Remarks to the media by Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, July 8 2008

Ambassador Khalilzad: We have spent the morning focused on Zimbabwe. It's our intent to hold consultations on our draft resolution this afternoon at 3:00, and we want to go to a vote on the resolution as soon as possible. You've heard me say before that we want a vote this week, and that's the schedule we are on. I'd be happy to take your questions.

Reporter: Ambassador, some indications that the Russians are not on board for sanctions resolutions, that they don't necessarily believe the G8 statement as being a reference to action by the Security Council. Can you give a sense of that - of whether you think you can overcome that?

Khalilzad: Well, you'll have to ask the Russians on this. The decision, or the discussions rather, inside, there is broad agreement that has been reflected by the statements that I heard that the Council cannot be indifferent to what has happened, that action is required. There are differences of view on exactly what should be done. There are some who argue that only political pressure is needed. We are of the view that we have been there and done that and have failed to get results. We did a PRST, the Security Council, saying conditions for free and fair elections were not present. It did not produce the results that the Council expected. Mugabe ignored the Council's PRST, he ignored the Secretary-General's request. Then we did - as the President of Council I was authorized to speak further on the matter, and again, that was ignored.

So we believe in order to produce an acceptable situation, a situation in which the people of Zimbabwe would be able to overcome the crisis of legitimacy that they face, there is a need either for conditions to be created for a new election to be held that is free and fair or a transitional arrangement that is broadly acceptable, meaning acceptable to the opposition as well, which did better than the government party, and did better - Mr. Tsvangirai than Mr. Mugabe in the earlier elections.

So we believe that if one is serious about the situation, given the record that we have had with Mr. Mugabe, we need to add pressure to incentivize him to cooperate. That's why what we have proposed is very tailored, very focused sanctions, an arms embargo, and targeted sanctions on individuals in whose hand it is to allow a process to start that can produce results that I talked about. And, there is a review clause, you've probably have read it, that if they cooperate, if the situation moves in the right direction, those sanctions can be reviewed. I believe the majority, a clear majority of the Council members who spoke and the numbers that are necessary for a resolution to pass, assuming there is no veto, are there in support of the course that I have outlined. I think they are persuaded by the argument that we have to act and we have to act in a way that incentivizes cooperation and helps get Zimbabwe out of the current crisis.

Reporter: You said in the course that you've laid out, you're talking about -you think you have nine votes for sanctions, for arms embargo, and for...

Khalilzad: For a resolution, in other words. Yes I believe we do.

Reporter: So, no changes to the text, the range of sanctions?

Khalilzad: With no significant changes, let's put it that way. There has been no significant change proposed.

Reporter: (inaudible)...significant changes?

Khalilzad: Well I don't want to see some word somewhere somebody has changed and you will tell me there is a change. That's why I'm saying no substantive change, no change of content if you like.

Reporter: (Inaudible) that this idea is not supported by - that the Security Council action is not supported by the G8 statement. What do you say to that?

Khalilzad: Well of course you all have the statement that the G8 has issued. We believe that the G8 has provided the support needed for us here to move. We were going to move in any case. Our action predated the G8 statement - our draft resolution predates the G8 statement but we see in the statement support for us to continue the course that we were on, and as I said before we believe absent a veto, which we do not anticipate, but you can't rule it out, but we do not anticipate, the votes are there to move forward on this resolution.

Reporter: Don't you prefer to wait for the African mediation efforts by Mbeki and others before moving forward? When do you expect this resolution to move forward?

Khalilzad: Well I said - perhaps you've joined us just now - as I've said before and there is no change, that I expect a vote on this resolution this week, as soon as possible but this week. With regard to the mediation, we support mediation. The mediation has not been effective as it has been conducted so far. It has been going on for a long time, and therefore, in order to make the mediation more effective we are adding some elements to the equation, that there should be more of a UN, also, role in support, and that's why we say the Secretary-General should appoint someone. And two: put pressure on those who are responsible for the circumstances that Zimbabwe is in, those who hold the cards, to a significant degree, and that those who need to change their attitude in order for progress to be made. Those are the fourteen individuals in particular that we are focused on in terms of tailored sanctions. So, this is not an alternative to negotiations, to mediation. This is in support of, to create circumstances for increased potential for effectiveness of mediation in dealing with people like Mr. Mugabe and others you need to have, I'm sorry to use this terminology, carrots but also sticks. We are trying to put a few sticks into the equation with the hope and expectation that that would effect this calculation and increase prospects...

Reporter: You believe that what's going on in Zimbabwe, in accordance to the charter, is a threat for international peace and security, and needs sanctions under Chapter VII?

Khalilzad: Well we believe so. And you have to remember, the charter was after WWII, the definition of threat has evolved. You look at how the thinking of world leaders about threats has evolved. The threats of the Cold War versus the threats of this new world are not exactly the same. As any living institution or document it has to adapt. Even those who are - and I am not going to name names, but I could - who say we shouldn't do what we are proposing to do, say that the situation in Zimbabwe has destabilized the region. They say that. A quarter of the population of Zimbabwe are now in the neighbouring countries. That puts a huge burden - there is more violence to come - which people anticipate if the circumstances are not resolved in Zimbabwe. There will be more people leaving Zimbabwe to come to the neighboring states. That affects the stability of the neighbouring states. You already have seen incidents in South Africa and other places...

Reporter: I would like to follow up, if I may? You do have thousands of Mexicans for instance, that flee from Mexico to the U.S. Does that mean that this destabilizes the U.S.?

Khalilzad: Those are economic refugees. Of course as you know we have processes to deal with that. What we have here is that you have a situation caused by a regime. Using, and I want to compliment the Washington Post for the piece on Saturday, that indicated in great detail just shows that there may be differences inside the regime now that some are willing to come out, as to how they did it, what happened after the March elections. How the military got together with the president, how they put this plan, (inaudible) idea, whatever it was called, to go after the opposition. What you see there is a result of political violence, intimidation, use of military instruments, instruments of war that should defend Zimbabwe used against the people of Zimbabwe that affects the entire region and therefore we cannot...

Reporter: (inaudible)

Khalilzad: No.

Reporter: Where are we on the settlement activities resolution?

Khalilzad: Well we have met with our Arab colleagues yesterday, and have had a discussion with them. We believe that a resolution that only deals with the settlement issue and does not deal with other obligations, obligations that others have and that they are in violation of, would not have sufficient support in the Council to go into effect. So we have urged them to consider other elements to go for a balanced resolution that could find the support necessary in the Council. I understand they have had meetings, and I think they have got elements from a number of countries, and we are waiting to hear back from them.

Reporter: (inaudible) from the United States not liking...

Khalilzad: It depends on the resolution. As I said, if it is a one sided resolution, it would not have the support necessary, and I would leave it at that, for it to pass.

Reporter: The Russians are going to say they opposed the resolution on Zimbabwe. How do you counter that or isn't this resolution really DOA?

Khalilzad: I don't believe it is so, we will see. I said - I don't know whether you were here at the beginning, that the votes are there for it to pass absent a veto, and I - this has not been communicated to me that they will oppose this resolution, they have not stated that, that they will use their veto. We'll see - I don't want to speak for them. I have my guesses to where they will come out. I do not believe that they have decided to vote against the resolution. Thank you very much.

Transcript issued by the United States Mission to the United Nations, New York, July 8 2008