• 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. FOLEY: Welcome to the State Department. I don't have any announcements to make, and I see our dean or deans are not present. So, Sid, are you the acting dean?

QUESTION: Anything to say about Iraq's refusal to allow inspection of presidential sites?

MR. FOLEY: You're referring to the comments in television interviews over the weekend, I assume. Because we've not seen, I think, anything official. I don't believe that UNSCOM has been told anything beyond what Iraq announced last week, when it said it would comply with the UN Security Council resolutions and allow the return of the inspectors. But there were comments made by the Iraqi ambassador to the UN which, of course, we categorically reject.

The United Nations itself could not have been clearer than it was in the Security Council Resolution 1137. I quote from it, "Iraq must cooperate fully and immediately and without conditions or restrictions with the Special Commission." It went on to say that UNSCOM inspection teams must have "unrestricted access to any and all areas they wish." I think that speaks for itself.

QUESTION: Is it your understanding that there are no sites that are off limits?

MR. FOLEY: That's right. That's not only the United States' position. It's a position contained in all the relevant UN Security Council resolutions, and it's the intention of Chairman Butler and his team of commissioners.

QUESTION: So why have the UN and the US let it go the way it's been going for the last six years, with limited access?

MR. FOLEY: Well, it's been a constant struggle, Sid; there's no doubt about that. As I noted on Friday, UNSCOM has enjoyed notable success. It's been stated by many, including the President and the Secretary of State, that UNSCOM itself has uncovered and destroyed more Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs than the Coalition bombing managed to achieve in 1991.

It is doing its work in spite of the obstacles that Iraq has presented. We had this discussion last week. Iraq, obviously, is interested in having UNSCOM depart and cease its work quickly. Our position is fairly simply on that score -- that the timing of the completion of UNSCOM's work in Iraq is solely a function of the level of cooperation that they achieve. So we look towards maximum cooperation. Again, we did not note any Iraqi qualifications in their letter to the United Nations informing them of the return of UNSCOM.

QUESTION: Do you have the same tally that Secretary Cohen was showing yesterday on boards - on the Fox program?

MR. FOLEY: My understanding is that Secretary Cohen was drawing upon one of the recent UNSCOM reports to the United Nations which gave some kind of a historical look at the kinds and numbers of problems that UNSCOM has encountered in its mission. I believe the figure 63 was used, and I believe Secretary Cohen derived that from UNSCOM figures of sites. I don't think they are only presidential sites, but sites throughout the country where UNSCOM wanted to investigate and where it met, if not with denial, at least with evasion and confrontation.

QUESTION: I was wondering about the presidential sites, specifically. I was wondering, of the tally that is accepted here as factual, how many really are presidential sites, and how many are just declared presidential sites?

MR. FOLEY: I --

QUESTION: Because there might be a legitimate ground that they have that there is such a thing as a presidential palace. Nineteen seems a bit high, or whatever the number is. I'm just wondering what is the --

MR. FOLEY: I don't know the exact number of so-called presidential sites, but it's not 63; it's below that. UNSCOM, and yesterday Secretary Cohen, was describing the number of sites altogether where problems have been encountered. I don't know how many presidential sites, as such, they are, and whether even the Iraqi figure is itself plausible concerning presidential sites. But our position is clear, as is Chairman Butler's, that no site is to be off-limits to UNSCOM in the performance of its mission.

QUESTION: Does that include - I mean, let us say he has one palace where he basically stays most of the time, that even that must be subject to search by UNSCOM?

MR. FOLEY: That's an UNSCOM decision. If they have reasonable grounds for believing that their work must take them to a particular site -- whatever it may be or whatever it may be called -- because of information it has or documentation UNSCOM possesses, the Security Council resolutions, including most recently, 1137, are clear. I can quote it again, it's "unimpeded access to any sites which UNSCOM deems necessary to investigate."

QUESTION: Another subject?

MR. FOLEY: I don't know. I'll come to you if we're, surprisingly, finished with Iraq.

QUESTION: Is there any, that you're aware of, any sort of timetable for Butler - for UNSCOM to move on to the presidential sites?

MR. FOLEY: Well, you'd have to ask UNSCOM about its timetable. Obviously, they've just returned. I can give you just a little bit of information that we have, in terms of how they've fared so far, since going back on Friday. Both the Special Commission and the IAEA resumed their inspection operations in Iraq November 21 and they are visiting weapons of mass destruction related-facilities.

I would note for your information that there are now six Americans currently in Iraq working with the Special Commission and the IAEA. As UNSCOM operations return to normal, we expect the number of inspectors in Iraq will increase. UNSCOM teams, to include the US participants, have not been blocked from entering any sites since resuming operations on November 21. We understand inspectors have visited sites where cameras were turned off or equipment has been moved in order to reestablish the monitoring baselines. Other sites which are part of normal monitoring operations have also been visited.

UNSCOM's commissioners, as you know, met in an emergency session in New York on Friday and they confirmed UNSCOM and IAEA's previous assessments that inspection operations must continue in all weapons of mass destruction-related areas. They also noted, as did the commissioners that the speed in which UNSCOM and the IAEA may accomplish their responsibilities is above all determined by the degree of Iraqi cooperation in disclosing the full extent and disposition of its proscribed programs and in granting UNSCOM and the IAEA unimpeded access to sites, documents and records.

Finally, I would note also that there was a U-2 flight today that took photographs of weapons of mass destruction-related facilities requested by UNSCOM and IAEA. Any further details, though, as I said at the outset, you'd have to refer to UNSCOM, in terms of their time table of future inspection activities.

QUESTION: If the inspections so far have gone unfettered and unrestricted, can you please give a sense of how long the American build-up in the region is expected to continue?

MR. FOLEY: Well, obviously, I'd have to refer you to the Pentagon for specific operational details. That's a matter, ultimately, for decision by the President, in terms of how long those deployments continue.

He made very clear over the weekend that we're still on our guard, that this story is not over, and that continued vigilance is necessary. Beyond that, I really wouldn't want to comment.

QUESTION: Do you expect the number of inspectors to increase, and would those include Americans or --

MR. FOLEY: That's our understanding, certainly.

QUESTION: More Americans would be going in?

MR. FOLEY: Well, more inspectors. I don't have the figures in terms of what percentage Americans are in the current numbers of UNSCOM inspectors, but we wouldn't expect any change in that now.

QUESTION: Is there a connection between the degree to which they're given access and the presence of the American fleets?

MR. FOLEY: Well, now you're asking more of a philosophical question that relates back to the activities - especially the diplomatic activities of the last week - that led to the Iraqi reversal in allowing the UNSCOM teams to return.

I think we've noted several times that the diplomatic efforts which to this stage, anyway, have borne fruition were, in our view, significantly aided by the robust presence of American forces in the region.

QUESTION: Right, but I'm just wondering if whether the converse holds true. Since now you've made a diplomatic breakthrough and they seem to be proceeding unhindered, what is the logic of staying there?

MR. FOLEY: The logic of staying there, I think, has been stated eloquently by both the President and Secretary Albright and Secretary Cohen, as well; that we're still in a watching mode. We don't consider that the issue is closed.

The teams have returned; they've started their work. Let's see whether they're able now to work more effectively. Remember, as I mentioned on Friday, we're interested in more than a return to the status quo ante. We had this discussion here in this room then. The fact is that Iraq was not fully cooperating even before the latest crisis. To the extent that everyone in the world community is interested in an effective UNSCOM that's able to do its work rapidly, that's what we're looking for; and we think it depends entirely on Iraqi acquiescence and cooperation.

QUESTION: I thought the purpose of the build-up was to make the point that they have to allow the inspectors back in and to operate unhindered, which seems to be happening. So I don't quite understand, then, what is the purpose of that enormous build-up today.

MR. FOLEY: I think the story is not over. They've been back in Iraq, the inspectors, since Friday. It's only Monday. We're not about to draw any kinds of significant conclusions at this earliest stage in the process following their return.

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

QUESTION: Jane's Foreign Relations magazine, published in London, claimed that the CIA -- almost 20 CIA agents entered Northern Iraq again. They settled down at the Irbil area. Can we say that it means the USA is hopeful to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein again, or can we say you support Iraqi opposition groups becoming more powerful than before?

MR. FOLEY: You'll be very surprised, having been a veteran of this briefing room, that I'm not in a position to comment on that sort of topic.

QUESTION: It was a published story.

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

(The briefing concluded at 1:25 P.M.)

[end of document]