07 November 1997
TRANSCRIPT: PBS INTV WITH HEAD OF UN SPECIAL COMMISSION ON IRAQ
(Thinks Iraq is in material breach of Gulf War cease-fire) (2020)
(Permission has been obtained covering
republication/translation/distribution by USIS/local press outside the
U.S. On title page, carry: From the NEWSHOUR with Jim Lehrer, November
7, 1997, co-produced by MACNEIL-LEHRER PRODUCTIONS and WETA in
association with WNET. Copyright (c) 1997 by MacNeil-Lehrer
Productions.)
Washington -- Ambassador Richard Butler, the head of the U.N. Special
Commission in Iraq, says he informed the U.N. Security Council "a few
days ago that I thought it would be a fair legal opinion that" the
Iraqis "were in material breach" of the 1991 cease-fire ending the
Gulf War.
"Strictly speaking," Butler said, "only the Security Council can form
that judgment -- a bit like a court -- a bit like a verdict.
"I can express that view -- and I did express it (to the council)," he
said. "But whether or not the council will accept that view, or decide
for itself otherwise that they are or are not in material breach, is
something that only they can do. But I did present to them the view
that I thought they probably were."
Asked to explain the consequences of the Security Council accepting
that view, Butler said, "Well, material breach is a legal term. But
it's more than that. It's quite serious. It comes from the basic
international law, the law of treaties, which says that, you know, if
there is a treaty that states have entered into and one of them or
more than one behaves in a way that breaches the fundamental precepts
of the treaty, then they're in material breach of it. Under those
circumstances, the convention on the law of treaties says that other
parties can take all manner of action. And in the case of the Iraq
situation where what we are basically dealing with is a cease-fire
agreement after the Gulf War and then disarmament obligations on Iraq,
if they were -- if the council judged -- I can't judge that, but if
the council judged that they were in material breach, then the council
would be free to take the whole range of actions available to it --
whether it was sanctions or military action or whatever. I'm not
trying in any way to talk up military action -- I'm just telling you
the facts that the council would be free to decide on whatever course
of action it was thought most appropriate."
Following is the MacNeil-Lehrer Productions copyright-cleared
transcript:
(begin transcript)
THE NEWSHOUR
WITH JIM LEHRER
INTERVIEW WITH:
AMBASSADOR RICHARD BUTLER, U.N. SPECIAL COMMISSION IN IRAQ
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1997
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Under U.N. resolutions adopted after the 1991
Gulf War, inspecting and dismantling Iraqi weapons of mass destruction
has been the job of a U.N. special commission in Iraq known as UNSCOM.
Now heading that commission is Australian diplomat Richard Butler.
Thank you for being with us.
AMB. BUTLER: It's a pleasure.
MS. FARNSWORTH: You reported to the Security Council yesterday that in
the absence of monitoring this week, and the absence of inspections,
Iraq has moved equipment and tampered with cameras. Is that
continuing?
AMB. BUTLER: Well, not today. Today I sent our inspectors out to look
at those sites, those places where they had moved equipment and
tampered. But they wouldn't let us in. I've issued instructions for us
to go back tomorrow. But we will see. But they did move equipment.
They did prevent us from seeing the things that it is our right to see
and that they have agreed in the past we should be able to see. So
this is fairly disturbing.
MS. FARNSWORTH: Help us understand what they might be doing and why
they might be doing it. In your letter yesterday you wrote the moving
equipment or damaging cameras could be very significant because for
example it would take only a matter of hours to adapt fermenters to
produce feed stocks of biological warfare agents. Explain that.
AMB. BUTLER: Well, that's right. We have photographs from cameras that
we are still operating that show a kind of before and after
photograph. Yesterday, as it were, there were two fermenters in place
-- that is, small pieces of equipment in which you could ferment the
feed stock to make biological weapons. And then the next day our
photographs showed that they had been removed. Now, if those
fermenters were set to work they could create the feed stock which
after 48 hours could be put into a larger container where they could
then proceed to make anthrax, a very serious biological substance
which could then in turn another two or three days later be filled
into a warhead and made into a biological weapon. We're very concerned
about that -- you know, before and after. Why were they there before?
Why aren't they there afterwards? Why did they move them? For what
purpose? Let's see them. But they wouldn't let us in today to see that
site, so we don't know.
MS. FARNSWORTH: I don't know if he was referring to that site
specifically, but Iraq's Foreign Minister today, as you know, informed
the Security Council that, yes, they had moved some equipment because
they were afraid of a military attack, and whatever was moved would be
moved back and you would be able to check it then. And he said, yes,
one camera had been destroyed because they were testing an engine for
a missile that was not prescribed. How do you respond to that letter
that he wrote?
AMB. BUTLER: Well, in the first instance I won't comment on the stated
reason for moving the stuff. That's a political matter which I'll
leave to him and the Security Council. But as far as moving the
equipment is concerned, that's wrong. That's illegal. They should not
have done it. He says they will return it. But we're in a circumstance
where because Iraq decided on the 29th of October to exclude American
inspectors and to impede our work, as every day goes by we're in a
situation where we don't know what they're doing. They've obliged us
to look away, to turn our back. But what we've been able to see is
that they've used that time at least to move equipment. My point is
where have they moved it to? For what purpose? They give their stated
political reasons -- so be it. But we still need to know to what
purpose are they putting that equipment in the intervening time. As I
said, a week could be enough to start off production and maybe
complete production of a biological weapon. We need to know what the
facts are.
MS. FARNSWORTH: Mr. Ambassador, is that why you think this happened in
the first place? Do you think Iraq blocked American inspectors from
entering because they wanted to precipitate this sort of opportunity
for themselves?
AMB. BUTLER: Well, I'm not sure that it's as simple as that. Everyone
is asking the question why did Iraq take those decisions on the 29th
of October that were directed against American members of my staff,
but which of course precipitated a much larger crisis -- because we
can't accept that any one nationality would be separated and
discriminated against in that way.
Why did they do it? There are two theories out there. One is a
political theory. The other is a real technical-practical theory that
says that we were getting closer to finding the last vestiges of their
weapons of mass destruction and they wanted to prevent us from doing
that. I'm not sure which theory is the right one, but I do know from
within my responsibility that this blockage that they have caused for
the last ten days or so is serious. And as this example of the
movement of equipment, the shutting off of cameras demonstrates, this
has opened up a possibility where we might lose it -- we might lose
some of our database, we might lose some knowledge of what they have
been doing with this equipment. And as every day goes by with blockage
it becomes more serious.
MS. FARNSWORTH: You reported last month to the U.N. Security Council
that there was a pattern of blocking investigations, that this is --
in other words, this has been happening for some time.
What do you see in the blocking of investigations and in the other
movement by the Iraqis? Is there a particular biological program --
for example, biological warfare program they seem to be trying to
hide?
AMB. BUTLER: Well, let me say you've overstated slightly what I
reported to the council -- and I'm not just trying to be argumentative
with you -- I really prefer to have the facts. And the fact is that we
reported some very good progress with them, and I am happy to reaffirm
that now. We've made good progress in the last few months in missiles
and chemical weapons. But I also reported that biology was what I
called -- and I said this to the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq to his
face -- it's a black hole. They've never really told us the truth of
their biological program, and that's a matter of serious concern. So
to the council I reported some good things and what you referred to,
some blockages. Towards the end of the reporting period they did block
some of our inspections. They threatened one of our helicopters. And
of course I had to report that. Then they blew up -- they did what
they did on the 29th of October -- and you have to ask why, especially
as there had been some progress. And I think one of the possible
reasons why they did that was maybe because we were getting closer to
putting the finger on their very serious biological capability.
MS. FARNSWORTH: Is Iraq in material breach of the cease-fire?
AMB. BUTLER: Well, this is an interesting question. Strictly speaking,
only the Security Council can form that judgment -- a bit like a court
-- a bit like a verdict. As the senior official dealing with this, I
said to the council a few days ago that I thought it would be a fair
legal opinion that they were in material breach. And that's all I can
do. I can express that view -- and I did express it. But whether or
not the council will accept that view, or decide for itself otherwise
that they are or are not in material breach, is something that only
they can do. But I did present to them the view that I thought they
probably were.
MS. FARNSWORTH: Would you explain the consequences of the Security
Council accepting that view?
AMB. BUTLER: Well, material breach is a legal term. But it's more than
that. It's quite serious. It comes from the basic international law,
the law of treaties, which says that, you know, if there is a treaty
that states have entered into and one of them or more than one behaves
in a way that breaches the fundamental precepts of the treaty, then
they're in material breach of it. Under those circumstances, the
convention on the law of treaties says that other parties can take all
manner of action. And in the case of the Iraq situation where what we
are basically dealing with is a cease-fire agreement after the Gulf
War and then disarmament obligations on Iraq, if they were -- if the
council judged -- I can't judge that, but if the council judged that
they were in material breach, then the council would be free to take
the whole range of actions available to it -- whether it was sanctions
or military action or whatever. I'm not trying in any way to talk up
military action -- I'm just telling you the facts that the council
would be free to decide on whatever course of action it was thought
most appropriate.
MS. FARNSWORTH: Well, Mr. Ambassador, thank you very much for being
with us.
AMB. BUTLER: Thank you.
(end transcript)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
