15 April 2002
U.S. Has Confidence in UN Weapons Inspector Blix
(State Department spokesman stresses Iraq's obligations) (1030)
The United States has full confidence in Hans Blix, head of the
commission charged with carrying out weapons inspections in Iraq, said
State Department Deputy Spokesman Philip Reeker.
"Dr. Blix has our full confidence," Reeker said at a State Department
regular briefing April 15. "He stressed that his mandate is to conduct
a thorough, no-holds-barred inspection of Iraq's compliance with its
obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolution 687."
Blix, who is from Sweden, chairs the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and
Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC). The commission, created in 1999 by
the Security Council to replace the former UN Special Commission
(UNSCOM), is mandated to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass
destruction and to perform monitoring and verification of Iraq's
compliance with the Security Council obligations.
The deputy spokesman emphasized that "Iraq has to comply fully and
unconditionally with all applicable U.N. Security Council
resolutions," including accepting the return of U.N. weapons
inspectors and cooperating fully with them.
Asked about Iraq's recent request to postpone a meeting with UNMOVIC
representatives, Reeker said, "Postponement of meetings is another
clear example of the regime's unwillingness to comply with its
obligations to the U.N. Security Council."
"We see...no basis or need for prolonged discussion on Iraq's
obligations. They are very well known; they're spelled out in Security
Council resolutions, and they have not changed," he said.
Following is an excerpt dealing with Iraq from the State Department
transcript:
(begin excerpt)
QUESTION: On Iraq, would the United States be satisfied with an
acceptance of Iraq or an agreement by Iraq and the UN to accept
inspectors? And would the United States also be satisfied with the
performance of Hans Blix, who chairs the commission that will inspect
if there is an agreement? There is a report in The Washington Post
that mentioned that Mr. Paul Wolfowitz had asked for some information
on his performance before, and he was sort of unsatisfied or unhappy
with it. Would the United States be happy with Hans Blix at the head
of this commission?
MR. REEKER: I think first of all, first and foremost, everybody
realizes that Iraq's obligations have not changed. Iraq has to comply
fully and unconditionally with all applicable UN Security Council
resolutions, including accepting the return of UN weapons inspectors
and cooperating fully with them. I think Iraq has spent 11 years now
not living up to its obligations.
The real issue here is one of the Iraqi regime, and it's for the Iraqi
regime to reverse that 11 years of flagrant obstruction, malfeasance
and deception when it has come to dealing with its international
obligations. They not only need to cooperate with the UN and the
International Atomic Energy Agency, but they also need to halt
immediately efforts to reconstitute weapons of mass destruction and
the missile programs. And it is for the Iraqi regime to demonstrate to
the world that it will no longer be a threat to regional security.
Given the track record, I think that we have all witnessed for 11
years now, it is imperative that the regime provide full, unfettered,
unconditional access to the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection
Commission -- that is what is known as UNMOVIC -- and to the IAEA, the
International Atomic Energy Agency.
The weapons inspectors must be able to operate on an anytime-anywhere
basis for inspections to meet the standards set by the Security
Council resolutions. Dr. Blix has our full confidence. He stressed
that his mandate is to conduct a thorough, no-holds-barred inspection
of Iraq's compliance with its obligations under UN Security Council
Resolution 687.
And so the facts of that situation have not changed, and it is
important for Iraq to live up to those obligations.
QUESTION: He had said that his mandate is not to harass or provoke or
humiliate the Iraqis. Would the United States accept this approach?
MR. REEKER: What I just said was it is very clear what needs to happen
under the UN Security Council resolutions. That hasn't changed in 11
years, as Iraq has tried to obfuscate and hide from the world their
attempts to reconstitute weapons of mass destruction and a missile
program, threaten its neighbors as well as its own people, and
threaten stability in the region. And what we need to see is Iraq
living up to its obligations to the whole international community, and
Dr. Blix has our confidence with his mission to conduct the
inspections in compliance as required under that resolution. It is
quite clear.
Yes, Jesus.
QUESTION: On Colombia?
MR. REEKER: Colombia? Wait, back to George.
QUESTION: The Secretary said -- it must have been early February --
that any discussion with the Iraqis about returning the inspectors
would have to be a short discussion. He didn't want anything that was
dragged out, which is what seems to be what's happening now because
the Iraqis showed up at the UN in March and they may come back
sometime later this month or early May. It seems to me that the
Secretary's criteria is not being followed. What is your response?
MR. REEKER: I think, once again, you are seeing that Iraq has
requested some postponement of a planned follow-up meeting concerning
UNMOVIC and the weapons inspection program. Accounts of the March 7th
discussions between the UN Secretary General and Iraqi Foreign
Minister Sabri provided at that time, as you indicated, George, no
indication that Iraq is prepared to comply with Security Council
resolutions -- the same type of behavior they've illustrated for 11
years now.
As in the past, the Iraqi representative tried to raise a number of
issues that are aimed solely at preventing and delaying focus on the
core obligations of Saddam Hussein's regime. That includes cooperating
fully and unconditionally with the weapons inspector. So postponement
of meetings is another clear example of the regime's unwillingness to
comply with its obligations to the UN Security Council.
And we see, as the Secretary described earlier, no basis or need for
prolonged discussion on Iraq's obligations. They are very well known.
They are spelled out in Security Council resolutions, and they have
not changed.
(end excerpt)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
