• Military

• WMD Menu                           

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

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

U.S. Department of State

Daily Press Briefing

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

QUESTION: Could you give us an Iraq update, please?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, Secretary Albright obviously has been talking both internally and with others about the urgency of this situation. We are aware that discussion of a resolution on Iraq has begun in the Security Council.

As you know, we do not believe that an additional authorization for the use of force is needed. In our view, previous resolutions provide an adequate basis for such a step if necessary. However, we would be supportive and expect a clear, straightforward resolution which sends an unambiguous message to Iraq along the lines of the Council's October 31 press statement - namely that the Council rejects Iraq's escalation of this situation, and the Council regards Iraq's suspension of cooperation with the UN inspectors as a flagrant violation of Security Council resolutions.

So we would expect that to be moved on in the coming days. I don't have an exact day for you.

Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Cohen, along with Under Secretary Pickering, has continued his travels. I believe he was in Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar today; and my understanding is that they were all productive meetings and that we continue to see -- both Gulf States and around the world - strong support for our determined opposition to Saddam Hussein's actions.

QUESTION: If there is a new resolution, would the United States want to see a new authorization for the use of force?

MR. RUBIN: It's just not an issue for us. We think that there is a basis for the use of force in previous resolutions, and we would be happy to see a strong message sent to Saddam Hussein, an unambiguous message sent. But it's just not an issue for us on the authorization question.

QUESTION: Wouldn't a new authorization of the use of military force be a very strong message?

MR. RUBIN: No, not necessarily; it depends on what the results of all that discussion would be. What's useful would be a very clear message of opposition by a unanimous group in the Council.

When you get into sometimes these technical legal issues, you get the message muddied. In our view, a clear basis exists for action. We see no reason, therefore, to seek further authorization.

QUESTION: Have the Gulf States given you authorization to use their bases if it becomes necessary or are the assets you have floating around near enough that you don't need to use them?

MR. RUBIN: With respect to that issue, I think it's quite clear to us from Secretary Cohen's trip and from the discussions Secretary Albright has had, we are confident we will have the support we need to take appropriate action to support the United Nations. That is based on the discussions Secretary Albright and Secretary Cohen have had with the Saudi leadership.

I think with respect to the Saudi meetings specifically, it's my understanding that Secretary Cohen had a warm and productive meeting with King Fayd and Crown Prince Abdullah in Riyadh yesterday. The King pledged that the kingdom will continue to support US efforts to preserve regional security and stability; and the Crown Prince praised American leadership in helping the United Nations to contain Iraq. Based on these meetings and her discussions, we are confident that the United States will have the support we need to take appropriate actions to support the United Nations.

With respect to the other three states, I don't want to add anything beyond what I just said -- which was that they were productive meetings, and we are sensing strong support from them for taking a united stand against Saddam Hussein.

QUESTION: But Jamie, that answer doesn't really go to the nub of the question - and that is, if military action is necessary, can US forces use bases in Saudi Arabia?

MR. RUBIN: I think it will come as no surprise to you, as a veteran of many of these trips, that those are questions that we just don't answer in public.

What we can say is that based on our discussions, we believe we will have the support we need to take appropriate action in support of the United Nations in this case. And with respect to specifics, it shouldn't be news to you or a surprise to you that we don't get more specific than that.

QUESTION: Well, in the Gulf War, I mean, it was very specific that Saudi Arabia was on the US side and allowed the use of its territory.

MR. RUBIN: I'm sure that 50 years ago other things were true. We're talking about this decade.

QUESTION: That was this decade.

MR. RUBIN: Just barely.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: I know this doesn't really fall to you - it falls to the Pentagon - but it relates to the Administration's reticence to talk about its consultations with the Saudis. Would that have been the reason that the Secretary of Defense did not take any media along with him -- because he just didn't want to have them around to have to -- the Administration just didn't want to have them around to have to deal with that question or trample over the Saudi toes?

MR. RUBIN: Well, I certainly love having you around, and I know Secretary Albright loves having you around; so I will just defer to the Pentagon to explain their press arrangements. But I think regardless of whether people were on the plane, these are places where journalists are. Secretary Cohen wasn't going to places journalists don't have access to -- Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf countries; there are plenty of journalists there. So I don't think one should over-interpret the reasons for that.

QUESTION: Well, the Saudis are well-known for their feisty press corps and their free access to their officials.

(Laughter.)

MR. RUBIN: Are there other questions?

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: Do you have anything to say about Deputy Secretary -

MR. RUBIN: Same subject -- over there, the man in the trench coat.

QUESTION: Is unanimity in the Security Council important enough that the United States would be willing to soften the wording of any pending resolution, particularly as it might relate to possible use of force?

MR. RUBIN: I think in response to Jim's question I made very clear that we are not seeking a resolution that addresses directly the use of force question. So what we're seeking is a clear message of opposition to Saddam Hussein's action.

We think that Security Council authorization for the use of force already exists, and we see no need to have that reiterated or go through the exercise of trying to get it reiterated. So with respect to the resolution, my understanding is it's not being approached in a particularly controversial way by anybody, and that it's designed to be a very strong reiteration of the Council's opposition to Saddam's action and to its making clear that it's a flagrant and serious violation of Security Council resolutions to stop cooperating with UNSCOM.

That's what the resolution is about, and I just would urge you not to over-examine a particular word here or there; because we're not approaching it from that perspective.

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

QUESTION: Is it clear to you that Saddam Hussein is following through with his threats to cut off all cooperation or is that a little - not quite so clear-cut?

MR. RUBIN: Well, with respect to the cameras, which I think is the issue that is implied by your question, let me say this - we simply don't think allowing UNSCOM to service a couple of cameras is a substitute for the kind of full access for the UN inspectors and the IAEA necessary to do their jobs. On the contrary, allowing UNSCOM to service a few cameras is not a reversal of Iraq's obstruction of UNSCOM activity. But there is some of that that's going on.

As I understand it, the normal complement of roughly 120 inspectors is there and there are no plans for them to withdraw at this time.

QUESTION: Is he doing something different than he was doing since August, when he trimmed back his cooperation and nothing happened?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

QUESTION: What is he --

MR. RUBIN: Well, if you go back to what - in order to do the proper job of inspection and monitoring of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction - forgive me for simplifying - but it's essentially dealing with declared sites on the one hand and undeclared sites on the other.

Declared sites are those locations where UNSCOM is monitoring production of say pesticides or motors that could be used for missiles or other facilities -- and there are many dozens of those facilities - which Saddam could make a decision to turn that production capability into production of weapons of mass destruction.

So you want a monitoring system in place to go to those places, to check it, to either use a combination of cameras or on-site inspections to be sure that those facilities are not being used or not going to be used to break out and produce, in military significant quantities, weapons of mass destruction.

Just allowing cameras to be serviced does not serve that goal. Inspectors need to go to these places to get early warning signs if things are changing. Cameras are part of the picture, but not the whole picture.

The second category are undeclared sites, and that's where you're trying to uncover what Iraq refuses to disclose; which is what they produced, when they produced it, how much they destroyed and what is left. That is done through a series of challenge inspections from what might be routine locations through to the most sensitive locations.

So in every way -- both undeclared sites and declared sites - UNSCOM is not able to do its job, with the exception of allowing some of the cameras to be serviced. So across the board in both the undeclared sites and the declared sites, Saddam Hussein is refusing to cooperate with the UN and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

QUESTION: Is there any evidence so far that Saddam is taking advantage of this hiatus in inspections to begin, as you said, to the reconstitute the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction? And is there any urgency in that particular issue that he might be rushing to load --

MR. RUBIN: If we believed that they were reconstituting their weapons of mass destruction, we would act. We have no evidence of that at this time.

QUESTION: I just wanted to ask, so you think that inspectors should have the right to do challenge inspections and what.

MR. RUBIN: And undeclared facilities and challenge inspections and monitoring at declared facilities.

QUESTION: That's the agreement he made with Kofi Annan.

MR. RUBIN: Correct.

QUESTION: Could you give us a sense of timing? A month ago you were using, in the Kosovo context, words like "time is running out." I don't hear that kind of language now.

MR. RUBIN: Well, I wouldn't read too much into that. I think Secretary Albright made clear that we consider the situation grave. The message that she is delivering and Secretary Cohen is delivering is that we are dealing with a grave situation here, and the gravity of this situation needs to be understood by all concerned.

[end of document]