• Military

• WMD Menu                           

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

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

06 November 1997

TRANSCRIPT: DEFENSE SECRETARY COHEN ON U.N.-IRAQ DISPUTE

(Says U.N. weapons inspection team "cannot be divided") (2680)
Washington -- Iraq cannot successfully require American members of the
United Nations weapons inspection team to leave the country or the
team, Defense Secretary Cohen stressed, saying the team "cannot be
divided successfully by Iraq."
Cohen used a November 6 event bestowing the Hammer Award on the NATO
Seasparrow Surface Missile System Capability Modernization Team at the
Pentagon to emphasize that the Iraqis "are not going to be able to
divide the United States from the United Nations."
Iraq's action is not directed against the United States, Cohen
explained, but is part of Iraq's effort "to seek to divide the United
Nations." Since the U.N. imposed sanctions on Iraq "we would expect
the United Nations to insist upon full compliance" with respect to
weapons inspections and eliminations, he added.
Cohen also stressed that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein "has to comply
with the U.N. mandates, that any removal of equipment, any effort to
seek to hide and place devices or facilities in other areas will be
unsuccessful." He said the result would be that the United Nations
would redouble its efforts to complete those inspections "because
after all, weapons of mass destruction are not in the interest of
anyone in this world. And that's the reason why we're seeking to make
sure that they are not being produced and in any way accelerated by
Saddam Hussein."
The secretary stressed that this issue "is not a negotiable" and that
it is "imperative that Iraq comply with U.N. mandates."
Asked what would happen if the U.N.'s effort to solve the dispute
diplomatically fails, the secretary said there could be other
responses such as "further economic measures" or military ones.
Asked about a continuing U.S. troop presence in Bosnia after June
1998, Cohen said "there seems to be a developing consensus that some
form of international military presence will be needed past June of
next year. But there's been no decision made...in terms of what form
that international presence would take, whether the United States
would participate and in what form."
Following is a transcript of Cohen's remarks:
(begin transcript)
I am here to recognize today the good work that a Department of
Defense team has done to cut the costs and improve the effectiveness
of the NATO Seasparrow Surface Missile Program and System.
Before I get to the award, I'd like to say a word about Iraq. We have
an unusual array of television journalists who are here today, and
print journalists, and I am sure that they are deeply interested in
ways in which the Department of Defense is saving money, but I suspect
they also have an interest in one or two current events.
So let me just begin by saying that the United Nations has charged
that Iraq is tampering with surveillance systems installed to monitor
compliance with U.N. mandates. And we have no reason to question that
assessment on the part of the United Nations.
The evidence cited by Richard Butler, who is the head of the United
Nations Special Commission, suggests that Iraq may be continuing
programs to develop weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Butler's letter
underscores what this crisis really is about.
Iraq is violating U.N. Security Council resolutions by blocking
efforts to monitor whether it is continuing work on weapons of mass
destruction. A U.N. team is now in Baghdad to insist on full
compliance with the Security Council resolutions. They are not there
to negotiate with Iraq under any circumstances. This is not a
negotiable item. And so it's imperative that Iraq comply with U.N.
mandates.
I'd like to turn now to talk about why we are here, and then at the
conclusion... well, I could entertain one or two questions, initially,
and then move on to the important matter that we have here today.
Q: Iraq has been warned repeatedly not to continue on making weapons
of mass destruction. If it's found that they are doing that, will any
further warning be given, or might a surprise military strike be
launched?
SEC. COHEN: I think sufficient warnings have been given to Iraq, over
the years that they must comply with U.N. sanctions. It's not a
question of not having adequate warning. The task right now, however,
is to persuade them to cease and desist from their obstruction. And
that is the reason for the United Nations' having sent this team to
sit down and persuade, hopefully diplomatically, that Iraq must
comply; that they cannot be successful in asking the U.S. team members
to depart or not be part of the inspections team.
This is a United Nations effort, it is not a U.S. endeavor. It is a
United Nations endeavor. So they are there to convey that message.
Hopefully, the message will be very loud and clear and Saddam Hussein
will abide by it. In the event that that does not take place, then
obviously the United Nations has a series of things it could
recommend. We have to await for the return of the team that's
currently in Baghdad to return and issue its report. There is
sufficient time to consider a whole panoply of responses that could be
considered by the United Nations.
Q:  Might those include military responses?
SEC. COHEN: They could include further economic measures. They could
include military as well. But I think that it's important that we not
speculate what those reactions might be. I think the important thing
is to point out that we are united -- the United Nations is united on
this. They're not going to be able to divide the United States from
the United Nations. We are there as part of one team, as part of the
U.N. team, and that team cannot be divided successfully by Iraq. We're
not going to negotiate. The U.N. is very clear on that. They're there
to convey a message and not to engage in any kind of a dialogue or
negotiating strategy that Saddam Hussein might have in mind.
Q: Mr. Secretary does this delaying tactic by Saddam put the United
States in a quandary, given the absence of the surveillance flights?
Would you like to see the surveillance flights begin?
And also, on another issue, could you say that you agree with
Secretary Albright that there is a consensus building that U.S. troops
must remain in Bosnia in '98? Are you part of that consensus?
SEC. COHEN: First of all, with respect to Iraq, we are not in any
quandary. There's no quandary about the fact that Saddam Hussein has
to comply with the U.N. mandates, that any removal of equipment, any
effort to seek to hide and place devices or facilities in other areas
will be unsuccessful, that it will only redouble the efforts on the
part of the United Nations to complete those inspections, because
after all, weapons of mass destruction are not in the interest of
anyone in this world. And that's the reason why we're seeking to make
sure that they are not being produced and in any way accelerated by
Saddam Hussein.
So there's no quandary for the United States. We would expect and
anticipate the U.N. would simply redouble its efforts to make sure
that those activities are not taking place.
With respect to Bosnia itself, I think it's fair to say that there is
a consensus that the SFOR (Stabilization Force) mission will end in
June, that we continue to consult with Congress and our allies about
what is needed to continue the progress that we've made to date and to
keep the process on track.
I think as a result of this process and these consultations, there
seems to be a developing consensus that some form of international
military presence will be needed past June of next year. But there's
been no decision made, no consensus established, in terms of what form
that international presence would take, whether the United States
would participate, and in what form, be it intelligence, logistics,
support, or military. That has yet to be decided or defined. So no
such consensus exists.
There is a consensus, however, I think, that is shared, that some form
of international presence will be required beyond June of '98. But the
president is trying to reach out and find out whether he can develop
such a consensus, whether one exists in the United States Congress,
which of course has imposed congressional limitations and budgetary
limitations upon our presence in Bosnia that all funding will
terminate as of June of next year unless the president is able to
submit a plan that would define the national security interests
involved for the United States, our national interest.
What that plan would entail; whether it involve troops or other types
of support; and if troops, what the size might be, what the length of
stay might be, what the costs would be, what the impact on morale
would be, what the impact upon readiness; and also submit a request
for a supplemental appropriation. All of those conditions have been
imposed by Congress.
So the president is reaching to find out whether such a consensus
exists within the Congress and that was the first step that the
president took this week. I must say, it was a very positive meeting.
It was one of the most extraordinary exchanges of viewpoints that I
have witnessed during my years in politics. I think that the country
would have been very proud of the way in which the various, and I
would say sometimes conflicting, viewpoints were presented to the
president. It was truly an extraordinary meeting.
And I think it was the first step to see whether a consensus can be
developed that would allow some form of participation by the United
States, but there was no consensus reached that evening. And I expect
it'll take some time to develop such a consensus, if it can be
developed.
Q: Are you going to have to eat crow on this eventually? And do you
have all your consensus developed within the top brass of the
military?
SEC. COHEN: I have not found it in my habit of eating crow, so I don't
anticipate eating crow. What I would anticipate is working with the
president to find out whether or not it's in the United States's
interests to continue to participate, as we are today or in some form.
That is not eating crow; that is promoting the U.S. interests as
defined by the president and the administration.
Now, can I move on? One more question, and then we'll get to the real
substance of the meeting over here today.
Q: Do you believe that U.S. troops will have to stay in Bosnia beyond
June? You, personally?
SEC. COHEN: I think that's a question that is yet to be decided. And I
would reserve my own judgment, my own recommendation to the president
as we carry forward this process.
Q: One more about Iraq, and then put it to rest -- has the United
States ruled out unilateral military action. Will you wait for the
approval of the U.N. before any military strike is --
SEC. COHEN: I think the United States... It's not in our interest to
discuss what actions the United States might or might not take. This
is, again, not action directed against the United States on the part
of Iraq. It's action, on the part of Iraq, to seek to divide the
United Nations. It is the United Nations which has imposed the
sanctions. So we are a part of that United Nations, and we would
expect the United Nations to insist upon full compliance.
What takes place following the delivery of that message remains to be
seen. I think it is not helpful to speculate what actions may or may
not occur.
Thank you.
Please don't leave, because we have an important message to deliver
here this morning.
Ladies and gentlemen, over the past year, NATO has been reinventing
itself with prospective new members, new missions and a new mind-set
for a new Europe. And I would like to thank all the representatives
from our NATO allies who are here today helping to remake the
alliance.
Today we are paying tribute and honoring a defense team that is
helping NATO to reinvent itself by helping the vice president to
reinvent government. On behalf of Vice President Gore, I'd like to
present our NATO Seasparrow Modernization Team with a Hammer Award for
doing its job faster, better and cheaper.
But in presenting the Hammer Award, I also want to recognize the
hundreds of DOD organizations that have earned the Hammer Awards over
the past four years. We should be proud, and the country should be
aware, that the Defense Department has won more Hammer Awards than
anyone else in government, in fact, more than all of the other
departments combined. We should be number one, after all, the Hammer
Award was named after a defense program that came to represent what
was wrong with government procurement -- the $400 hammer.
Today our Hammer Awards have come to represent what is right about
government procurement. This year, as DOD celebrates its golden
anniversary, our halls are ringing with the sound of countless hammers
beating down the old system and building up the new one. I know that
for many of you in the building you probably thought that it was
really part of Doc Cook's renovations taking place in the building --
(laughter) -- especially outside of my office, I might add, but in
fact, we are building a new procurement system.
I want to applaud the NATO Seasparrow Modernization Team for their
success. The Seasparrow is the Navy's premier surface-to-air missile
system and a classic example of how NATO cost-sharing and
technology-sharing can make defense both less expensive and also more
effective.
Thanks to this team, the Seasparrow modernization program is a living
example of the National Performance Review's mantra of faster, better,
cheaper.
You cut the design phase by two-thirds, you made the Sparrow more
reliable, more accurate, and along the way, you happened to save the
taxpayers millions of dollars.
The work of this team and the work of all DOD Hammer Award Winners
poses a challenge for everyone at the Department of Defense. It's not
enough to celebrate our singular deeds, we need to accelerate our
efforts to overhaul the way the department does business across the
board.
Our success cannot be measured out with Hammer Awards each year, like
J. Alfred Prufa measuring out his life with coffee spoons. On the eve
of World War II, Walter Lippmann issued a warning to his classmates --
they had a class reunion at Harvard; I believe it was the 30th
reunion. His warning has, I think, resonance today. He said, "For
every right that you cherish you have a duty that you must fulfill.
For every hope that you would attain, you have a task you must
perform. For every good that you wish to preserve, you must sacrifice
your comfort and your ease. There is nothing for nothing any longer."
The same is true for national security, national defense today. There
is nothing for nothing any longer.
If we want to face a world of unlimited security threats with limited
resources, if we want to invest in the future force, if we want to
create a 21st Century Pentagon, a model of action and efficiency, then
we need to apply every day what have made these winners so
exceptional. We need their dedication, their innovation and their
tenacity, and their recognition that better performance is more often
the result of working smarter than simply working harder.
So today I am saying congratulations to Captain Taggett and his team,
a talented group of people who are helping us to transform this
department into the 21st Century. Thank you very much.
(end transcript)