13 February 1998
TRANSCRIPT: AMB. BILL RICHARDSON 2/13 TOKYO PRESS CONFERENCE
(Iraq solution must enforce Security Council resolutions) (2230) Tokyo -- The United States and Japan, as well as other Security Council members, are working to ensure Iraq's full compliance with its obligations under relevant Security Council resolutions, but the diplomatic course is running out, according to Bill Richardson, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. "The United States continues to support a diplomatic solution," Richardson said, "but this solution must enforce Security Council resolutions -- nothing more, nothing less." During a press conference following what he called a "highly productive meeting" with Prime Minister Hashimoto February 13, Richardson said: "We discussed -- as allies and friends -- our grave concern over Iraq's continued violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions." "Iraq is totally isolated," Richardson said. "The Iraqi regime remains intransigent and its weapons of mass destruction capabilities in the hands of a ruthless, reckless, and unpredictable leader are a constant threat to the peace and security of Iraq's neighbors, the region and the world." (For more information on the Iraq crisis, contact the USIA website at: http://www.usia.gov/regional/nea/gulfsec/iraqpage.htm) Following is the official transcript of the press conference: (begin transcript) BILL RICHARDSON U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Press Conference Tokyo, Japan February 13, 1998 AMBASSADOR FOLEY: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome. It is my great pleasure to have at Embassy Tokyo this afternoon an enormously distinguished representative of the United States, who is here for consultations with the Government of Japan. He is a very old friend and former colleague, one whom I admire enormously. I am very honored to introduce to you the Honorable Bill Richardson, the United States' Ambassador to the United Nations. AMBASSADOR RICHARDSON: Thank you, Ambassador Foley. I'm going to read a prepared statement and then I'll be pleased to answer questions. Ambassador Foley, thank you for that very gracious introduction. I've not decided whether to call you Mr. Ambassador or Mr. Speaker, because I was one of your pupils in the U.S. House of Representatives and that hasn't changed -- Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ambassador. It is a great privilege to be here on this important Presidential mission. The President has dispatched me to Tokyo to consult with Japan's leaders about the Iraq crisis. I will go on to China tomorrow. This morning, I had a highly productive meeting with Prime Minister Hashimoto, where we discussed -- as allies and friends -- our grave concern over Iraq's continued violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions. Later this afternoon, I will meet with Foreign Minister Obuchi. We have had some extensive discussions with members of Japan's Foreign Ministry in the last three hours. The United States and Japan, as well as other Security Council members, are working to ensure Iraq's full compliance with its obligations under relevant Security Council resolutions, but the diplomatic course is running out. Iraq is totally isolated. The Iraqi regime remains intransigent and its weapons of mass destruction capabilities in the hands of a ruthless, reckless, and unpredictable leader are a constant threat to the peace and security of Iraq's neighbors, the region and the world. The United States continues to support a diplomatic solution -- but this solution must enforce Security Council resolutions -- nothing more, nothing less. There has been much talk about one recent diplomatic offer which would give a non-U.N. Special Commission team 60 days to inspect eight presidential sites. In the end this plan would undermine the authority of the United Nations Special Commission -- UNSCOM -- to inspect any facility it deems necessary and would create secure repositories for future Iraqi concealment. Right now, what we are talking about in Iraq is 78 places and VIP residences. Iraq has failed to define what is a Presidential site. They also claim they have no maps for these sites. Before the war, Iraq had 20 of these Presidential Palaces. Since the war, it has built 58. No wonder the Iraqi people are suffering when Saddam Hussein spends money on Presidential Palaces, on weapons of mass destruction, and on buttressing his military forces while his own people starve. Billions of dollars are spent on these opulent palaces. Some are bigger than Versailles. One palace compound is bigger than all of Washington, D.C. -- the city of Washington, D.C. At just one of these eight sites -- the sprawling Republican Palace compound in Baghdad -- there are more than 700 buildings. Many of these buildings belong to and are a part of the Presidential security network, which is also responsible for concealing documents, chemicals, and weapons of mass destruction from the United Nations. It is preposterous to think how experts could conduct an effective inspection. You can imagine how ineffective a one time or 60-day inspection limit would be. The importance of UNSCOM -- or the U.N. Inspection Team -- cannot be underestimated. Its work has been invaluable. UNSCOM has identified and destroyed more Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in the last 6- plus years than in the entire Gulf War. The U.N. Inspection Team has destroyed 38,000 chemical weapons since the war ended. Today, UNSCOM --or the U.N. Inspection Team -- knows and has documented what Iraq still has: 1) chemical and biological agents and munitions; 2) long range ballistic missiles; and 3) the expertise, facilities, and equipment to quickly restart production, or reconstitute or rebuild these weapons. To illustrate how frightening the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction threat is, let me make one brief comparison between two of its most deadly agents. Japanese citizens, unfortunately, have had firsthand experience with how horrifying and deadly the chemical agent sarin is. VX is far more toxic. A tiny droplet can kill a human in 15 minutes. It not only kills rapidly, it lasts far longer in the environment. The U.N. Inspection Organization, UNSCOM, believes Iraq has potentially substantial amounts of sarin, VX and other deadly poisons. For more than four years, Iraq denied producing significant amounts of VX. After a key Iraqi who ran the weapons program defected, Iraq declared it produced four metric tons. UNSCOM evidence suggests that Iraq had enough precursors to produce 200 tons of VX. We are now reaching a point at which diplomatic options for obtaining Iraq's cooperation with UNSCOM are rapidly becoming exhausted. Iraq's challenge to the Security Council's authority is fundamental and serious and we believe that a failure by the United Nations Security Council to respond forcefully to this challenge will undermine its credibility and the ability of the U.N. to maintain peace and security. The United States has sought diplomatic solutions to this crisis from the beginning. We have pushed forward Security Council statements and resolutions. There have been a total of five Security Council statements and resolutions, which the United States and Japan, and unanimously all members of the Security Council have supported to avert this crisis. There have been special envoys from the United Nations. The Russians, the French, the Turks, the Arab League and others have tried diplomacy, but none have succeeded. Saddam Hussein is not listening to diplomacy -- it could be that he only listens to force. We have made it clear from the very beginning, that we would not rule out any options and that we would be prepared to use force, if necessary. It may be that the use of force is the only option that Saddam Hussein understands. Let me underscore one point. The United States wants a diplomatic solution to this crisis. But time is running out. The time has come for Iraq to understand clearly that there is no alternative to full cooperation with UNSCOM and giving it unfettered access. We cannot and should not accept anything less than that standard. Let me close with America's bottom line, and the Security Council's continued emphasis on these two key points that would resolve this crisis. Number one: clear, unfettered, unconditional access to all sites -- all sites and documents -- by U.N. inspectors. And number two: the full integrity of the U.N. Inspection Team. In other words, no politicization of the U.N. Inspection Team. There can be no deals and compromises that would violate these two principles, which are U.N. Security Council resolutions. I will be pleased to take any questions. QUESTION 1: Mr. Ambassador, you'll have a relatively easy time here in Tokyo today compared to China. How important is getting China on board to the whole situation? AMBASSADOR RICHARDSON: China is a very important player in world politics, in Asia, and certainly it's a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. Needless to say, it's going to be a very important visit. I will be there tomorrow. Let me say that China has supported a number of Security Council resolutions and statements which: 1) state very clearly that there should be free, unfettered access to all sites; and 2) (state) that Iraq has been in violation of Security Council resolutions. I would rather stop speculating right there, and not preclude any statement or eventuality that would jeopardize my visit tomorrow. QUESTION 2: You said "a highly productive meeting with Prime Minister Hashimoto." Could you please be more specific and could you tell us your more precise attitude about Mr. Hashimoto, please. Thank you. AMBASSADOR RICHARDSON: Well, we had an excellent meeting, (a) very productive, constructive meeting. The Foreign Minister and I will make a joint statement after our meeting later this afternoon, which I believe will be at 5:00, and we will make the statement at what time? EMBASSY STAFFER: At 5:30. AMBASSADOR RICHARDSON: 5:30. That will discuss the concrete results of this trip. Let me just say that I have been very satisfied with our conversation so far. The Prime Minister and I covered a range of subjects, not just on Iraq, but the bilateral relationship. I brought him a greeting from his good friend President Clinton. And it was very good -- I think it was about 45 minutes that we met. QUESTION 3: Mr. Ambassador, I guess that -- it is reported that England is now preparing an additional resolution in the Security Council at the United Nations, and the Japanese government is asking the United States to have one more additional resolution. What is your attitude on this point? AMBASSADOR RICHARDSON: Let me say that we would welcome any strong U.N. Security Council resolution -- strong, unequivocal resolution. It is our view, however, that Security Council action is not needed for the type of action that we have contemplated. Nonetheless, we think it is critically important that there be Council unity, Council resolve. After all, Iraq is violating U.N. Security Council resolutions and the issue here is Iraqi compliance. QUESTION 4: You say, sir, that time is running out. When does it run out? What is the deadline being contemplated by the U.S.? And after your visit with Mr. Hashimoto today, do you have Japan's support for the use of force against Iraq? AMBASSADOR RICHARDSON: Well, I'm going to wait until my meeting with Foreign Minister Obuchi to discuss the results of our substantive talks here. We are not into deadlines. We are not into artificial time limits. The deadline is when Saddam Hussein complies. That is the deadline everybody should focus on. But as we've said before, we are not talking in terms of our plans. We are not talking of days and months -- days nor months. QUESTION 5: My impression is from watching what's going on the world, that the U.S. is having some difficulty getting people to back its stance against Iraq. A number of key allies, other key countries, seem to not be supporting the U.S. hard-line stance against Iraq. I was just wondering if you would comment on that. AMBASSADOR RICHARDSON: Well, I must respectfully disagree. I just returned from eight Security Council countries, and there is substantial support for America's policy, which I will describe as diplomacy backed by the use of force. Adherence to Security Council resolutions. The countries that I visited are Portugal, Sweden, Kenya, The Gambia, Costa Rica, Brazil, Gabon, Slovenia. There have been a number of countries -- Australia, Canada, several others -- that have announced support for American policy. It's a growing number every day. It's not just the Anglo countries. It is countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. There is a silent majority of nations which believe Iraq should comply. America's policy is diplomacy backed by a robust military presence in the Persian Gulf. The President has not made a decision to use force yet. But force cannot be ruled out as an option. We want to resolve this issue diplomatically and we have been patient. We have extended all our efforts to ensure that diplomacy is given full consideration, and we're still pressing that. QUESTION 6: Did Japan ask the United States -- did the Prime Minister ask you -- to honor the Olympic truce, and hold off any military action until the Games are over? AMBASSADOR RICHARDSON: Let me answer that in terms of what America's policy is on that subject. We understand Japan's concern and sensitivity about the Olympic Games. We are very sensitive to the fact that Japan is hosting these Games, and we're very sensitive to the Olympic tradition, too. Thank you. (end transcript)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
