with a number of agreements.
What about the Oslo Accords?
Now, the Oslo agreement has been marginalized and a number of other agreements have been marginalized. But at the time that they occurred, both the prime minister of Israel and the head of government of the Palestinian Authority thought they were reputable agreements. They created at least windows of peace. I do not take lightly opportunities for negotiations and engagement. Even though Saddam Hussein can be considered someone who viciously treated many of his country persons -- men and women -- it would have been a much better statement and created an opportunity for long lasting peace if the United States had engaged in international diplomacy and had drawn allies from around the world over a period of time. Then, demanded the removal of Saddam Hussein in a peaceful manner. So, the transition of government would not be in the near collapse that it is today -- which as everyone knows is near civil war.
What do you think has come out of all of this?
I think because of the way the United States entered into Iraq, we have created this set of circumstances. Let me be very clear. I take no back seat to anyone in acknowledging the bravery, courage and duty of the soldiers who we have sent. Any country that is part of the world family has a military of swords. The military follows the commander in chief, so in essence the military followed their commander in chief in their instructions. There were some unfortunate instructions that generated some very hostile scenes that none of us are proud of like the Abu-Ghraib [prison] situation. We do applaud the military soldiers, the US military and the soldiers who followed orders. I like to separate the orders from the leadership that should come from the political government.
Are you calling for return of soldiers back home?
The soldiers should now be brought home. Whatever charge or challenge there was, they have completed their duty. Now, we must try to pick up the pieces of international diplomacy and reach out for international allies particularly the Arab states to assist us in the reconstruction, rebuilding the political sophistication of Iraq. This administration is having a very difficult time listening to reasoned members of the US Congress who have argued vigorously that it is time to bring soldiers home and to yield to international diplomacy. I will be going back to the US Congress and continue to raise my voice on these issues.
Do you really see Iran as a threat?
I see Iran as a nation state that is part of the world of governments. I view them as having the ability to overcome by way of negotiations, diplomacy and discussion.
Doesn’t Iran have the right to pursue nuclear technology for peaceful reasons?
I think the issue has to be on established world policy and I think the world policy is that if you cannot adhere to democratic principles, if you can show that your usage of any force is only in defense. So I will not point to Iran as if [it] should or should not. What I will say is that this has to be done in an effective way so all nations feel they are equal. So Qatar feels it is equal, Jordan feels it is equal, Kuwait feels it is equal and many others of the Arab states feel they are equal in the region. Right now, they do not feel that way.
What about Democracy?
What is the basic premise? The minority must have involvement in society. You can have different cultural practices that you accept. But if you are going to adopt democracy in government, then the government itself must allow the minority to be heard.
© Copyright World Internet News 2006-07
Top of Page
|
|
|
|
