• Military

• WMD Menu                           

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

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

11 February 1998

TRANSCRIPT: SECDEFENSE COHEN'S 2/10 PRESS CONFERENCE IN QATAR

(Says goal is to reduce Saddam Hussein's threat to Gulf region) (4800)
Doha, Qatar -- "Saddam Hussein holds the key to ending the current
crisis. He can resolve it by unlocking his doors to inspectors, and if
that diplomacy fails, Saddam Hussein must carry responsibility for the
consequences," Secretary of Defense William Cohen said February 10.
"Of that there is absolutely solid agreement between the United States
and Qatar and the other Gulf states," he stated.
In a joint press conference with Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad
bin Jassem bin Jabor Al-Thani, the Secretary said his travels
throughout the region reaffirm his initial belief: "that we would have
the strong support of all of the Gulf states in the pursuit of
resolving this diplomatically, and to take whatever measures would be
necessary in diplomacy first."
Cohen stressed that the United States is not seeking a military
resolution of this issue. "What we have said and believe very firmly
is that we should try to solve this diplomatically, but if diplomacy
fails, and by that we mean Saddam very easily can resolve this issue
with no difficulty. He has the keys in his hands to simply abide by
the U.N. resolutions. His failure to do so then makes it incumbent
upon the United Nations, upon the United States, to seek to reduce the
capacity which will pose and does pose a threat to this region," he
said.
The goals of a military strike, if it is required, Cohen said, will
be:
-- "To reduce Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and his
ability to deliver them to anyone in the region. And that means we
reduce his threat to his neighbors.
-- "And we would then seek, obviously, to keep sanctions in place.
Until such time as he is in full compliance with U.N. resolutions,
there can be no relief from the sanctions."
Cohen made the point that the United States is concerned about the
welfare of the Iraqi people, saying, "We are the ones who initiated
the oil-for-food program. ... It's been the United States that has
proposed providing relief for his people, and we will continue to do
that. And I wanted to make that very clear.
"So we have made this agreement that diplomacy should be given every
reasonable opportunity, and that should be given priority, but when
diplomacy fails, we are left with an option which none have sought but
one which we cannot walk away from," he asserted.
Following is the transcript of the press conference, provided by USIS
Doha:
(For more information on this subject, contact our special Iraq
website at:
http://www.usia.gov/regional/nea/gulfsec/iraqpage.htm)
(Begin transcript)
HAMAD: Secretary Cohen and I discussed developments in the region
concerning the situation in Iraq. The discussion was good and
beneficial. We ... agree that there should be a diplomatic, peaceful
solution to this issue. We also agree that Iraq should comply with
U.N. resolutions related to biological and chemical weapons. We also
discussed bilateral ties between the State of Qatar and the U.S.. As
you know there is cooperation and there is also an agreement that
binds both countries. In the light of this close cooperation we
discussed issues of mutual concern. We also discussed the present
crisis, which we hope will end in a peaceful manner. I believe that
the State of Qatar also stands beside the State of Kuwait. We were
clear with His Excellency the Secretary that the peaceful and
diplomatic solution is preferred one in the State of Qatar and all the
states of the (Gulf) Council ...inaudible.
COHEN: Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad has already taken my statement,
and I will try to just add that we had a very good meeting in
Washington last year. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to be here
in Qatar tonight, along with my two colleagues, Senator Levin from
Michigan and Senator Warner from Virginia. The United States and Qatar
are partners for peace and stability in the region; our forces served
together to free Kuwait in 1991, and Qatar supported our forces in
1994 when we turned back the potential for Iraqi aggression. Qatar
supports our presence today, and the United States wants to
indicate...very much appreciates that support. This evening, we
discussed a shared security concern: the need for Iraq to end its
program to build weapons of mass destruction. These deadly chemical
and biological weapons threaten the security of the entire region, and
I should take this occasion to point out that Saddam Hussein has not
hesitated to use these chemical weapons against his own citizens and
against Iranian citizens as well. So his past behavior indicates that
he is not at all hindered by any consideration for the human factor
involved in resorting to these deadly weapons. He has not yet placed
the interest of his own people above his ambitions, in this respect
that he has subordinated their welfare and well-being to extend his
power in the region. So we agreed that Iraq must comply completely
with U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for unfettered
inspections. And we also agreed that diplomacy is the best way to
ensure compliance. The United States has continued to work for a
diplomatic resolution. Saddam Hussein holds the key to ending the
current crisis. He can resolve it by unlocking his doors to
inspectors, and if that diplomacy fails, Saddam Hussein must carry
responsibility for the consequences. Of that there is absolutely solid
agreement between the United States and Qatar and the other Gulf
states.
And we're prepared to answer your questions.
Q: Secretary Cohen, now that you're completing your swing through the
Gulf region, are you feeling any more confident about the level of
support for U.S. military options?
COHEN: Well, I felt very confident from the beginning that we would
have the strong support of all of the Gulf states in the pursuit of
resolving this diplomatically, and to take whatever measures would be
necessary in diplomacy first. My travels throughout the region only
reaffirms my initial belief. We are going to work as hard as we can,
as President Clinton has done in the past, to continue our diplomatic
efforts but also recognizing that if diplomacy fails, that Saddam
Hussein must bear the full responsibility for his actions. And that
view is shared by all of the Gulf states, and I would anticipate that
would continue. We still have to visit Bahrain tomorrow, and I would
anticipate that that would be a unanimous opinion on the part of the
Gulf states.
Q:  But do you think that support is growing?
COHEN: I think the support has been there from the beginning, and I
believe that there is solidarity on this issue, with all the states
supporting the United States.
Q: A question for Sheikh Hamad. I witnessed in your statement that you
did not refer to Saddam Hussein bearing the full responsibility for
the consequences of his actions. Do you subscribe to this view, or
could you elaborate on this omission from your statement?
HAMAD: No. I just want to say that of course we are waiting for Saddam
to take the right decision and to comply with the United Nations
resolutions. And I think, I don't want to say, a responsibility, like
Mr. Cohen said, that we'd like to say to Iraq as a state, not as
Saddam Hussein, but of course he's responsible if he takes a decision
to comply with United Nations resolutions, or take the other decision;
it will be his own decision and his own responsibility. That, I think,
is very clear. What we are trying to -- taking care -- and I think
this is the same opinion (inaudible) on the humanitarian side of the
people of Iraq. That's taking, you know, taking our mind, and we are
trying to see, we are willing to see Saddam take the right measure and
to comply with United Nations resolutions.
Q: My question is to the American Minister of Defense. Why does
Washington -- and with it Britain -- insist on striking Iraq, as the
issue of inspections is not a big deal but rather something for the
U.N. teams? What is the American reaction toward Arab opposition to a
military strike on Iraq, especially from Egypt and Saudi Arabia,
America's strongest allies in the region? Thank you.
COHEN: First, let me take issue with the notion that what Saddam
Hussein has been doing is of no concern to the people of this region.
Of all the people who should be concerned about the development of
anthrax or VX or Ricin or other deadly chemicals or biological
weapons, it should be the people who are in the Gulf region. They have
been the victims of his aggression in the past. He has launched
attacks with chemical weapons against his own citizens, killing
thousands; he has launched attacks against Iranian, killing thousands
using these deadly chemicals. He has lied in the past about possessing
such weapons. You may recall initially after the Persian Gulf War,
that he stated he had no chemicals or biologicals, when in fact it was
discovered, and they admitted -- Saddam Hussein admitted -- that they
had as much as 2,100 gallons of anthrax, a single spore of which in
your lungs will cause your death within a few days. They admitted
having nearly four tons of nerve agents; one was VX, a single drop of
which will kill you in a matter of moments. They now have admitted
that they in fact have Ricin, which is a deadly poison for which there
is no antidote. So it should be a concern to all of the people in this
region; plus one of his principal intelligence directors, who defected
to the West, revealed that he had recognized some of those missiles
were of anthrax in ordinance. So I think that it is incorrect to say
that we should not be concerned about what Saddam has been doing in
the past. If the expression that "All that is past is prologue" were
meant, he poses a very dangerous threat to the region in the future.
So we think it's important the inspectors be around to carry out their
mission; that is exactly what the United Nations has called for. And
that is exactly what he is refusing to comply with at this point. If
he refuses to abide by the U.N. resolutions -- and on this issue there
is absolutely no difference of opinion on this; he must comply with
those U.N. resolutions, or he must accept responsibility for those
actions. Why have the United States and Great Britain insisted that he
comply? Because we believe that he poses a threat to the civility of
the region, that he has a capacity to inflict great harm and has shown
no hesitancy to do that in the past. It's not only Great Britain and
the United States, as you've noticed from recent statements.
Chancellor Kohl in Germany also supports the United States and Great
Britain. Canada recently announced its support. Australia has
announced its support. There is a growing recognition that the U.N.
resolutions cannot be allowed to be flouted by Saddam Hussein if they
are to maintain their integrity or credibility. And so for these
reasons we insist that diplomacy should be of concern, and we want to
see diplomacy succeed. But if it doesn't succeed, then we believe that
we must compensate and try to reduce his capacity to build or deliver
these weapons of mass destruction by military means if all else fails.
Q. I have two questions, the first for Secretary Cohen, and the second
for H.E. Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim. The first question: It seems clear
that the U.S. position is continuing in the direction of the use of
force against Iraq despite the fact that there is a unified Arab
position giving priority to diplomatic means. And in your and Mrs.
Albright's tours of the region, the Gulf states' positions were all
unified in giving priority to the use of diplomatic means, yet some of
Mrs. Albright's and American officials' statements give the impression
that there is foreign agreement on the use of force against Iraq. So
how do you respond to this?
HAMAD: Let Mr. Secretary answer first, and then ask me the question.
COHEN: First of all, let me respond by saying the United States has
given priority to diplomacy. The fact is that President Clinton,
Secretary Albright, and others in the Administration have spent the
past several months seeking a diplomatic resolution of this issue. And
so there is no difference of opinion or difference in priority. The
United States is not seeking a military resolution of this issue. What
we have said and believe very firmly is that we should try to solve
this diplomatically, but if diplomacy fails, and by that we mean
Saddam very easily can resolve this issue with no difficulty. He has
the keys in his hands to simply abide by the U.N. resolutions. His
failure to do so then makes it incumbent upon the United Nations, upon
the United States, to seek to reduce the capacity which will pose and
does pose a threat to this region. I did not mention in my previous
statements that it was discovered after the war that he was trying to
acquire a missile capability that would have reached to some 3,000
kilometers, which would run all the way from Baghdad, certainly, to
Paris, and possibly further. And so he has made it very clear by his
past conduct that he intends to bear a military capability which can
threaten, not only the countries in this region, but those that are at
quite a distance. One other point I'd like to make: We are concerned
about the welfare of the Iraqi people. We are the ones who initiated
the oil-for-food program. Saddam Hussein personally obstructed that
program for many months, almost 18 months. He was opposed to it. We
have shown greater concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people than he
has. While he has been building these monumental palaces that are huge
in size, spending billions of dollars, his people have been going
hungry. It's been the United States that has proposed providing relief
for his people, and we will continue to do that. And so we have
exhibited more concern for his people than he himself has. And I
wanted to make that very clear. We are concerned about the Iraqi
people; our quarrel is not with them. We believe they have suffered
for many years under his brutal dictatorship, with report after report
coming out in terms of how he has ruled with absolute brutality
against those who express any opposition to his political objectives
and military objectives. So we have made this agreement that diplomacy
should be given every reasonable opportunity, and that should be given
priority, but when diplomacy fails, we are left with an option which
none have sought but one which we cannot walk away from.
Q: Gulf positions have all agreed on the importance of a diplomatic
solution, and we have learned that there will be a GCC meeting at the
ministerial level this week. If there is a unanimous decision on a
diplomatic solution, why hold this meeting, which will be in Kuwait?
HAMAD: First, I believe the meeting in Kuwait is an important meeting
for exchanging views among Council members, because this issue
directly concerns us as GCC countries. And the GCC countries,
including Qatar, do not welcome and we do not want to see Iraq hit
again. We are concerned about the Iraqi people and Iraq's
capabilities, but I think that talks would be of benefit and a good
way to send a message to the Iraqi government about the importance the
GCC countries attach to a diplomatic and peaceful solution and the
peaceful, if that is possible. Let me be frank with you. Not all
matters related to this issue are in the hands of the GCC countries.
We are part of the world. We prefer to live in peace in the region,
but we cannot separate ourselves from the world. Therefore commitments
oblige us, and we have our commitments to the GCC countries. Through
these commitments, the meeting will focus on how to overcome this
crisis in a peaceful way and help the region avoid once again the
results of military troops.
Q: Sheikh Hamad, if diplomacy is unable to resolve this crisis, would
your government be prepared to support a military strike -- an
American-led military strike -- either politically or militarily.
Thank you.
HAMAD: Well, it's a difficult question, but let me say one thing: We
have a military agreement with the United States. For that, there is
obligation for both sides in this military agreement. And I don't want
to go into details, but still we are hoping for a diplomatic solution
for this. As you know, we have been working with the United States in
the past, and we have good cooperation, good understanding. And I
think when it comes to that, it has to be discussed between both
countries, and I think we have been showing for many years that we
always come to a mutual and good solution which could serve both
countries.
Q: One question is directed to Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim, the Foreign
Minister of the State of Qatar, and another question directed to the
American Defense Minister. Will Qatar provide facilities for the
American air force? And the question for the American Defense
Minister: It was reported that you had a meeting last week with the
Israeli Defense Minister in Munich. If Israel takes part in strikes,
will the U.S. have a position? What will the U.S. position be in this
case? Thank you.
HAMAD: First, we know that at the present time that there are American
forces in Qatar, as well as storage of American equipment in Qatar.
This is not a secret. At the present time, the U.S. is satisfied with
arrangements with friendly countries and therefore there are no
American forces for this issue at the present time in Qatar. And we
hope, all of us, that this crisis again ends peacefully. I will now
let Mr. Secretary answer.
COHEN: With respect to conversations I had with Minister Mordechai, we
confer from time to time. He, obviously, was interested in my analysis
of the situation, both from the prospects for peace and a diplomatic
solution, and also what defense requirements Israel might need should
it ever be attacked. We have said before that Israel, like any other
state, has an inherent right to defend itself and determine the action
it should take. We intend to stay in very close contact with the
Israelis throughout this because of the potential threat that Saddam
Hussein might make toward that state, as we are consulting with all
the other states in the Gulf region to take whatever preparations
necessary to deter any such kind of attack.
HAMAD: I will give two questions, one for the ladies, because they've
not been fair not to give you any question. (Laughter)
Q: Mr. Secretary, tomorrow you'll go visit the George Washington. Can
you tell us about the depth of American resolve? How long will that
mean or translate into the two-carrier presence in the Gulf? Will you
be able to tell the sailors how long they might have to stay on
station?
COHEN: First of all, with respect to whether George Washington will
remain in the Gulf, I will express my deepest sympathies to the family
of the pilot who was killed in an unfortunate accident recently, and
express my congratulations and admiration for the men and women who
are serving in the Gulf. They are engaged in very dangerous missions
day in and day out. The reason that the United States is regarded as
the world's superpower is by virtue of the people that we have in our
military and their professionalism, and their readiness to take action
when called upon. That comes with great danger. They engage in very
dangerous activities every day that they're out at sea and even in
port. And they have some of the most sophisticated equipment in the
world, and they understand their responsibilities. How long will they
be required to remain or expected to remain in the Gulf? That is a
determination that the President of the United States will make and
will depend very much upon what Saddam Hussein is doing in the region,
whether or not such presence is required for any extended period of
time. The President, in consultation with his Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs, with me, and other members of the national security team will
make that determination, and we would not make a premature estimate of
how long. We are prepared to be there as long as necessary, and I
believe that our men and women who are serving in the Gulf are
prepared to be as ready as necessary to be at the peak of their
capabilities any moment they are called upon to exercise them. So how
long will depend very much on what the president determines is the
appropriate time for them to remain at that level of support.
Q: Will your campaign be directed against Saddam Hussein? I mean, the
elimination of Saddam Hussein? And if Saudi Arabia doesn't allow you
to use their bases, where would you be shifting your other aircraft
from? To which country?
COHEN: As I have indicated on many occasions, the United States and
their allies, in seeking to enforce the U.N. resolutions that Saddam
Hussein -- if he fails to allow the inspectors in -- will be resolved
to reduce and curtail his building and rebuilding of his weapons of
mass destruction, mainly the nuclear, chemical, and biological
weapons. And those will principally be the targets that it would be
necessary to reduce. Those are the ones that pose the threat to this
region, and so we would seek to carry out military moves if it comes
to that -- what is not allowed by Saddam Hussein -- as far as the U.N.
inspectors carrying out their mission; and so that would be the goal
of the United States and the allies. As I've indicated before, our
goal is to reduce his weapons of mass destruction and his ability to
deliver them to anyone in the region. And that means we reduce his
threat to his neighbors. And we would then seek, obviously, to keep
sanctions in place. Until such time as he is in full compliance with
U.N. resolutions, there can be no relief from the sanctions. And so
that would be our goal under the circumstances. General Zinni has been
in very close contact with all of the leaders throughout the Gulf, and
he is satisfied, as am I, that we have the resources and the assets
necessary to carry out our military objectives should they be required
and should the President decide to do so. And we're very pleased with
all of the meetings we have had to date, including this one. I must
say, I'm very gratified with the meeting that we have had prior to
this press conference. And we remain as confident as ever for our
support on the part of the Gulf partners.
Q: Whenever America threatens to use weapons against Iraq, a question
is posed in the Arab street: who will pay the bill, the American side
or the Gulf countries?
COHEN: We'll if you would like to volunteer (laughter)...We'll be
happy to have the Gulf States pay for any of the costs involved.
Obviously, this is a very important matter. It does involve
considerable expense. The United States has borne a good deal of the
expense in terms of the deployments here, and we will have to decide
in the future how those costs are to be borne. But we've had
partnerships; as Sheikh Hamad has indicated, we have strong
partnerships with other countries in the region. And we've had a
shared responsibility in terms of bearing this burden, the expense of
it. And we would expect that to continue.
Q: The U.S is preparing for a massive strike against Iraq at the same
time when there is a demand for a diplomatic solution. However, people
are expecting to see Saddam Hussein remaining in power after the
strike is over, and then we go back to the same old vicious cycle. So
they believe...the vicious cycle never ends; the threat is there.
According to the United States, what happens then?
COHEN: Well, I think you have to look at it -- let me pose the
opposite question. I know it's not appropriate for someone who's
standing behind the microphone to pose a question, but the question I
would pose is, what is the option in terms of insisting that there be
full compliance? In the absence of full compliance, that his capacity
to manufacture or deliver chemical and biological weapons, what does
that mean for the region? It would be very easy for any of the U.N.
members to simply walk away and say, Saddam, you're free to continue
your nefarious ways. You can manufacture as much chemical and
biological weapons as you want; you can make as many missiles as you
want, and we will not insist that you stop. That is one alternative
that is open to all of the states in the region and to all of the
United Nations. I don't think that's acceptable. I think that what has
to be done is that we have to insist that he comply with those U.N.
resolutions. The United Nations must insist that he comply with the
resolutions. Otherwise, they have no credibility; they have no
integrity, as far the passing of these resolutions. And a failure to
push him to do so can't result in a reduction of his capacity; that is
the goal. If he is still standing after a military option should be
exercised, then he will have far less capacity than he had before.
That will in fact pose less of a threat to the region than we have
today or in the near future. So I think that you have to look at it in
the context of what happens if he simply refuses to allow the U.N.
Inspectors to do their job, and there is a decision made by the United
Nations saying: We don't care anymore. Saddam can make whatever he
wants; he can pose the same threat that he has in the past; he can
conduct aggression against his neighbors as he's done in the past, and
the international community is unconcerned about that. I don't think
that's an acceptable option. And that's the reason why the United
States has insisted, as well as our Gulf partners: You must comply; we
want a diplomatic solution but in the absence of that, we have to see
to it that his capacity is reduced and curtailed. Otherwise, the
threat will continue to grow; there will be less stability; there will
be the threat of aggression in the future, and perhaps less will to
resist his aggression in the future. So it's important that the United
Nations stand up to this challenge and not back down and say, Let's
just let Saddam continue his nefarious ways.
Q: Your excellency, Mr. Minister: Will we wake up early in the morning
in the coming weeks to hear the roar of American planes taking off and
returning to Qatar after completing combat missions over Iraq, and
know then that Qatar agreed to provide military facilities to the U.S.
in this task?
HAMAD: First, Qatar is always clear and frank, and we announce our
decisions as we take them. If we take such a decision, we will
announce it before these planes are heard. Be sure of that. And at the
same time, we hope that we wake up in the morning to find that this
crisis has been solved in a diplomatic and peaceful manner. And just
as we are keen on Kuwait and Kuwait's independence, we are -- be
certain -- keen on the Iraqi people and Iraq's children, and that Iraq
be a unified, powerful country working within the U.N. and working
with its Arab brothers in peace. And we are keen, as I mentioned at
the beginning of my talk, and as the U.S. Defense Minister stressed,
on a peaceful and diplomatic solution which would save us from this
crisis. Finally, we thank you all and we hope that we will meet in
better circumstances. Thank you.
(End transcript)