09 March 1998
[EXCERPTS] TRANSCRIPT: WHITE HOUSE DAILY BRIEFING, MARCH 9, 1998
White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry briefed. Following is the White House transcript: (begin transcript) THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary March 9, 1998 PRESS BRIEFING BY MIKE MCCURRY The Briefing Room QUESTION: Is Annan still coming this week? MCCURRY: He plans to come later in the week. We're still finalizing whatever itinerary he will have both here and -- we understand the Secretary General's Office is working on their itinerary elsewhere. Q: Is he still welcome? MCCURRY: Oh, absolutely. We work very closely with the Secretary General. Q: Annan says that he thinks the United States needs to come back to the Council -- required to come back for consultations, whatever that means, before taking any sort of military actions. MCCURRY: Consultations are consultations. If we got to the point where there were serious questions about the government of Iraq's willingness to honor the Memorandum of Understanding, we would, of course, be consulting with members of the Security Council. The Security Council has already indicated they will remain seized of this matter, and I would expect urgent deliberations to occur if there was any abrogation of the agreement. Now, so far, this past weekend we've had several inspections that the United Nations has conducted. They can tell you more about them, but they have proceeded according to the UN satisfactorily. Q: But is it the President's view, as previously stated, that the United States has from previous resolutions adequate authority if he decides that he wants to move in an armed forces way. MCCURRY: That is exactly our position, although that does not preclude consultations with the Security Council should there be need to consider a new course of action. Q: So you're saying now, Mike, that they would go to the Security Council first before initiating military action? MCCURRY: I'm saying that nothing that we have ever said would have precluded us from continuing to consult with the Security Council if the situation there became more urgent. Q: But, Mike, I thought the whole upshot of this last round with Iraq was that the Security Council was -- all were singing off the same page more than they used to. As it turns out not only did you not get the resolution that you wanted but now they're telling you that if you want to take military action you have to go through the same things you've done in the past, come to them and -- MCCURRY: You're misreading what the Secretary General said. He said simply that he expected the United States would consult further in the event that there was need to take additional action there and if there were abrogation of the agreement of understanding between the United Nations and Iraq. And we have prior to that stated that we would so consult. Q: He used the word "required"; that's the problem. Q: France, Russia and China still are opposed, so what I'm asking you is it doesn't seem like you've gotten any more support for military action than you had before this last -- MCCURRY: I think, as the Secretary General said yesterday, if there were any abrogation of the agreement with -- in the current circumstances, he suspected that the disposition of Council members with respect to use of force would be much different than it's been in the past. We concur. Q: He used the word "required" in talking about his view that the United States needed to consult. MCCURRY: Sam, I -- we don't attach any particular meaning to that other than that the Secretary General's suggestion that there would be further consultations in the Security Council in the event there were, you know, clearly a need to have consultations, we clearly would do so. .................. Q: Mike, this morning you were asked about Annan's comments and you said that we, the United States, have differing views. What views differ there? MCCURRY: Well, the question posed to me this morning, as it ended up -- I wasn't completely familiar with the Secretary General's remarks -- the question was posed that some how or other we'd be required to go there for an additional resolution, and I was indicating that we have a different view on that. But that, as it turns out, not what the Secretary General said. Q: What would the White House do if the during these consultations Russia, for instance, refused to go along with any talk of military force, military action against Iraq? What would you do? Would you just -- MCCURRY: We have had very high level consultations with all the members of the Security Council. If there were an abrogation of this current memorandum of understanding by the government of Iraq, our judgment is the disposition regarding use of force would be much different than it has been in the past. ................... (end transcript)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
