• 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: I draw from Secretary Cohen's Q and A this morning, his press conference, in part. Does the State Department feel that it is very important that Saddam Hussein not get away with - not succeed in his programs of weapons of mass destruction, in order that the 25 other nations that are involved in developing these types of weapons might be discouraged, deterred?

MR. FOLEY: I think you make an important point. We've rightly focused, throughout this stand-off and crisis of the last few weeks, on the situation in Iraq, which is critical -- critical to the safety and security of nations surrounding Iraq and beyond. But there is a larger issue at stake -- and I'm glad you asked the question -- because if the international community fails to achieve its goals in Iraq, if the inspection regime is not allowed to function effectively and come to a final, successful conclusion, certainly that will set a bad precedent for its work elsewhere in the world.

So a lot more is at stake here. As much as the situation in Iraq is of critical, near-term, immediate importance, the whole world community has a stake in the successful completion of UNSCOM's mission in Iraq.

QUESTION: The Executive Director of UNSCOM, Richard Butler, is going to Iraq next week. I'm wondering if you have any expectation that his talks on access to sites will yield some agreement?

MR. FOLEY: Well, Mr. Butler would have to speak for himself, in terms of the aims of his visit, what he plans to discuss with the Iraqi authorities. But in our view, when Iraq welcomed, so to speak, the return of the UNSCOM inspectors last week, they did so unconditionally. We've seen some comments on television that indicate that the Iraqis cling to other views. But until UNSCOM is allowed access to all the sites it deems necessary to inspect, we won't be able to really answer that question.

Presumably, this will be an issue of discussion between Mr. Butler and the Iraqi authorities. But again, if, as is obvious, the Iraqi regime wishes to have the hope of emerging from the sanctions regime, they will have to cooperate 100 percent, not 95 or 99 percent, but 100 percent with Mr. Butler's efforts.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on that news account this morning, to the effect that the Iraqis had advance knowledge of visits by UNSCOM to suspected weapons sites, and therefore had an opportunity to conceal what was there?

MR. FOLEY: I don't have direct information, but we do know that UNSCOM, as well as the IAEA, simply assume that Iraq is applying all available means to spy on UN inspectors, particularly attempting to learn in advance about planned inspection operations.

It's certainly not a new development. Since the inception of the inspections operations in 1991, for example, Iraq has assigned a large number of people, or "minders" I think they're called, to escort the inspectors. One of their primary tasks is to engage the inspectors in conversation, seeking to learn more about future inspection operations.

I think it's safe to assume the worst, if you will, in terms of Iraqi intentions or aims to learn all that they can in advance of UNSCOM operations. I think that's a fact of life that UNSCOM is attempting to deal with. You'd have to ask them how, operationally, they seek to preserve the integrity of their work, but it's obviously a critical question.

QUESTION: There seem to be some discrepancies about how - the number of sensitive sites in Iraq. Do you all have a figure that you're working with, as far as --

MR. FOLEY: Well, I think it's a moving target, and I think that the Iraqis have a tendency to add to the figure. You saw Secretary Cohen on television over the weekend, and he mentioned, I think, the figure was 63. I've seen press accounts that it might be more. Our view is that the number should be zero, and there's no question about that.

QUESTION: Just to follow up on what you said the Iraqis are saying, and also to follow up what's happened over the last week, Iraq seems to be under the impression, or they were given the impression by Russia, that Russia would obviously be the advocate for them and push to ease sanctions. They are operating under that impression, but the United States has said, as well as UNSCOM seems to be saying, that they are a long way off from even thinking about lifting sanctions, when you can't even get to the weapons sites and you know what Iraq's doing.

Then Iraq said, I believe last week, that if they don't get what they want, another crisis is on the brink. They were almost suggesting they were going to disrupt the inspections yet again. So what do you think it's going to take to get Iraq on the same page with the UN? There's all this kind of discrepancy.

MR. FOLEY: Vigilance and commitment on the part of the international community to persevere until the day comes when UNSCOM is granted the access it needs and is able to certify, at the end of the day, that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs are finished once and for all.

I would note that insofar as Iraq is interested in having sanctions lifted, that they took a tremendous step in the wrong direction when they precipitated this crisis last month. Indeed, the UNSCOM inspectors in their early days, back in Baghdad in Iraq since Friday, have been attempting to reconstruct the baseline that to some degree or another may have been compromised during their absence.

So, Crystal, your question is a good one; but only Saddam Hussein ultimately is capable of answering that question. His actions alone will determine when the sanctions lifting can be considered.

QUESTION: So you think you can get cooperation with Iraq without incentives being offered?

MR. FOLEY: Well, clearly there was an attempt on Saddam Hussein's part to drive a wedge through the international coalition and the Security Council in precipitating this crisis; and it didn't succeed. I would note, we are not surprised that Russia, to one degree or another, is playing the role of advocate or lawyer for some of the concerns of Iraq. But I've seen no evidence - and certainly the Secretary saw none in Geneva in the meeting with Minister Primakov - that the Russians have deviated in any way from the demands shared by all members of the Security Council that Iraq must comply unconditionally and fully with all the requirements of the sanctions regime.

QUESTION: Can you give me a better sense of the purpose now being served by the enormous build-up of US forces in neighboring countries? I gather some more aircraft arrived today.

MR. FOLEY: Well, you asked that question yesterday, Roy. I would simply say that the situation has not changed in any way.

I noted yesterday that the inspectors have only been back in Iraq several days. It's much too early - way too early - to declare that the crisis has passed. We'll see, as UNSCOM goes about its work. In terms of operational details of US deployments in the region, I'd have to refer you to the Pentagon.

QUESTION: My question is what the mission is now, in terms of policy goals that you hope this force will accomplish.

MR. FOLEY: Well, as I indicated to Crystal a moment ago, the stance is one of vigilance now, first and foremost. In terms of how long the crisis may last, when we will be able to relax our guard, if you will, and determine that the crisis has passed, we're certainly not there yet. I can't give you a day or a week or a month, Roy. We'll have to see what happens.

QUESTION: So the crisis is still in full tilt, as far as you see it?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I think it's ebbed somewhat since the Geneva meeting and the Iraqi willingness to allow the inspectors back. But the true test is coming and is occurring as UNSCOM goes about its work on the ground. We'll have to see how that goes.

QUESTION: Doesn't it seem to be contradicted by the arrival of new aircraft, including B-2 bombers?

MR. FOLEY: I think I've answered that.

QUESTION: You said you weren't surprised that Russia is playing the advocate of Iraq. I'm just curious, why aren't you surprised that Russia is taking Iraq's side over the side of the world community?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not sure Russia is taking the side of Iraq over the world community. First of all, this is not a new development. We've seen this over the years. The inspections regime has been in place since 1991, and at various points, Russia has been a voice for Iraqi concerns, without, again, I emphasize, challenging or deviating from the principle that Iraq must fully comply with the Security Council resolutions.

QUESTION: Are we ready for a new subject?

MR. FOLEY: Carol?

QUESTION: Just wanted a clarification on my earlier question on Butler. I know you can't speak for UNSCOM, but there was an agreement, I think, in June, setting out some guidelines on access to sensitive sites. Are you of the view now that this agreement with these guidelines no longer holds because Iraq, in your view, has pledged to allow unfettered access to sites?

MR. FOLEY: They've allowed the return of UNSCOM without conditions, as we understand it. The proof, obviously, is in the pudding, as UNSCOM goes about its work and seeks access to sites it deems necessary to inspect. We'll have to see that.

In terms of Mr. Butler's previous work or negotiations with the Iraqis, again, as you suggest, I'd have to refer you to Chairman Butler. But regardless of what his previous discussions with the Iraqis may have entailed, my understanding is that he's always insisted, in order for his people to do their work, that they have full, 100 percent, unfettered access. I'm not aware that there's been any change in his position.

QUESTION: This morning during his briefing, Secretary Cohen said that oftentimes UNSCOM doesn't have the information and they have been lucky enough to get it from people such as Saddam's brother-in-law and then, recently, from a "60 Minutes" interview. It seems to me that UNSCOM is always one step behind; they just get these lucky breaks occasionally and find out more information. So maybe the present process that they're using to discover weapons in Iraq isn't working, that they need to find a different method, because they'll never know everything.

MR. FOLEY: Certainly, they have a Herculean task. Iraq is a big country, and it's a secretive country. It's a police state, with all the assets that a police state can deploy to control its territory, to control its population. And yet they've done a remarkably good job, under remarkably difficult circumstances. They have been able to find out so much more, I think, than what the international community assumed Iraq was working on and developing before the Gulf War.

Certainly, they've had some lucky breaks. The defection was one, as you mentioned. But just from press accounts, I'm aware that they've been able, in spite of Iraqi efforts, to uncover documents maybe in places where people had forgotten to secret them, or forgotten they were there. They've had testimony, and each piece has opened up new vistas in areas that had been denied or covered up. They've been able to accomplish a lot. And the fact of the matter is that their very presence there and their work itself has led to more avenues of inquiry.

QUESTION: But as long as Saddam Hussein is in power, they're never going to have access to all the sites; they're never going to catch up. They'll always be a few steps behind.

MR. FOLEY: That's assuming the absence of a political decision on the part of Saddam Hussein to cooperate fully with UNSCOM and with the terms of the UN Security Council resolutions. If he understands that the international community remains firm, and he is attached to the lifting of sanctions someday, then he will have to come to that conclusion at some point; otherwise, the sanctions will not be lifted. Our job is to present him with an either/or choice. So far, I think we've done a very good job of doing that, over the last six years.

QUESTION: So you actually believe it's a realistic assumption that he will come to terms with the international community and provide access to all of his weapons?

MR. FOLEY: We're certainly not going to in any way diminish our commitment to making sure that he does comply with the UN Security Council resolutions and that he does not emerge from his box, from his isolation, or from the sanctions regime until he cooperates 100 percent and UNSCOM is able to give Iraq a clean bill of health, in terms of the elimination of its weapons of mass destruction and its programs of developing weapons of mass destruction.

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

(The briefing concluded at 1:20 P.M.)

[end of document]