• 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

MR. RUBIN: Greetings. Welcome to the State Department press briefing. It's been a long morning, long lunch, and I apologize for the delays.

Let me start by saying that Secretary Albright was just informed about the unanimous vote in the Security Council. And she was very pleased that the entire world community has united -- that Saddam Hussein, as she said earlier, tried to drive a wedge through the coalition, and instead he ran into a brick wall of unanimity in the Council, and that the pressure has now been ratcheted up on Iraq; that countries that previously have been reluctant to support travel sanctions on the Iraqi leadership have now changed their position and now support those restrictions. So we have a united international community, united against the Iraqi leadership.

At the same time, Secretary Albright has been spending what she regards as an unfortunately great amount of time in the last day or two trying to work on another important issue, which is to obtain funding for the United Nations arrears that we owe and the reorganization plan that she has worked on so carefully.

Right now there is a real possibility that Congress may adjourn without passing that funding for the United Nations. The frustration that is developing is that we may be in a position where we may need to go back to obtain support from the United Nations for further measures against Iraq, and not having a package that the United Nations members are waiting for, looking forward to, go down at the very same time we're looking for their support could be very damaging to our interests in trying to deter and contain Saddam Hussein.

I'd be happy to take your questions.

QUESTION: Jamie, on the UN thing, what does this say about future measures, should you have to keep ratcheting up -- the unanimity that you have?

MR. RUBIN: I believe the signal is that the unanimity that didn't exist on travel restrictions now does exist; and therefore, there is a greater chance that, having given diplomacy time and having worked through the Security Council, that countries will support stiffer measures, if those are necessary. The resolution itself, as you know, says the Council will consider further measures as required to ensure that Iraq complies with the requirements of the United Nations.

So, again, we're taking this step by step, in a deliberate fashion, trying to maintain as much support as possible, internationally, for this stand-off, which pits Saddam Hussein against the world.

QUESTION: Is this an educated inference, or has she been told -- because she's worked the phones very hard, and we needn't get into specific countries unless you'd like to - but we know who the abstainers were, and they are not abstainers any more.

MR. RUBIN: This is a good thing.

QUESTION: Does she have any - so we pretty much know who it is that had to be brought along. Have these countries that have been brought along given her any sort of assurance that, number one, they've had it up to here with the situation; and number two, if the US gets tougher, they're along with them?

MR. RUBIN: Well, again, we don't always consult with allies and friends on every step coming down the road. I think we do have every reason to believe that key countries are increasingly frustrated with the recalcitrance of Saddam Hussein, and his refusal to change course, having been given every reasonable opportunity to do so.

So what we are trying to do is to keep as much unanimity as possible in order to keep as much pressure as possible on the Iraqi leadership, with the hope - again, it is our hope that there is no need to take further measures, including the use of force that we have not ruled out.

If the Iraqi regime reverses course, we believe it will be more likely to do so when it is confronting a united international community.

QUESTION: When is the UN - the inspection team expected to go in again and try to do its work?

MR. RUBIN: Again, that would be up to Ambassador Ekeus. As you know, the Iraqi Foreign Minister has indicated that they intend to follow through on there --

QUESTION: You mean Butler?

MR. RUBIN: What did I say, Ekeus? Ambassador Butler. The previous UNSCOM Chairman was Ambassador Ekeus. Forgive me, Ambassador Butler.

The Iraqi Foreign Minister has indicated that they intend to follow through on their threat to toss out the American UNSCOM inspectors. I think Ambassador Butler and the UN have made clear that they're in together and they'll stay together and they'll go out together if that happens. It's our view the international community has made clear its strong condemnation of Iraqi measures taken thus far. If they were to take that additional step, we could only expect that Saddam Hussein carrying out that threat would cause the international community and the Security Council to react in an even stronger manner.

QUESTION: Are you talking about another diplomatic step, or have you made a decision that the next step would have to be some sort of military response?

MR. RUBIN: We have not ruled out military responses. What exact measures we would take we're going to hope that we don't face this circumstance. But again, we have not ruled out military responses.

Again, it's up to Ambassador Butler to make the decision of how to respond if the threat to kick out American inspectors occurs. He will make the decisions as to who will stay and who will go. So that's where we are as of right now.

QUESTION: Practically speaking, do you think that you have support in this country for continued talking and diplomatic action at the UN, while Saddam continues to sort of thumb his nose at the UN and the international community?

MR. RUBIN: I guess we'll call this a two-part question. I think the American people - and the Secretary, I know, believes this - would want to know that the United States Administration - President Clinton and Secretary Albright - went the extra mile diplomatically before resorting to the use of force. That is the best way to achieve the objective - to also demonstrate to our allies and friends around the world that we're going the extra mile before considering the option that we haven't ruled out. So that is something we're very comfortable with.

The time pressure is not a one-way street. In our view, with every day that the inspectors don't do their job, it becomes one more day that Saddam Hussein is away from having the clean bill of health declared by UNSCOM. At some point, the baseline begins to be destroyed. And when UNSCOM has to go back in, they have to start more from scratch than they would have if the inspectors can go back to work right now.

So the person who's being - the regime that's being harmed by continued time passing is the Iraqi regime.

QUESTION: Jamie, is it your understanding that Mr. Butler is going to continue with the U-2 flights through the week, and everything is going to progress as planned?

MR. RUBIN: I don't want to make any specific statement about when flights will fly. That's up to Ambassador Butler to decide. It is our understanding that he intends to continue to fly these UN reconnaissance aircraft.

QUESTION: And I know that the travel restrictions are something that was agreed upon. And you talked about building further agreement or - unanimity is the word you used for further action or further measures, should that be needed. But some critics will charge, rather, that maybe Saddam had a lot of wiggle room here, and he's still got a whole bunch of wiggle room. How would you respond to that?

MR. RUBIN: I don't know what that means.

QUESTION: Wiggle room in that he's had a chance to move equipment around. He's had this travel restriction. He's delayed stuff for, what - this is going into the second week now?

MR. RUBIN: Right, I don't understand why the travel restriction is a wiggle room.

QUESTION: Well, wiggle room in that you're still not talking about military action. You're not emphatically saying --

MR. RUBIN: Well, again, the objective here - although some of the critics may have a different view - the objective is not to take military action; the objective is to get the inspectors back to work. We are taking the course that we believe is necessary - going the extra mile diplomatically; ratcheting up the pressure in New York; uniting the world against Saddam Hussein. Our experience over the last six years - unlike some of these critics - I don't know quite who they are who would frame it the way you said it - is that that is what Saddam Hussein responds to - the unanimity of the world against him is what causes him to change his mind.

When he thinks that he can play one country off against another, he is more likely to be recalcitrant. But once he's concluded that the whole world is united against him, including countries that have a regular dialogue with him, that he is most likely to reverse course. That doesn't mean he will in this case; but it means it's our responsibility to have gone the extra mile, tried to take all reasonable steps we could take before considering other options. That's the responsibility of our government to do so, and that's what we're doing.

QUESTION: Would the United States Government have preferred a tougher version of the resolution?

MR. RUBIN: I know there's been some reporting on this. I was actually with Secretary Albright when these decisions were made. She specifically instructed the delegation in New York that all we were concerned about achieving in this phase was as unanimous support as possible for the travel sanctions, and then consideration of further measures.

There may have been other delegations in New York who sought stronger words, but the United States certainly did not.

QUESTION: There's a bit of a level of frustration in the United States that it's been unable to come up with any kind of solution which would ensure that the scrutiny that the international community wants Saddam Hussein to be under is not resumed? I mean, basically, he's had this time with which he can be doing all kinds of things that the UN weapons inspectors won't know about.

MR. RUBIN: Well, again, let's bear in mind what these inspectors do and what they don't do. They are not in a position to know everything that's going on in Iraq at all times; that's not what they do. The reason why some believe we're in this stand-off is because they were getting closer to uncovering an elaborate scheme to hide weapons of mass destruction programs from them. But that means they've been hiding them all along. It doesn't mean that a week has gone by and now they're able to hide them, and before they weren't able to hide them. It means that the deception and the deceit and the concealment program that is conducted at the highest levels there has been going on all along.

So the perception that with each day, the amount of opportunity for Iraq to suddenly begin building weapons of mass destruction is simply incorrect. Frankly, we have other means of keeping track of what goes on in Iraq. As Secretary Cohen, I believe, said yesterday, yes, there does come a point at which the possibility of serious restructuring would have occurred, but what we're talking about is months, not days.

QUESTION: How will the travel restrictions be enforced by the United States?

MR. RUBIN: Well, as I understand the way the scheme will work - and please don't hold me to each detail, because obviously this will emerge now that the resolution has just passed a few minutes ago - is that the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations will draw up a list and inform all the member states of who is on that list. They will obtain that list by asking the UN Special Commission who they believe is responsible, who issues the orders that prohibit the UN from doing its work, the UN Special Commission. A list will be created, and the countries of the world will be asked not to permit travel, presumably through visas and other normal means that countries use, to that list of officials.

If there is deemed to be a reason to make an exception, for some overwhelming diplomatic purpose, then that Sanctions Committee can make an exception.

QUESTION: Will Tariq Aziz be allowed to come to the United Nations, or is it premature to --

MR. RUBIN: Well, I think that's a little premature. As a rule, again, as the host country of the United Nations, it has tended to be American practice to make sure that officials from countries are able to make their case, and I don't think the objective is to prevent that kind of an event, if that would help us resolve the crisis or get Iraq to reverse course.

QUESTION: Jamie, is it your understanding that senior Iraqi officials will be able to visit the Arab League headquarters in Egypt, and does that open a major loophole by allowing Iraq to continue lobbying officials of the Arab world?

MR. RUBIN: I'll have to get you an answer of who this is going to apply to. As I indicated, now that the resolution has been passed, I would expect some number of days to pass before the Sanctions Committee develops its list and issues these names to the 185, I believe - did I get that right - 185 countries in the world, and tells them who is on the banned list. So at that point, that would apply.

An exception, for such a meeting like the one you described, would have to be approved by the Sanctions Committee, which tends to act by consensus.

QUESTION: Jamie, is the Secretary going through with her trip, given all this Iraq stuff?

MR. RUBIN: I am packing. I think those of you who are going should pack. The Secretary intends to go forward with her trip at this time.

QUESTION: Has any of the itinerary in Pakistan changed?

MR. RUBIN: I don't believe so. Obviously, there will be some reflection upon the security situation, and her security people may make recommended changes. As you know, that's an issue that could develop at any time.

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

QUESTION: Jamie, do you have any information on Turkey's report of increasing Iraqi violations of the no-fly zone in the north? And is that a serious problem?

MR. RUBIN: I don't have any current information on that. We can try to get it for you. I expect the Pentagon might be in a better position, but we'll try to get you an answer from this building.

QUESTION: Back on Iraq just briefly. You speak of unanimity, of course speaking of the vote.

MR. RUBIN: Correct.

QUESTION: Can you give us some characterization of how countries like Turkey and Saudi Arabia feel now about their being available? They may feel the same. They have been available from the outset. But how are they lined up now, should it become necessary to use the force option? Can you count on them?

MR. RUBIN: Again, I don't think we're at that phase; I think we've made that clear. When and if we begin consultations with countries about that kind of a question, it would not be for me to say publicly what their positions were. But I think you can conclude the following.

When the entire world, by the voice of 15 members of the Security Council, take a stand against Saddam Hussein, that should increase the chances that if we ever come to a situation where the use of force is considered - and again, it hasn't been ruled out at this point - that it will increase the chances that countries in the Arab world will see that the UN and the United States and the French and the Russians and the British and the whole world went the extra mile in trying to get Saddam Hussein to resolve this problem diplomatically.

QUESTION: I have another question about the resolution. What is meant by immediate compliance? A minute ago, Ambassador Richardson said that Saddam Hussein would be expected to comply immediately with this resolution. But of course, immediately doesn't mean one minute after it's passed. He may need to hear from Tariq Aziz, or whoever he listens to, talk to the Russians or the French or whatever. What is meant by immediate?

MR. RUBIN: Let me follow my pattern. Not only wouldn't I want to disagree with Secretary Albright or Mike McCurry, I certainly wouldn't want to disagree with Ambassador Richardson.

Immediately means as soon as the message finally gets through in Baghdad and an order is issued. It will take a very short amount of time once the decision is made. It's a one-man decision-making process there.

QUESTION: Does Tariq Aziz have - I heard he might be getting a visa limited to five days?

MR. RUBIN: I don't know his current travel schedule. We can try to get you that.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, if the US imposed travel restrictions? I mean, I understood the visa would be --

MR. RUBIN: He didn't choose to speak today before the Council. So he may have other places he wants to go.

QUESTION: Is it all right with the US if he hangs around?

MR. RUBIN: I'll have to get an answer for how his visa is restricted, if any.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 3:40 P.M.)

.

[end of document]