• 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: Possibly to the benefit, also, of some of the other journalists here, could you tell us - because the Secretary didn't address it yesterday when I tried there - is there some problem with Saudi Arabia, so far as being the staging grounds for air operations, even surveillance, in Iraq? And if so, or even if not, is something being worked out with Turkey now? Because there are reports coming from there that the US is making some arrangement with Turkey, maybe a contingent arrangement, for Iraqi operations. I don't necessarily mean warfare; I mean operations.

MR. RUBIN: On the question of Saudi Arabia, I believe you asked yesterday about the U-2. It's not my understanding that the reason the U-2 fly - that there was any factor related to the views of Saudi Arabia. The decision on the U-2 was taken by the United Nations, and their explanation is that they believed, in light of the fact that these envoys were right in the region at that time, that it wasn't necessary to go forward with the flights at that time. They were not canceled; they were postponed. A wider window was established through next week, and they indicated that those flights will go forward next week.

As far as Turkey is concerned, the United States has not raised the subject of using Incirlik Air Base for military strikes against Iraq with Turkey. There have been some press reports suggesting that; we don't quite understand them. There are regular discussions with the Turkish Government about how to make sure that the United States, Turkey and the United Kingdom continue their cooperation in Operation Northern Watch, to enforce the no-fly zone over northern Iraq. And we regularly discuss and adjust the conduct of Operation Northern Watch with our coalition partners.

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

QUESTION: Jamie, just to go back to Turkey for a second, and this may be better addressed at the Pentagon, I'm not sure. But apparently there have been additional US aircraft - fighter planes - sent to Incirlik. Could that be the source of the confusion?

MR. RUBIN: I don't know the current order of battle in Turkey right now. That would be a Pentagon question.

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

MR. RUBIN: Would you prefer to focus on Greece and Turkey, I see. Okay.

QUESTION: Have there been recently new talks between the US and Turkey on new de-conflicting measures?

MR. RUBIN: We are in regular contact with all the governments in the region to try to, through the process that exists, and we regularly discuss with them, how to try to get progress on the cease-fire in northern Iraq. I'm not in a position to confirm any specific new contact.

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

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

QUESTION: Jamie, I want to just go back to Iraq and revisit the latest development there. Butler sent a letter saying that it seems as though Iraq has been moving arms-building equipment, tampering with surveillance cameras. The first part of my question is, what does this mean to the United States and the United Nations? And what are - you know, just a read-out on that. And then, does this latest action - should Iraq be building up weapons of mass destruction - does this mean a door might be open a little wider to an aggressive action taken toward Iraq?

MR. RUBIN: This letter adds to the growing mountain of evidence that Iraq is using every means at its disposal to delay, obstruct and interfere with the work of the United Nations. It's a further indication of flouting of the international community; and frankly, it's not a hopeful sign that Iraq's leadership is getting the message the UN envoys were sent to send.

Secretary Albright spoke with Secretary General Kofi Annan this morning. We are still awaiting a final read-out of those meetings. We expect them to continue perhaps through tomorrow, and then on Monday, to get a read-out from the envoys to the Security Council about what progress, if any, they achieved.

Again, these envoys were not there to negotiate; they were there to send a clear message. The clear message is that Saddam Hussein must comply with the requirements of the United Nations. This letter and the information it contains is further evidence that he's not moving in the right direction. But we are going to await judgment until the envoys have completed their work and have had a chance to return and report to the Security Council; at which time, if the envoys' message has not yielded a response in changed behavior, if Saddam Hussein doesn't get it, if he continues to flout the international community in these ways, then we would be looking to the Security Council to take firm action.

QUESTION: So you're not ruling out aggressive action. I mean, if he's building up weapons and doing what he's not supposed to do, how are you going to stop him? What is it going to take - more sanctions, or some kind of other means?

MR. RUBIN: Let me state - the first point is, these kinds of actions only show that he is not moving in the direction of letting the UN do its work. It's only when the UN has done its work can the possibility of sanctions relief come into play.

It's a sign that perhaps Iraq is using this crisis to break free of UNSCOM's monitoring efforts. It will only postpone and delay the time when UNSCOM can make a conclusion that a full, final and complete information about the Iraqi effort has been achieved. So he's postponing the day when he can ever get the clean bill of health that he needs if sanctions relief is ever to be seriously discussed.

You've heard all of us say over and over again that we're not ruling options out. That's still our position.

QUESTION: Jamie, to just - to send three diplomats to Baghdad to say, you've got to comply; you can't screen out Americans, wouldn't seem to require such lengthy deliberations. She has had at least two - the Secretary has had at least two conversations with the Secretary General. Has she been told by him that these diplomats are not negotiating? And what if the Iraqis come to New York and make their case - try to make their case that the US is engaged in espionage, if they moved the equipment, they wanted to avoid a strike, et cetera? I mean, is this still not negotiations? Has she heard that from the Secretary General?

MR. RUBIN: As a result of her conversations with Secretary General Kofi Annan, she is confident that the UN envoys are not there to negotiate; they are there to deliver the world's message that Saddam Hussein has no choice but to comply. That doesn't mean that Iraq may not whine and complain about all sorts of aspects of the UN requirements, including crying crocodile tears over the effect of sanctions on its people.

But our issue is, we have our eye on the ball. The ball is, will Saddam Hussein allow the UN to do its job, not pick and choose - try to pick and choose who the inspectors are. And we have no reason to believe that these envoys are engaged in anything other than delivering a message of what the UN Security Council made clear -- that Saddam Hussein has no choice but to comply.

If, during the course of delivering that message, they hear a lot of complaining about the UN Special Commission's work or about the effect of sanctions, these are patient diplomats, and I'm sure they will be able to withstand such complaints. But that doesn't change what their mission is.

QUESTION: Does this latest violation make military action more likely?

MR. RUBIN: I think I just answered that question. What it does do is signal that he continues to exploit this period to raise the prospect that he is hiding and moving weapons of mass destruction. It is also not a very hopeful sign that he's gotten the message that these envoys have delivered, that the world has delivered.

But again, we're going to withhold judgment as to whether this mission has succeeded until the envoys have had a chance to finish their work, finish their meetings, and return to New York and report to the Security Council.

QUESTION: But in this context, and in the run-up to making that judgment next Monday or whenever, how extensive have the US consultations been with allies on the question of military action? Are you -- have you drafted options?

MR. RUBIN: By definition, the question you ask is one that is not answered from this podium; namely, the extent of our consultations with foreign countries we don't normally provide. And certainly, if it involved preliminary discussions of military options, we certainly wouldn't be speaking about it from here.

All I can say is that we haven't ruled any options out, that we hope and expect, if this mission is not successful, that the Council will take up this matter forthwith, and take firm action to compel Iraqi compliance with the international community.

QUESTION: Is it still the American position that the inspection team must include Americans?

MR. RUBIN: Absolutely. Saddam Hussein cannot pick and choose who the inspectors are. It's up to the UN to make those judgments. There are six or so Americans as part of the 100-plus UN inspectors. They're there for their competence. It's up to the UN to make that judgment. We've heard no indication that the UN Special Commission would even entertain such a suggestion.

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

(The briefing concluded at 1:35 p.m.)

[end of document]