UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

USIS Washington File

03 February 1998

TRANSCRIPT: SECRETARY-GENERAL KOFI ANNAN 2/2 PRESS CONFERENCE

(Annan requests increase in humanitarian aid to Iraqi people) (3560)
United Nations -- U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has asked the
Security Council to approve a plan that will allow Baghdad to sell
$5,200 million in oil under strict U.N. supervision in order to buy
needed food, medicine, and other humanitarian supplies for Iraqis
affected by the seven-year-old economic embargo.
"There should be no linkage between humanitarian issues and the crisis
we are trying to contain caused by Iraq's refusal to implement the
council's resolution" on weapons inspections, Annan told journalists
at a press conference after meeting privately with the 15-member
Security Council.
Annan expressed the hope that Iraq will cooperate with the U.N. on
both the weapons inspections and the humanitarian aid program, which
could more than double humanitarian assistance to Iraqi civilians.
"It is my sincere hope that diplomatic efforts to this end will
succeed; failure risks another round of devastating military action,
which may have unpredictable consequences," he said.
Following is the transcript of the press conference:
(Begin transcript)
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I've just
briefed the Council on my report on the oil-for-food scheme.
Obviously, the report is going to generate quite a lot of discussion,
not only because of its importance, but also the timing and the
projected expansion of the programme. I was able to explain to the
members of the Council why we have recommended such an expansion. I
also pleaded with them that there should be no linkage between the
discussion of humanitarian issues and the crisis that we are trying to
contain, caused by Iraq's refusal to implement Security Council
resolutions. And I am confident chat the Council will review this
report on its merits, and that the Council's concern will be whether
it is adequate and whether it can be implemented effectively, end that
it will not be influenced by what is happening today.
You will also notice in the report that, even though we are more then
doubling the programme, we have maintained the breakdown in the
humanitarian area. Basically, what we are trying to do is to improve
the calorie intake for the Iraqi population from about 2,000 to 2,450
kilocalories per person per day. We are increasing the amount of
medicine we are sending in, and we are also trying to work with them
to improve their agricultural output, particularly in the area of
poultry and production of eggs, to give them better food content.
In addition to that, we are improving their schools for young people.
You will notice in the report that there's considerable emphasis on
children at risk.
We have also proposed a one-time expenditure to refurbish the
infrastructure, which is in a terrible state of disrepair. We believe
that if we do not repair these infrastructural facilities, the impact
will be to undermine all the good we are trying to do by bringing in
additional supplies. If they don't have clean water to drink, it will
lead to diseases, and more medicine will be required. If you don't
have electricity for refrigeration, for hospital operations and other
things, you undermine the effectiveness of these hospitals. So, there
are proposals for improving the water system, sanitation, electricity
and these kinds of infrastructures. But those will he a one-time
payment. In other words, if after these first six months we were to
come up with another six-month (inaudible), it could be reduced by the
expenditures currently proposed for the one-time expenditure on
infrastructure.
The other issue I think I should share with you is that we did not get
the kind of cooperation we had expected from the Iraqi authorities in
the preparation of the plans. I have had the chance to talk to them at
the highest levels end stressed the need for then to cooperate with
us. But now that the report is out and is before the Council, I am
going to engage them immediately to get their reactions to the report.
We did get lots of informal inputs end have had informal contacts, but
no formal reaction from the authorities.
The other question that will be raised is, would Iraq be in a position
to export that quantity of oil? The proposal calls for $5.2 billion
and currently it is exporting $2 billion. That we are also going to
take up with the Iraqi authorities, who, in the past, have indicated
they have far greater capacity than they are allowed to export. Other
experts tend to agree with that, but, of course, we won't know until
we sit with them. So, we are working on the assumption that they have
the capacity to export, and we will find out when we sit with them.
Finally, in my discussions with the Council, I did stress my own grave
concern, which I know most members of the Council also share, about
the increasing tension caused by Iraq's refusal to comply with
resolution 687 (1991). I indicated that I felt the Iraqi leadership
must understand that if sanctions were to be ended, and if it wants
sanctions to be ended and to see light at the end of the tunnel, Iraq
must comply fully. It is my sincere hope that diplomatic efforts to
this end will succeed; failure risks another round of devastating
military action, which may have unpredictable consequences.
The Charter requires both Governments and the Secretary-General to
exhaust all peaceful means before undertaking any military action. I
have indicated to the Council that I stand ready to offer my Food
offices for whatever purposes the Council nay deem helpful.
I will now take your questions.
QUESTION: Did you, either directly or by body language, get a sense of
how your proposal is accepted by the delegates you talked with?
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: I think my sense was that, generally, it was
welcomed and there was support and understanding of the need to
improve the basket and improve the situation of the Iraqi population.
No one in the Council wants to hurt innocent civilians, and so there
is support for it. There nay he some disagreements when they get into
the details of it, but as of this morning, I walked away confident
that there was broad support for the proposals.
QUESTION: You just said that you told the Council that you offered
your good offices. Are you considering going to Iraq, for example,
particularly since you will be in the region rather shortly? And if
not, why not?
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Let me say that lots of efforts are being made
in the search for diplomatic efforts. During my trip in Europe last
week, I had very important discussions with leaders in France at the
highest levels; with the Foreign Minister in London; and also with the
Turkish Foreign Minister in Davos, who also had an interesting
approach. He had hoped to convince all the neighbours -- Iran, Jordan,
Syria -- to go together to try to plead with Iraq to hack down and
work with the United Nations in order to avoid another military
escalation in their region. I did encourage him to do it. We are
encouraging all these efforts.
My own involvement, if it becomes necessary in the future, will be
determined by what developments or successes come out of these current
efforts and what we collectively think we should further do. I am in
touch with those who are absent in voice and I am also in touch with
the Council, and in the next few days, (inaudible) make a judgement.
QUESTION: Regarding this current crisis, have you had contact with
Iraqi officials? Have you spoken to them about their intransigence
about the united Nations inspectors?
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: I have been in contact with the Iraqi
authorities quits often on these issues, not just with Tariq Aziz. I
also had a chance to talk with Mr. Yassin Ramadan, the Deputy Prime
Minister, when we met in Teheran, and I am constantly in touch also
with the Ambassador here. I intend to talk to him again this
afternoon.
QUESTION:  This would be about, not oil for food, but about --
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: I have talked to them on the broader issues, on
the other issues as well.
QUESTION: The bombing seems almost imminent; that it will happen in a
day or so. Do you think the danger of Mr. Saddam's refusal of the
United Nations people to investigate justifies the bombing?
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: You know, we are dealing with a Chapter VII
resolution, and the Council and the Member States have been quite
determined to see disarmament proceed. This is a decision for the
Member States and the Council, of course, but I think, from the point
of view of the Council, and maybe of the international community,
compliance with this Chapter VII resolution is something that we would
all seek.
I think no one in the Council is pushing for the use of force in the
first instance. All those who are talking about it are looking at it
as a last resort. We hope that President Sadden Hussein, for the sake
of the Iraqi people, who have suffered so much, will listen to the
messages that are being taken to him by these senior envoys from
Russia, from France, from people in the region, leaders in the region
and elsewhere, and really avoid taking his people through another
confrontation. They don't need it; the region doesn't need it; and the
world certainly can do without it. And so, hopefully, the leadership
will have the courage, the wisdom and the concern for its own people
to take us back from the brink.
QUESTION: There's sort of an ongoing debate over whether the United
States, if it elected to launch a military attack, would have
authorization without further action by the Council. I've been looking
hack at the history of it, and one of your predecessors in 1993 was
either forced or somehow voluntarily opined that there was
pre-existing authorization for that specific time. Could we ask you to
express your opinion, whether there would have to be further action or
whether (inaudible)?
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: I think the international community has acted
in unison on Iraq in the past, and I think everyone would want to
maintain that unity. There have been statements that the United States
does not require a Council decision to undertake air strikes against
Iraq. Despite that, there are intensive consultations between Council
members both here and in capitals. And so consultations are going on,
and I think everyone would agree that it would be preferable to get
Council authorization before one engages in a military action. And as
I said, consultations are going on, and I would not want to prejudge
the outcome.
QUESTION: If there is to be military action, would you evacuate all
united Nations personnel, would they be notified before?
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Obviously, we would not want to place our staff
at risk. We have about 475 international personnel in Iraq who are
doing courageous and credible work, and I would hope that they would
he able to continue their humanitarian work, as well as the
inspections, at the end of this crisis. But your point is valid; I
mean, the question has arisen. If we believe they are going to be in
danger, we would not keep them in harm's way
QUESTION: Aren't you sending mixed signals here in calling for
rehabilitating or propping up the infrastructure, the power grid and
such, which had been weakened by sanctions, and at the same time
saying that Iraq must comply in order to see the light at the end of
the tunnel when sanctions will be lifted? I think a lot of people may
read it this way.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: I hope they do not. As I indicated, we are
dealing with two issues: the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people
and the pressure the international community is putting on the Iraqi
Government to comply with Security Council resolution 687 (1991) and
to work with the United Nations special Commission (UNSCOM). We have
determined that we should try to refurbish these infrastructures if
our objective is really to ensure that the Iraqis have a certain
minimum standard of health. And if we do not do it, as I have
indicated, there are very serious implications and repercussions. We
cannot also assume that Iraq is going to be bombed. We have been there
before, and Iraq has turned back from the precipice. It may change its
mind, and we may not need to go forward. So in the meantime, I think
we should go ahead with our plans, deal with the humanitarian issues
to try to help the Iraqi population, and, as I said earlier, I hope
President Sadden Hussain and the Iraqi leadership will share the
concern I am displaying today for the Iraqi population and have the
wisdom to take the right decisions.
QUESTION: From your comments just now, it sounds as though the United
States does not have Security Council authorization to act militarily
in the region. I am wondering, without that authorization, is the
United States justified in starting this kind of action to achieve
Security Council compliance?
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: I have not said that. I think I gave the
indication that although the statement has been made that the United
States does not need specific Council authorization to go, we should
look at the facts. The United States is talking to Council members,
both here and in capitals, on this particular issue. I don't think the
United States itself has taken the position that it doesn't matter
what the Council thinks and we are going ahead, because there are very
serious consultations going on. And I have indicated that everybody,
including the United States, I am sure, would agree that it would be
preferable to hold everyone together.
You are not quite satisfied, hut anyway, we will talk later.
QUESTION: Can you just make it clear to us -- does the Security
Council have authorization to act now in case Iraq still shows this
unwillingness to cooperate, or not?
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: The Security Council is the master of its own
decisions, and it could decide to do what it thinks is appropriate.
And if they want to take a different direction, they can decide that
too. And so the Security Council can either decide to act on a certain
resolution, if it chose to interpret it that way, or take additional
specific decisions.
QUESTION: What justification have the Iraqis given you for not
complying fully in the implementation of the oil-for-food programme?
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: They haven't given us any specific
explanations, but I think that when a country is going through this
sort of crisis, when you want to deal with sensitive issues, which
takes courage and commits the officials concerned, you often do not
find them when you need them. And incidentally, that also happens in
this Building. On sensitive issues, sometimes people vanish. And I
have a feeling we saw a bit of that in Iraq, but now that the proposal
has been put forward and the Council is seized of it, I think they
will react to the proposal and we will be able to engage them
seriously.
QUESTION: A highly hypothetical question: if a United Nations Member
country attacks another United Nations Member country without the
approval of the Security Council, would that country he subject to
sanctions?
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: If it is an attack like the one Iraq undertook
in Kuwait, you saw what the international community did. But if my
understanding of your question is right, you are working on the
assumption that the United States does not have the authority to hit
Iraq alone, and that a fresh Council resolution will be required. I
think I have answered that by telling you about the sort of
discussions that are going on, and I refuse to be drawn further.
QUESTION: Still, if there is an attack without Security Council
approval, how would the United Nations react?
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: I think first that it is an issue the Security
Council is very much engaged in. They are in close touch with the
United States, they are seized of the problem, and if at any stage
they have problems with what is happening on the ground with any
development, we will hear from them.
QUESTION: What about your visit to the Middle East? Are you still
going to go ahead with it, or do you want to change the situation? Are
there any changes in your plans?
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL:  At this stage, it still stands.
QUESTION: I was wondering, considering some of the comments made by
Mr. (Richard) Butler (UNSCOM Executive Chairman) last week, how
seriously do you view the potential threat that Iraq poses in terms of
biological or chemical weapon threats to its neighbours? Is there in
fact a clear and present threat right now?
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: I think Mr. Butler clarified what he meant to
say, and also we have a group of technical experts in Iraq now making
certain assessments. And I think I prefer to wait for their report to
comment on the capacity of Iraq.
QUESTION: Since president Saddam Hussein has all the strength, why
don't you pick up the phone and talk to him directly and bring up the
whole picture to the Council?
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: I tried once, but it is not easy to get him at
the other end of the line. But maybe I should take your advice and try
again.
QUESTION: There have been reports today that Saddam Hussein -- this is
coming supposedly through the Russians -- has offered to make eight
presidential sites available for inspection, with the inspectors being
accompanied by ambassadors from various countries. This comes at the
same time that your proposal has gone before the Security Council.
Some might say that this may be taking shape as a compromise --
(between) what is happening here on the humanitarian end (and) his
attempt on the other. Would you see this as a move towards compromise
on his part?
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Well, I think he has to allow free and
unfettered access to these sites. And if he does, then he will be in
full compliance.
I don't think the objective is to let the president decide which
palaces the inspectors and the diplomats can go to. You talk of eight
palaces. We hear reports of as many as 60 palaces. Why those eight and
not the others? So, the problem is really still there.
I hope that the discussions that are going on will clarify this. But,
as I said -- this question was put to me also in Europe, if this
oil-for-food scheme would he seen as a carrot to get the Iraqis to
agree. We do not see it as a carrot. We have always maintained that we
should try to assist the Iraqi population. The Council introduced the
oil-for-food scheme right from the beginning, six or seven years ago,
and we could have implemented it if we had had the agreement of the
Iraqi Government. And most Council members recognize that sanctions
are a blunt instrument, and you have to take measures to protect
vulnerable populations.
QUESTION: Although there are a lot of discussions going on, and one
hopes for a compromise, is there any kind of timeframe of how long
Iraq will he allowed to keep non-cooperating before some action will
be taken?
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: I think in these sorts of situations it is
always very awkward to coma up with a very tight and rigid timeframe.
Lots of things are happening, lots of irons are in the fire. And there
can he very rapid developments one way or the other. But I am not in a
position to talk of timeframes. Besides ... I think that's enough.
QUESTION: Aren't you concerned about the counter-productive use of
force? Let's say there is a military strike and the United Nations is
thrown out of the country, and then the point of the United Nations
being there, which is to inspect the weapons programmes, goes right
out the window.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: I have no disagreement with that. But let me
say that quite a few people are concerned. This is why we want to
maintain the inspectors, And even those who are recommending military
action are still hoping that, after the action, inspection can
continue. That happened in the past. Would it happen this time? I
don't know. But our main objective, the focus, is the disarmament of
Iraq, and we should stay on the hall. So, in that respect, I see where
you're coming from, and almost everyone agrees with you on that --
that the objective is to disarm Iraq. And, in fact, on that objective,
the Council members are unanimous. And the (inaudible) attempts to
find a solution (are) precisely to make it possible for us to continue
sticking to our objective.
(End transcript)




NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list