Back in September of 2003, eniGma’s Founder & CEO Yasmine Shihata got to have a sit down interview with former US Senetor Joseph Biden, long before his two terms as vice president to Obama. Just a month ago, Biden was sworn in as the 46th president of the United States after making a historical win in the 2020 elections. To celebrate his inauguration and his presidency, here’s blast from the eniGma past…
One of the most respected voices on national security and civil liberties in the US, Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. has earned national and international recognition as a policy innovator, effective legislator and party spokesman on a wide range of key issues. He is the top Democrat on both the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Victims’ Rights, and is a central player on one of the most important issues facing the USA; from crime prevention and constitutional law to international relations and arms control.
As the Ranking Member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Biden is also the Democratic party’s chief spokesman on national security and foreign policy issues. Senator Richard Lugar, who currently chairs the Foreign Relations Committee, said: “Senator Biden has a very strong commitment to a bipartisan foreign policy and serves as a good example for everyone in Congress. He has a very broad, comprehensive view of the world. He’s a good listener, but he’s also a strong and effective advocate of his position.”
And that conunent is indeed true. I got a chance to catch up with the senator at the World Economic Forum in Jordan, before he headed off on a trip to visit postwar Iraq. I found the Senator very knowledgeable about the Middle East and very charismatic when talking to others and explaining his point of view. He has the like ability of former President Clinton with his own unique style of argument; together all these attributes seem to have guaranteed him political success.
Senator Biden’s comments on the Middle East were both insightful and sometimes surprisingly open minded for a man in his position. Read on to get the full scope of his views on the Middle East; uncensored, unscripted and straightforward honest.
How do you describe yourself? Where in the political spectrum do you fit?
I’m in the democratic opposition party to the President of the United States. I consider myself an internationalist who believes very strongly in the need for international institutions but also feels very strongly that the international laws have to be maintained; when the international rules we all agree upon are breached, they must be enforced. So I find myself somewhat at odds with some traditional democrats and some Europeans right now who believe that force should never be an option to be used. I believe that force is the last option but an option that has to be part of this tool kit of international agreements; if you set rules and rogue nations or individuals flaunt those rules they have no value unless the world enforces those rules.To put it in prospective, I was one who argued very strongly for the last president to use force in Bosnia because tens of thousand s of people (I might add they were overwhelmingly Muslims) were being slaughtered in a genocide. I supported the war in Iraq but would not have done it the way the President did it.We argued that there was no immediate urgency to do it, we should have continued to work with the world community to gather greater support. So I find myself somewhat at odds with the traditional liberal wing of the Democratic Party and very much at odds with the right wing in the Republican Party. So I don’t know what you’d call me. One journalist in the United State categorised me and people who think like I do as ‘neo-liberals’ (1 don ‘t know what that means). The bottom line is there is a legitimate need for a muscular foreign policy that is always better used in the context of international organisations in consensus. But when it’s clear that international rules are being flaunted, then the United States should reserve the right to use force; but not as the first tool and not as it’s major tool.
The counter argument is if you do follow international Then how come Israel has flaunted a lot of resolutions, without repercussions?
The notion of whether Israel has violated international rules is in fact arguable. Let me explain what I mean by that; let’s take the notion where Israel has agreed that they would negotiate under the UN resolutions. They did negotiate, you may not like the effect of the final judgment but I think in my private conversations with Arab leaders, if they could have Taba all over again, they would take it right now. They would take it and they would say this is a fine settlement to the problem. But because of the lowest common denominator that prevailed on the Palestinian side, Mr. Arafat, there was a rejection of what was offered. Everyone has to admit at least Israel went 90% of the way.You could argue whether they violated international law, but it ‘s arguable. Let’s take Saddam by comparison, Saddam Hussein invaded another nation, the entire world said it was a breach of international law, he sued for peace, he made sworn agreements that he said he would abide by under the UN, it was clear he was not abiding by them and there was no question that he was attempting to abide. He just flat out said ‘I will not abide by them , period’. The corollary would be that if tomorrow the prime minister of Israel said ‘I reject all UN resolutions, we’re no part of it, and I reject them flat out’.They didn’t say that, they said we would in fact negotiate. Now a lot of Arabs don’t like the result of the negotiation. They don’t believe it was in good faith. But it is a very different situation.
For many the violation is the octupation of Palestinian territories …
What is the violation of the. occupation? Look at the UN resolutions, every nation has a right to self-defense. Let’s define the occupation. There were two occupations in the minds of the Arab world, one was after Israel was attacked they counterattacked and occupied territory that they won in victory. Today Syria says the Golan is occupied, today the Palestinians say that the mere fact Israel is in Jerusalem, makes it an occupied city. But most of the world doesn’t believe that is an occupation. Most of the world believes that was a result of a war that was not caused by the Israelis; they responded to it and the UN resolution said you should negotiate this. Now there is a second type of occupation we talk about today; the Intifada occurred several times, but the last one (which has continued now over three years) resulted with the Israelis moving back into territories they had moved out of. So when you ask people about occupation, it’s important to ask what they mean about occupation.And so the second ‘occupation’ if you will, is one that is arguable in large portions of the world, done in response (to the Intifada) as self-defence. How long would Egypt, for exam{Me, stay out of the Sinai, if every fourth day buses are being blown up in Cairo and Egyptians are being killed and someone sitting in the Sinai says ‘I take credit for that and I am very proud of having done that’?
So again I understand there’s a long history that’s hard to unravel here, and there are legitimate grievances on both sides but the notion that this is an occupation without any justification is a hard case to make. It’s a hard case to make when you have somebody sitting in Northern Gaza firing rockets into an area killing innocent civilians and saying ‘by the way Israel you have no right to go there and nail them’. What other nation would sit by and say ‘it’s ok, we said we wouldn’t occupy’. My point is that it’s a different circumstance than if Israel tomorrow said ‘you know I don’t like Egypt’s attitude, and we’re gonna invade Egypt.’ That’s what Saddam did to Kuwait. The response from that war, (which was an aggressive war by Saddam) was unambiguous and the commitments he made were unambiguous.
The reverse is true in Israel; some will say the UN had no right to recognise an Israeli state to begin with, isn’t that the core of the difference here? The core of the difference here is understandable; I’m not making a value judgement. It’s understandable the Palestinian people say ‘we were displaced by Israel with the sanction of the world, 60 years ago’. A legitimisation of the state of Israel by the rest of the world was never accepted, and you can argue understandably, by the Palestinians. That’s a different kind of occupation, that’s not occupation in the same sense.
Doesn’t the settlement of West Bank alter the idea of occupation as a defense for lsrael? Because it’s an alteration of reality and that’s not allowed under international law.
I think you are right, and I’ve been outspoken ” against ·It has been since the time of Prime Minister Begin. I got in public and national arguments with him about permanent settlements; my argument then was that if your security is at stake put a military garrison in there; if you think you have to have it. But don’t put in a permanent settlement because that makes it virtually impossible to disengage in a way that would be bloodless. But we are where we are and I do think (as I have publicly stated) Israel should dismantle settlements that are illegal since the last resolutions are clearly beyond any dispute. And they’re beginning in a very small way to do that.You can argue that why would anyone on the Palestinian side believe the man who made his mark politically by talking about Judean , Sumerian and greater Israel? I say for the same reason why Sadat moved over, and Rabin made a big change. Because the Israeli people understand their democratic future rests only in a two state solution and I think the majority of the Palestinians in their heart know that their only chance for peace is a genuine two state solution. Now it has taken us a hell of a long time to get there but the reason why I believe that Mr. Sharon will in fact adhere to the Road Map (if in fact there is progress on the terror side of it) is because the Israeli people will demand it of him.
Throughout the region, people are tired, Israelis and Palestinians, average people who pack their child’s lun ch for school and send them out the door and live in fear that their child will not come back; that they will be the by-product of an air missile that was going after a Palestinian or that they’ll be on a bus that some terrorist blows up. I believe we are at a point where we push through and insist on the Road. Map, it will marginalise the extremists. We have a chance and we can’t go back and re-litigate what happened 60 years ago, which is the bulk of the concern on the Palestinian side.
Where do u think we will be in 5 to 10 years time, looking forward?
I have been around too long to not have the humility to stand back from that answer. But I can tell you where I hope we will be. I hope we will be in a place where there are two independent states with contiguous borders that are viable and that there is increased democratisation generated from the Arab people in their own countries with the support of the international community. And I hope we will have an international recognition that targeting women and children for whatever justified reason is never justified. I hope the world community would have moved in that direction. That’s my wish and in my business, optimism is an occupational requirement. For were I not optimistic and I could not make myself believe that, then I should leave this business and go out in the private sector (and make a lot of money and live a lot better than I’m living now)!