• Military

• WMD Menu                           

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

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

DoD News Briefing

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

Q: Mr. Secretary, a senior U.S. official traveling with Secretary Albright today said that the United States was discussing with France and Britain the possibility of somewhat easing the oil for food program. Is this concession on the part of the United States, is that a carrot to get Iraq to come across on the inspections?

Secretary Cohen: I'm not familiar with the statement itself, but it appears from what I've learned of that statement, it is simply a restatement of our current policy. Our policy, I believe, is very clearly stated in Resolution 1137, in that Iraq must comply unequivocally with the provisions of the Resolution, and our position is there should be no bargaining in any way until Saddam Hussein is in complete compliance with all the resolutions. At that point, obviously, we have indicated before that our concern and our quarrel has never been with the Iraqi people, it has been with what Saddam Hussein in fact has done to his neighbors and the threat he has posed to regional stability and well beyond the region.

So we were the originators of the 986 Resolution which allowed oil for food, because we have demonstrated our concern and compassion for the Iraqi people. There may be ways, sometime in the future, in which there are opportunities to help in other ways, but there can be no such trading or any carrot in order to get his compliance. He must comply and there should be no compensation or any carrots offered in order to entice him to do what he is legally obligated to do.

Q: So this modest expansion is nothing new?

Secretary Cohen: We are not seeking any deal in order to insist that he comply with his obligations. There should be no question about that. He must allow the inspectors back in without qualification. He cannot determine composition of those inspectors. He must comply with the obligations that he is under. At some time in the future, obviously, all countries would be interested in exploring ways in which the suffering that he has imposed upon his own people might be alleviated, but there can be no carrots dangled for Saddam Hussein in this case. He must comply with existing obligations.

Q: Mr. Secretary, the stated objective of the United States throughout the course of this situation has been to change Saddam Hussein's behavior. Do you believe that there is a military option that can realistically be expected to change his behavior?

Secretary Cohen: We have, in fact, changed his behavior by containing his aspirations. We have changed his behavior by not allowing him, for example, to move south, that would pose a threat to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, and also in the north. So to the extent that he has had desires to move his military operations south and threaten his neighbors, we have changed that.

We have, in fact, following the Gulf War, changed his behavior in the sense that the UNSCOM inspectors, the UN Special Commission were, in fact, able to destroy large amounts of chemical and biological weapons as well as cut up his missiles. So his behavior has been changed as a result of the military action that was taken during the Gulf War. It has been changed since that time by his efforts whenever he has made an effort to expand or enlarge his aspirations, they have been denied. So in a sense, military options have in fact changed.

If you're asking a more fundamental question as to whether or not military operations can ever modify one's behavior, I think that remains to be determined. I think what it takes is really united action on the part of the United Nations to isolate Iraq, to send a very strong message to Iraq that it cannot violate the UN's requirements with impunity. I think that will have, in combination with the ability to back that up through military action if necessary -- if he should threaten the U-2 flight, for example, and attack that aircraft -- I think the power of our military to respond is a very significant factor.

So we don't seek to use military power to encourage a change in behavior. We seek to achieve it through peaceful means and we'll continue to try to do so.

In sum, we have altered his behavior, if not his ambitions. Much will determine in the future whether the ambitions have been altered as well.

Q: Have the U-2 flights taken place or...

A: The U-2 flight is scheduled to take place. The time is reserved, of course, and set by the UN, not by the United States.

Q: Mr. Secretary, you will agree that any kind of agreement should be supported by a certain amount of budget, so we would like to ask you to quote what's the budget for the agreement signed by the Department of Defense with the Minister of Defense of Kazakhstan.

A: Secretary Cohen: We'll get it to you. Our check is in the mail. (Laughter)

Q: Have you discussed the issue of providing the security in the area of strategic oil pipelines, KTK and other companies?

A: President Nazarbayev: Your meetings are actually conducted under the auspices of military technical cooperation, so therefore you did not discuss those issues. Also, there is no need to provide security and defense in any shape or form to the oil pipelines in Kazakhstan. I think if we decide to put the pipelines through Iran or Iraq, then I will have to talk about the security together with Mr. Cohen.

Q: Mr. Secretary, would the United States agree to any change in the composition of the inspection team? Iraq has suggested that if they reflected the composition of the permanent members of the Security Council, that that could be a way out of this conflict.

Secretary Cohen: I don't know how many different ways I can express this. Saddam Hussein, Iraq, is not in any position to demand a change in composition of the UN inspectors. That is a decision that the United States itself will make. It will not be done under the threat of any kind of intimidation by Saddam Hussein. I have drawn the analogy of the person or the individual having been convicted of a crime, and dictating to his parole officer the terms and conditions of his parole status. That is simply unacceptable under our law, under international law, under every sense of decency. He cannot dictate this.

Secondly I'd point out that the composition, if you look at the numbers, we represent only 14 percent of the total number of inspectors included in the inspection regime. If Saddam Hussein is able to say that we want fewer Americans, then the next suggestion will be we want fewer British or we want fewer French, we want fewer Australians, we want fewer Swiss, fewer Swedes, and whatever he should demand.

Again, I point out there's something Orwellian about all of this. Saddam Hussein can claim that he somehow has been victimized by the inspectors that are looking for weapons that are illegal, that are trying to make sure he does not reconstitute his capability in developing such evil chemicals and nerve agents such as VX, or sarin gas, or anthrax. So for him to complain that he is operating under unfair conditions really is Orwellian in nature. It's the equivalent of saying that war is peace; that freedom is slavery; that ignorance is wisdom; that love is hate; and two plus two equals five or six or seven or whatever he dictates. That sort of perversion of language is a precursor to a perversion of our cognitive thinking, so he is not in a position to call for this, in my judgment. Only the United Nations can make that decision, and I don't believe it should be made under duress or coercion.

Saddam Hussein holds in his hands the key to economic liberation and that's called compliance. It's very simple. He need only comply with the UN resolutions and there will be opportunities for the people of his country to be relieved from the suffering that he has inflicted.

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