• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

26 November 1997

TRANSCRIPT: AMB. BILL RICHARDSON'S NOVEMBER 25 WORLDNET ON IRAQ

(US Ambassador to UN says Iraq in "minimal compliance")  (4360)
Washington -- U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Bill Richardson
says that by allowing U.N. weapons inspectors back in, Iraq has
demonstrated only "a minimal compliance.
"They should comply," Richardson told a Worldnet audience November 25,
"by giving those inspectors full access to all sites and officials and
records.
"Secondly," he said, "we believe that our policy of settling this
issue diplomatically, peacefully through the U.N. Security Council,
with a robust military capability backing us, has been important in
getting Iraq to partially reverse the course, the unfortunate course
that they took.
"President Clinton will determine when the military presence in the
Gulf will change," Richardson said. "That decision has not been made.
It's our view that until Iraq fully complies with Resolution 1137 that
we believe that the situation in the region needs that military
presence. We believe very strongly that this has sent a powerful
message. We have not ruled the military option out, but it appears now
that if we can settle this issue diplomatically and peacefully through
the United Nations we're all going to be better off. But ultimately it
will be the President who will deem necessary when some of those
drawdowns can take place of our military assets in the region."
Following is the Worldnet transcript:
(begin transcript)
WORLDNET "DIALOGUE"
UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY
Television and Film Service of Washington, D.C.
GUEST:    U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Bill Richardson
TOPIC:    Iraq
POSTS:	  London, Ankara, Amman
HOST:     Scot Riddlesberger
DATE:     November 25, 1997
TIME:     10:15 - 10:45 EDT
SCOT RIDDLESBERGER: Hello, and welcome to Worldnet. I'm Scot
Riddlesberger. Tension between Iraq and the international community
has eased some now that the United Nations weapons inspectors have
resumed their work in Iraq. Joining me from the United Nations in New
York to discuss the situation between Iraq and the U.N. is the U.S.
permanent representative to the United Nations, Bill Richardson.
Ambassador Richardson, it is a pleasure to have you with us today.
AMB. RICHARDSON:  Thank you.  Nice to be with you.
MR. RIDDLESBERGER: Sir, I understand you have an opening statement for
us before our discussion.
AMB. RICHARDSON: Yes, I would. It will last about five minutes, and
then I'll be prepared to take questions.
What is America's strategy with Iraq? Three points. Send a clear
message that the world community is united in condemning Iraq's
actions as unacceptable, and demanding that it comply with United
Nations Security Council resolutions. We are engaged in the United
Nations in an intensified diplomatic effort with our friends and
allies to convey this message. And, thirdly, our preference is to
settle this issue peacefully, but our diplomatic efforts is backed by
a robust military capability, because we have not ruled out any
options.
I want to leave three messages today. First, Iraq continues to
threaten the Middle East and the world with its programs to build
weapons of mass destruction. It is the considered opinion of 20
independent arms control and technical experts who oversee the UNSCOM,
the U.N. inspection team that met here in New York over the weekend,
that the United Nations must have full access to all sites in Iraq
before we can be sure that Saddam Hussein has stopped building
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
Message number two: For the past six years Iraqi officials have been
dodging and deceiving the U.N. weapons inspectors. Baghdad has tried
to create an impression of cooperation while concealing essential
information on the scope of its weapons programs.
And, thirdly, the international community continues to press Iraq to
be fully compliant with Security Council resolutions.
On Iraqi sanctions: One, the sanctions on Iraq were imposed by the
United Nations, and they are enforced by the United Nations. This has
not been a dispute between the United States and Iraq; it's been a
dispute between Iraq has violated United Nations and Security Council
resolutions.
Point number two: The sanctions are intended to bring the government
of Iraq into compliance with binding U.N. resolutions. It's up to the
government of Iraq to comply with the resolutions and thus have the
sanctions lifted. So far Iraq has not complied with U.N. resolutions.
No one expected the sanctions to last for over six years. But since
Iraq has not complied there is and there will be no lifting of
sanctions.
The Security Council is unanimous in its assessment that Iraq must
fully comply with Security Council resolutions before we can talk
about lifting sanctions. The United States and the international
community are extremely concerned about the Iraqi people. Our beef is
not with the Iraqi people. We are the authors of 986, the oil-for-food
program that was established by the U.N. Security Council because of
the overriding concern of the United States and the international
community for the welfare of the Iraqi people. Because of the same
concern, the Security Council acted in September to modify the time
during which Iraq could sell oil under the oil-for-food program. It
was through the inaction of the government of Iraq that oil did not
start flowing as early as it could have, and the Iraqi people have
suffered more as a result of that inaction. Through its resolution
extending the time during which Iraq could sell oil, the Security
Council told the government of Iraq that their inaction was
unacceptable, and it told the Iraqi people that the international
community cared about them and supported them. We stand behind U.N.
Resolution 986.
I am ready to answer questions.  Thank you.
MR. RIDDLESBERGER: Okay, thank you, Mr. Ambassador. I would like to
welcome now our participants in London to our program. Please go ahead
with your questions for Ambassador Richardson.
Q: I am from Al-Hayat newspaper in London. Good morning, Mr.
Ambassador. In view of Russia's determination to protect Baghdad's
interests, and America's desire to preserve the unity within the
council, what are the chances for UNSCOM to gain access to all those
important sites which Iraq announced off limits?
AMB. RICHARDSON: Well, Iraq should comply with all Security Council
resolutions, and Iraq should listen to what the weapons inspectors,
the commissioners, came out with in their report this weekend, and
that is that there should be full access to all inspection sites,
records, and officials. Iraq should heed that message. That is very
important.
Russia played a constructive role in getting Iraq to back off on the
weapons inspectors and letting the Americans come back in. But we have
a different approach than Russia does in the role of UNSCOM. We feel
that UNSCOM should be free of any kind of political participation,
that it be based on scientific and technical expertise. We believe
strongly that UNSCOM is a United Nations entity whose objectives and
integrity should not be part of a political process to appease Iraq.
We don't believe Iraq should be rewarded for complying with a
resolution of the United Nations after it had violated it.
MR. RIDDLESBERGER: We now have a question from a participant in
Jordan. Please go ahead in Amman.
Q: Ambassador Richardson, this is Dr. Musah Kilani (ph). Now that the
U.N. weapons inspectors team is back in Iraq, why is the United States
continuing its sabre-rattling by having more military build-up in the
Gulf? Many in our part of the world believe that the U.S. is looking
for an opportunity to further weaken Iraq with a new military strike,
with new demands added whenever Iraq complies. Please will you
comment?
AMB. RICHARDSON: Well, first of all, Iraq has not complied. They have
allowed the inspectors back in; that's a minimal compliance. They
should comply by giving those inspectors full access to all sites and
officials and records. Secondly, we believe that our policy of
settling this issue diplomatically, peacefully through the U.N.
Security Council, with a robust military capability backing us, has
been important in getting Iraq to partially reverse the course, the
unfortunate course that they took. President Clinton will determine
when the military presence in the Gulf will change. That decision has
not been made. It's our view that until Iraq fully complies with
Resolution 1137 that we believe that the situation in the region needs
that military presence. We believe very strongly that this has sent a
powerful message. We have not ruled the military option out, but it
appears now that if we can settle this issue diplomatically and
peacefully through the United Nations we're all going to be better
off. But ultimately it will be the President who will deem necessary
when some of those drawdowns can take place of our military assets in
the region.
MR. RIDDLESBERGER: And now a question from Ankara for Ambassador Bill
Richardson at the United Nations.
Q: (Inaudible) -- from ATV Television channel. Mr. Ambassador, we are
observing a lot of lack of consultation with the Turkish government.
Therefore what are your expectations from Ankara as an ally? And is
there any possibility that you ask Ankara to use Incirlik base these
coming days in short term? Thank you very much.
AMB. RICHARDSON: Well, first of all, we consider Turkey a very
valuable ally; it has been consistently in our policy towards Iraq.
And Ambassador Mark Parris, who is a good friend of mine, has had
daily consultations with the Turkish government. The consultation
process is going on. We consult step by step. Turkey is a key ally, a
key bulwark in our policy in the Gulf. And I believe that the
consultation process is sensible, has been working effectively, and I
can tell you that many of us have tremendous confidence in Ambassador
Mark Parris.
Q: Yes, Mr. Ambassador, my name is Hosni Kasharba (sp) from the Arab
newspaper -- (inaudible). My question in brief is: One very important
aspect of the current crisis with Iraq is that it is somewhat related
to the wider state of gloom and frustration surrounding the Middle
East peace process. The Iraqi President knows that and he is trying to
invest it. He is indeed trying to provoke military action against him.
Are you doing anything to disengage the two problems, and how?
AMB. RICHARDSON: First of all, we have two important priorities in the
region. First, get the Middle East peace process going again; build
trust between all sides; have the parties directly negotiate their
differences. We are making slight progress there, although not as much
progress as we want. That is a fundamental objective of American
foreign policy.
Our second track is obviously a policy of containment of Iraq, a
policy of insisting that Iraq comply with U.N. resolutions. The
problem is related because Iraq has threatened the state of Israel. It
has threatened to destabilize neighbors. They invaded Kuwait. They
invaded Iran. They gassed their own people. They still have Kuwaiti
prisoners of war, stolen Kuwaiti property. There is still massive
violations of human rights. So the problem is related. We value our
relationship with our Arab friends. We want to send the powerful
message that Arab world opinion and Arab leader support for our policy
is critically important. This is why the Secretary of State toured the
region, explained our policy. And I believe that while there may be
some tactical differences in our approach towards Saddam Hussein,
there is a universal view that he is not abiding by the U.N. Security
Council resolutions and that he does present a threat to the
international community and to the region with his weapons of mass
destruction. He has anthrax, VX, poison gas. And who knows in all of
these sites what other dangerous weapons exist. We are just saying
lets have access for inspections to all of these sites that previously
in the past have not been disclosed or permitted inspection teams to
go in and investigate.
Q: Ambassador Richardson, my name is -- (inaudible) -- from Jordan
Television in Amman. The current crisis with Iraq has focused
attention on the issue of sanctions. Yet the U.S. insist that
sanctions will not be lifted, and the Iraqi people appear to be the
only sufferers. What's your comment on that? Thank you.
AMB. RICHARDSON: Well, first of all, there is the oil-for-food
resolution which addresses the humanitarian concerns of the Iraqi
people. We are the author of that -- 986 it is called. We have stated
before that we are ready to improve the delivery system of that
program. We care about food and medicine for the Iraqi people. It is
not our beef with them. Our beef is with Saddam Hussein and his
government. We don't believe, however, that sanctions should be lifted
until Iraq complies with all Security Council resolutions. This is an
international issue. This is not a dispute between the United States
and Iraq. Iraq is not in compliance even with the last resolution,
Resolution 1137, which requests and requires full compliance with the
U.N. inspection team. Just because they are back and doing their job
doesn't mean that they have full access to sites and the ability to do
their job.
Q: (Inaudible) -- daily. Mr. Ambassador, are you happy with the
Turkish attitude as an ally so far? Thank you very much.
AMB. RICHARDSON: Yes, we have a good relationship with Turkey. They've
had a positive attitude on the Persian Gulf policy and our policy
towards Iraq. They are our friends, and we continue being in very good
and close consultations with them.
Q: To follow on my first question, Mr. Ambassador, it was announced
that the former chief of UNSCOM, Ekeus, had a verbal agreement with
Baghdad regarding the sites. Do you approve of that agreement, and are
you telling Mr. Butler now to fall back on that agreement?
AMB. RICHARDSON: First of all, these are called modalities that were
negotiated between Mr. Ekeus, UNSCOM and the Iraqi government. What is
being proposed in the commissioner's report of UNSCOM that met over
the weekend was that UNSCOM and the U.N. inspectors have full access
to all sites, all issues relating to documents, all officials involved
in some of these weapons. And we stand behind the technical and
professional expertise of UNSCOM. That is America's position. We
support the report of the commissioners. We support full access. We
believe that these are scientific and technical in nature. And we
believe they should be supported.
Q: Ambassador Richardson, this is -- (inaudible) -- again from Jordan
television. My last question here: Why in your view is the U.S.
insisting that Iraq comply fully with U.N. resolutions while Israel
has not been asked to do so? Thank you.
AMB. RICHARDSON: First of all, Iraq is a threat to the international
community. They try to destabilize governments. They have massive
violations of human rights of their own people. They threaten the
international community with weapons of mass destruction. They have
shown repeatedly their inability to be positive participants in the
international community. It is our view that our policy towards Iraq
is important to bring some stability into the region. And this is not
just America's policy -- this is the U.N. Security Council twice
unanimously in the last two weeks -- once by a 15-to-nothing vote; the
other time by a unanimous vote in a U.N. Security Council presidential
statement that Iraq fully comply with U.N. resolutions. It hasn't done
so. Therefore there is no reason for even discussing that sanctions be
lifted. That is the position of literally all of the U.N. Security
Council. That is not just America's position.
Q: (Inaudible) -- television. Mr. Ambassador, will you ask Ankara for
permission to use Incirlik base these coming days?
AMB. RICHARDSON: We have a good, important strategic relationship with
Ankara. I am going to leave those details to Ambassador Parris. We
want to resolve this issue through the U.N. diplomatically,
peacefully. But that contingency of a military option is still there,
but -- and we are not ruling it out. But our preference is to deal
with this issue diplomatically and peacefully.
Q: Yes, Mr. Ambassador, this is Hosni Kasharba (ph) again from --
(inaudible) -- and I follow up on my first question. The general
feeling in the Arab world expects that the real crisis is yet to
happen; that is, when UNSCOM asks to inspect Iraqi presidential
palaces -- there are 39 of them. You have not ruled out the use of
force, which the Iraqi President wants. Now my question is -- refers
to what Mr. Richard Butler said, that the United Nations Security
Council is facing its most serious challenge in its history. Do you
agree?
AMB. RICHARDSON: Yes. We believe very strongly that this is a defining
moment for the United Nations. Is the Security Council and the U.N.
going to stand behind its own independent and effective agency,
UNSCOM? I believe it has. There cannot be any weakness in the Security
Council's determination to have its U.N. Security Council resolution
enforced. That is our very strong position. It was the Russian
government that asked for this special session, emergency session, of
UNSCOM inspectors. It is our view that the recommendations of the
UNSCOM inspectors be followed, which refers to your question -- full
access to all sites. We believe that Iraq should heed those
recommendations. We hope they will. It remains to be seen whether they
will give access. The rhetoric from their side has been unfortunate.
They have said that they are not going to permit these sites. This is
not good. This is not hopeful. This means that Iraq will continue to
thumb its nose at United Nations and UNSCOM. We hope that that doesn't
happen.
Q: This is -- (inaudible) -- from Amman again. President Clinton on
November 14th made a statement to the effect that sanctions wouldn't
be removed as long as Saddam Hussein stays in power in Iraq. So it
seems the sanctions are not in a place to get rid of weapons of mass
destruction but to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Could you please comment
on that?
AMB. RICHARDSON: Well, I support what President Clinton said. When he
made that statement he basically was saying that at the time Iraq had
thrown out the inspectors. And how could there ever be a discussion of
sanctions while he thumbs his nose at the international community? Our
policy is very clear: Iraq needs to comply with all the Security
Council resolutions. Until -- when it doesn't do that, there is no
reason to discuss the lifting of sanctions. That is a very clear
position from the United States and many other countries in the U.N.
Security Council.
Q: (Inaudible) -- from Ankara again. Mr. Ambassador, do you think
Turkey is under the direct threat of Iraqi biological weapons? Thank
you.
AMB. RICHARDSON: I believe that the whole region is under threat
because of Iraq's continued production of chemical and biological
weapons. I think you heard and read about the report of the UNSCOM
commissioners. Iraq has not been responsive on biological weapons.
They hide them. They don't give access. The same with chemical
weapons. We believe that as far as nuclear missiles, that the files on
those areas can't be closed. While there has maybe been some progress,
it is not sufficient to close those files. That was the conclusion of
the UNSCOM inspectors this weekend, and we support that.
Q: (Inaudible) -- again. Yesterday the Russian foreign minister, Mr.
Primakov, criticized the United States and said that the United States
should abandon using patterns of the Cold War in dealing with Iraq.
What is your reply to Mr. Primakov?
AMB. RICHARDSON: Well, first of all, we think that Foreign Minister
Primakov and the Russian Federation made a positive contribution by
convincing Iraq, with the backing of the Permanent Five and the
meeting in Geneva, with the backing of American policy of seeking a
diplomatic solution with a robust military presence, to Iraq to let
the inspectors back in. We differ now on the role of UNSCOM, the U.N.
inspectors. We believe that we should heed the recommendations of the
scientific and technical experts, and not try to reward Iraq with any
changes in UNSCOM that they may perceive as having weakened UNSCOM.
But with the Russian Federation we worked very closely on two
unanimous resolutions that push Iraq to let the inspections back in;
and secondly to simply say we cannot discuss sanctions relief until
all Security Council resolutions are abided by. So our policy, while
we have had a few tactical differences, remains consistently similar.
Q: Ambassador Richardson, this is -- (inaudible) -- again. Sanctions
for the past six years haven't been a successful policy. However, you
said that the Iraqi regime still has, quote/unquote, "weapons of mass
destruction." Meanwhile we know that thousands of Iraqis are suffering
and hundreds die each day. Now, Ambassador Richardson, can you justify
the use of sanctions? And what makes you think they will work any
better in the future? Thank you.
AMB. RICHARDSON: Well, first of all, I believe our policy of
containment with Saddam Hussein has worked. It has worked. There have
been instances where every year he tries to challenge the
international community. He has not been successful in doing that.
Look where he is now. Right now the international community knows he
is building weapons of mass destruction. The whole world knows that.
Perhaps they didn't know that before. Secondly, he has been sanctioned
twice by the U.N. Security Council in the last two weeks. The position
that Iraq has taken has not received hardly any support in the
international community, especially in the United Nations Security
Council. And, thirdly, in international public opinion he has not
fared well. He has not done well in terms of the international public
opinion that is so critically important. He has also in our judgment
continued to show patterns of not caring about the region. And it is
our view that many Arab governments are nervous about him. They are
nervous about his objectives. That is reflected to us in many ways.
But we want to make sure that our policy towards Saddam Hussein is
consistent with the security needs of our Arab friends, and that is
what we have been trying to coalesce in the Middle East through
Secretary Albright's visits to the region -- not just to the Gulf
States, but to some of the Middle East countries.
Q: (Inaudible) -- from ATV again. Mr. Ambassador, it's an important
question for Turkey: Do you plan to allow any increase in the amount
of oil exported under the oil-for-food program? Thank you.
AMB. RICHARDSON: Well, we are ready to find ways to make the
oil-for-food program work better -- if it means improving the delivery
system -- we've said that before. If we can find a way to help the
Iraqi people, we are ready to do that. We, as I said, in September
were able to change the formula so that there could be quicker oil
flow, quicker humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people. It was a
lot of Iraqi bureaucracy and stone-walling that caused the problem. We
are ready to do our share to make sure that this program runs more
efficiently. We've said that before. This is not linkage, though; this
is not a quid pro quo for anything. It has always been our strong view
that humanitarian issues should not be linked to political issues, and
this is one of them.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, this is Hosni Kasharba (sp) -- (inaudible) --
London. My question is: It has been said recently that Mr. Saddam
Hussein, rather than the Iraqi regime itself, is now or has become now
the real target of American policy towards Baghdad. How do you
comment?
AMB. RICHARDSON: Well, first of all, we have laws on the books that
prevent us from targeting anybody. Our view is we want to contain
Saddam Hussein. We don't have a beef with the Iraqi people. We want to
separate that and make that very clear. We want the Iraqi government
to comply with the U.N. Security Council resolutions -- that's our
objective. We are not targeting anybody. We just want compliance, and
we want inspectors to have access. We want us to deal with preventing
the threat of weapons of mass destruction. They are massive indeed.
They are dangerous to the region, to the international community.
That's our overriding concern: to prevent the Iraqi government from
threatening the region with weapons of mass destruction. This is
serious. These are deadly weapons. They've been used against the
Kurds. They have been used in Iran. They threaten the region. This is
why we are so concerned with this issue.
MR. RIDDLESBERGER:  And back to you, Amman, for our final question.
Q: You mentioned that U.N. Resolution 986 had brought adequate
medicine to Iraq. Then how do you explain the death by the thousands
each month or each day in Iraq? Thank you.
AMB. RICHARDSON: Well, first of all, the Iraqi government has not been
responsive in implementing this oil-for-food resolution -- nor has it
supported bureaucratically the efficiency of many of these programs.
In fact, they blocked it several times. What we are saying is we are
ready from our end, from the U.N. end, to find ways to make this
program more efficient so that the Iraqi people get more of this
humanitarian assistance. But Iraq has to do its share. And, by the
way, the U.N. bureaucratically has to approve its delivery system so
that the Iraqi people get more of this food and medicine.
MR. RIDDLESBERGER: And that will conclude our program with Ambassador
Bill Richardson. Mr. Ambassador, thank you for joining us today.
AMB. RICHARDSON:  Thank you very much.  All of you, thank you.
MR. RIDDLESBERGER: And best regards as well to our participants today
in the U.K., Jordan and Turkey. In Washington, I'm Scot Riddlesberger
for Worldnet's "Dialogue." Thank you.
(end transcript)