• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

U.S. Department of State

Daily Press Briefing

...................

QUESTION: On Iraq, Saddam Hussein has renewed his threat to shoot down any U-2 planes. There is, according to many reports, considerable evidence of a military build-up there. Just wondering whether you have any response to that and to the continuing expulsion of the inspection team.

MR. RUBIN: Well, first of all, I'm not going to be in a position to characterize the specific Iraqi military posture. I would leave that to the Pentagon.

The three envoys - Ambassador Brahimi, Eliasson and Cardenas, will arrive in Baghdad by tomorrow morning. We are expecting they will likely remain there until Friday or Saturday. They are due to report back to the Security Council next Monday.

The mandate of the group is clear. The UN delegation will send a message, transmit a message. The message is that Iraq must comply with the United Nations, and that its unacceptable decisions on UNSCOM will not be permitted to stand.

The group is traveling to Baghdad to impress upon Saddam the need to comply immediately with UN Security Council resolutions. Let's bear in mind, the UN didn't create this problem; Iraq created this problem. Iraq can solve it by allowing the UN to do its job. We're not looking for confrontation; we're looking for compliance. That is what the Security Council is looking for here.

As far as the threat to shoot down the U-2 aircraft is concerned, let me remind you this is a UN flight, and it would be an irresponsible escalation just to threaten to shoot it down, and it would be even more irresponsible, more dangerous, to actually do so.

As I think we've made clear, it is Iraq that bears the responsibility for the safety and security of UN personnel, and we will hold Iraq to that responsibility. We have said many times before that we're not going to rule any option out here. I think in the case of an Iraqi attack on the U-2, that would be a very serious mistake on Saddam Hussein's part.

QUESTION: Jamie, if I could, what about Kofi Annan's request to Iraq that they not make any move until at least the arrival of this UN delegation?

MR. RUBIN: Well, as you know, the Iraqi Government has indicated that Wednesday, tomorrow, is the day by which they want all Americans to leave. What decisions Ambassador Butler, on behalf of the UN Special Commission, makes will be up to him to make.

I think Secretary General Annan was just stating the obvious point of hospitality, going back thousands of years in traditions all around the world. If they are going to be engaged in a mission to try to change his mind, that would be a particularly egregious act to kick the people out just as - or try to kick the people out just as the mission was arriving.

So we certainly hope that Saddam Hussein doesn't break that kind of diplomatic convention, but it's hard to know what he will do. Our view is very simple -- he should never have made this threat; he should stop imposing threats on the personnel of the United Nations, on the practices of the United Nations, on the equipment of the United Nations; and he should let the United Nations do its job.

QUESTION: Jamie, can you just update us on what contacts the Secretary may have had with Russia, France, or any of the other allies?

MR. RUBIN: I don't have any new information on that. I can give that to you a little later.

QUESTION: To follow-up on Andrea's last question about Kofi Annan's call to the Iraqi Government, asking about the extension and begging him to do the diplomatic thing and allow the team, the envoy, to meet with them, is this - some might surmise that the Secretary General was, in some ways, encouraging his behavior and bargaining with him as though he was a legitimate person in his reaction to the rules and breaking the rules the UN has placed on him.

MR. RUBIN: We don't see it that way. The Secretary General is trying to convince Saddam Hussein to do the right thing. He's made a serious miscalculation. He has suggested that he can pick and choose which inspectors do the job for the United Nations. The Secretary General of the UN has made very clear, his spokesman did yesterday, this is not a negotiating session; this is delivering a message.

As Secretary General Annan apparently said in a phone call today, it would be particularly egregious behavior for them not even to receive the messengers before they began to take action in the specific area that the messengers are coming to talk about.

QUESTION: It may seem like an obvious question, but is the United States prepared to do what it has to do to protect its pilots and its equipment over Iraq?

MR. RUBIN: The United States believes it would be a serious mistake for Iraq to shoot down this plane. I'm not going to speculate on what we will or won't do if he makes that kind of serious mistake.

QUESTION: The French have said that they believe that the US must get approval from the UN before there is any sort of military air strike, which you seem to be hinting at, were things to escalate. Do you agree with the French assessment - that the US or any other country needs to seek Security Council permission before there were any sort of military action?

MR. RUBIN: Yesterday we went around and around on this subject of the difference between technical legal authority and the policy. I made very clear that it's our policy that if this mission doesn't succeed, and we have two decision points coming - first is tomorrow, whether they kick out the inspectors or try to have them removed, even though the mission is just arriving. We have next Monday, when the mission will return and report its findings to the Security Council. At that point, it is the policy of the United States that if Saddam Hussein has not changed his mind, if he hasn't accepted the will of the international community and doesn't allow the UN to do its job, the Security Council should take firm action.

That is our policy. As far as what our technical legal analysis of what our options are, and the fact that we haven't ruled any options out, I think you're familiar with what I said yesterday. And there's no need to really go back over it, unless you really want to.

QUESTION: Jamie, some observers of this latest confrontation suggest that Saddam Hussein is actually getting some mileage out of this. He has effectively halted the weapons inspections, even if it is temporary. He has managed to bring greater international scrutiny on the former Gulf War Alliance, and expose some differences of opinion and strategy towards Iraq. And he's managing to do all this and it's unclear at what cost. How would you respond to that?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I'm always puzzled and stunned when people say that -- when the whole world has decided that Saddam Hussein is behaving like an international outlaw, that he's a pariah in his part of the world, that he is even farther from the day that sanctions will be lifted, even farther from the day that he'll be accepted by the international community, when his army was defeated in war, his weapons of mass destruction, many thousands and thousands of tons of agents and particular types of weapons have been destroyed, his country is under the most comprehensive sanctions in the history of the world - that somehow he's winning.

I've never understood this logic. It seems to be logic more to make the commentator seem important than to justify the position.

QUESTION: Nizar Hamdun, the Iraqi Ambassador, said that the Americans are dragging their feet to prolong these sanctions, and Tariq Aziz, the Vice Prime Minister of Iraq, said that the United States' real aim is to overthrow the national regime of Iraq. Is that your aim, and why don't you state it, if so? And are you aware, when you plan your policy, that the alliance, especially in the Arab world streets, is not really accepting or taking well the use of force when it is only a barring of several weapons inspectors?

MR. RUBIN: I think we have stated very clearly our policy towards Iraq over the last five years, and let me restate it for you today. Our policy is to compel Saddam Hussein to live up to the resolutions the whole world has voted for, the whole world has supported. Those are the UN Security Council resolutions. There are a number of requirements in those resolutions, which all of you are familiar with.

That is not an American position; that's the position of the entire world. Countries from the Arab world, countries from Europe, countries from Africa, countries from Asia, they have all united in unanimous resolutions demanding that Saddam Hussein's Iraq accept the norms of international behavior and accept the work of the Special Commission.

It is not the United States that is prolonging the work of the Special Commission. As we can see from what's happened in the last week, Saddam Hussein has refused to allow the Special Commission to do its work. And if the Special Commission can't do its work, I don't see how it can be any one country's fault that sanctions are still on. It can only be Saddam Hussein's fault.

As far as the question of the use of force is concerned, we are not at a stage where we are seeking the opinion of governments around the world on the wisdom of that option. If we get to that stage, we'll obviously take into account concerns of relevant countries. But at the end of the day, Saddam Hussein is a threat to the international community.

It was the United States that responded to that threat the last time. Many of the other countries involved never would have had us eject his forces from Kuwait, if they had had their opinion. But I think at the end of the day, after the work was done, the whole world realized that it was the right thing to do to remove him from Kuwait. If the United States sees that its security interests are threatened, it will do what's necessary to defend those interests.

QUESTION: Is the right way to remove him from power in Iraq, too? Is that the American policy, to remove Saddam Hussein from power?

MR. RUBIN: We certainly would shed no tears if a cruel dictator like Saddam Hussein left power. But it's our view that the government of Iraq needs to comply with the resolutions of the Security Council.

We're not optimistic that this kind of a leader could see himself clear to meeting the standards of the international community. The evidence is to the contrary. The evidence is that this is not a man who has peaceful intentions, as required by the international community's resolutions. But our position is that Iraq must comply with these resolutions.

QUESTION: Have you spoken to the Jordanians about what's going on with Iraq? And if so, can you characterize their support --

MR. RUBIN: I will have to leave that to the Jordanians at this time. I'm sure we've had discussions with them in the recent day or two about this incident, and over the last week. But let me see if I can get you something for the record.

QUESTION: Do you feel that it would be appropriate for Jordan now to cut its trade with Iraq?

MR. RUBIN: We don't believe that any country should be trading with Iraq, pursuant to sanctions. There are some special considerations that have long been in effect, with regard to Jordan. And I'm not aware that any of those special considerations are being rethought in the current environment.

..........................

(The briefing concluded at 1:15 P.M.)