• 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: On Iraq, there's been a number of stories over the weekend suggesting that the United States is on the verge of military action or maybe not. I was just wondering if you could give some guidance as to current policy toward Saddam Hussein.

MR. RUBIN: Well, I've seen a lot of different stories going in a lot of different directions, and that sometimes happens.

But with respect to one of the elements of one of those stories - that is, that somehow we've given up on UNSCOM - I think that is not our view. Over almost eight years, the Security Council has clearly and repeatedly set out Iraq's obligations through a series of UN Security Council resolutions. Iraq must comply with these resolutions. The most recent resolution, 1205, passed last week and it determined that Iraq is in flagrant violation of its commitments to the world. Kofi Annan, on his trip, has also made clear that he regards Iraq as being in flagrant violation.

What has happened in recent weeks is we've seen the coalescing and the clarity of the entire world that Iraq is in non-compliance, that this current problem is Iraq's fault. The blame of the whole world is resting clearly and squarely on the doorstep of Iraq and the shoulders of Saddam Hussein.

Clearly, for eight out of the last 12 months, UNSCOM has been unable to do its work effectively for a variety of reasons due to Iraq's continued lack of cooperation. But as I said, it is clear to everyone concerned, that Iraq is responsible for this lack of cooperation and the reason why UNSCOM has been unable to do its work.

The whole world has now called on Iraq to begin cooperation, to go back into compliance, and, in fact, compliance is the only avenue for Iraq as we move ahead. We also need to be sure that if cooperation is resumed, that UNSCOM will be able to do its work effectively and without interference or interruption.

With respect to the question of military force, I have no new words to offer you. I think everyone has been quite clear that there is a decision-making process going on and pending the outcome of that process, I have no new words to offer you.

QUESTION: If UNSCOM is not dead, why are the inspectors being withdrawn?

MR. RUBIN: Well, we've had opportunities in the past where UNSCOM inspectors were withdrawn because of lack of Iraqi cooperation, and then Iraq has capitulated on its stated position and UNSCOM has gone back in to complete its work. They haven't been able to complete their work because Iraq hasn't let them do so. So it's not a simple matter that because UNSCOM is leaving that all the work is over.

QUESTION: Jamie, can you tell us, is there a difference between the state of cooperation of our allies, European allies in the Gulf , at this particular moment ,and the state of cooperation that existed in January-February of this year? And, secondly, can you tell us about what happened at Camp David -- specifically on the subject of Iraq -- this weekend?

MR. RUBIN: With regard to the second, that's easy. That was a meeting the President held and it's up to the President and his people to talk about such a meeting; other than for me to tell you that Secretary Albright was there, that she regards this as a very grave matter and requiring the utmost seriousness of discussion and planning. That is the basis on which she was there.

With respect to your first question, I do think there's a difference. Under Secretary Pickering and Secretary Albright together have been in touch with a very large number of allies and friends around the world. To a country, they are placing the responsibility for this crisis on Iraq's doorstep and squarely on Saddam Hussein's shoulders.

In the past, there have been times when some countries have either made excuses or at least repeated Iraq's arguments, and we are seeing little if any of that this time around. So in that sense, I think Saddam has served to unite the world against his policies and practices.

QUESTION: In your consultations, have you found the world also in favor of your option of bombing Iraq?

MR. RUBIN: I have no comment on the use of force.

QUESTION: I'm sorry, Jamie, if I could just follow up. You say they all are on board for condemning Saddam Hussein for not obeying UN resolutions. Are they all also on board for a military option?

MR. RUBIN: I have no words to add on that subject.

QUESTION: Are you discussing any new diplomatic overture, or would you think that would be appropriate at this time? Like the Secretary General of the UN or --

MR. RUBIN: I haven't heard much discussion of that. Obviously, we're talking to our friends in the region. We are not hearing much about that. It's a pretty clear situation. Either Iraq is going to rescind its decision and come back into compliance or it's not.

QUESTION: Well, how long is --

MR. RUBIN: We're not having a communication problem here; we're having a policy problem , on his part.

QUESTION: Could you narrow this down at all? I mean, how long can you sort of remain in these - how long do you think you can remain in this pattern. The President and the Secretary of State are both going off to Asia shortly. So presumably, you wouldn't take any action while they're gone.

MR. RUBIN: I wouldn't want to speculate on what decisions would be made with respect to travel. All I can tell you is that the Secretary is scheduled to leave on Thursday.

With respect to time, we have made very clear that Iraq must come into compliance immediately. That's what the President said after the Security Council made that very clear in its resolution. Beyond that, I don't have much to add.

QUESTION: Jamie, I'm probably as guilty as anybody - there have been news accounts that have said that only Britain stands solidly with the United States on acting alone or the two of them acting if it comes to that. Is that giving short shrift to some other NATO allies - Turkey and others - who have habitually stood with the United States?

MR. RUBIN: It's a very effective way to get at Sid's question.

QUESTION: No, it isn't. Sid, I thought, had a legitimate question.

MR. RUBIN: Right, and I just can't answer it. I'm not going to repeat what other countries' positions are on a question like the use of force.

With respect - let me try --

QUESTION: Is it as lonely as that might seem out there - that if it comes to unilateral action, only the British will have the whatever it is - the courage or the steadfastness - to side with the United States?

MR. RUBIN: It's a very legitimate question. Let me do the best I can in saying as follows. Given the blatancy of Saddam Hussein's action and given the wholesale non-cooperation that he has put forward and given our consultations with other countries in Europe and around the world, we don't feel lonely.

QUESTION: But - and I keep saying unilateral - doesn't necessarily mean just one nation. But if it's a narrow action just involving the US and one or two or three other countries, does that make it more difficult to act against Saddam? Does that muffle the message if he perceives that it hasn't gotten wholesale support? Can you play one guy against the other?

MR. RUBIN: We have said that all options are on the table, that includes a unilateral option, a semi-lateral option. So it's not a question of that the way you put it. We're going to decide what we think is best to advance the national security interests of the United States. When that decision is made, we'll be in better position to talk about it.

QUESTION: Do you have the capacity to conduct a unilateral action at this point?

MR. RUBIN: Changes we have made to our forces in the region over the last several months ensure that an adequate level of forces exists in the Gulf, should their use be necessary.

QUESTION: Do you ask from Turkey any use of Incirlik Air Force Base, any permission? The Secretary Cohen was there over the weekend. And also, are you satisfied that the Turkish Government supports this subject?

MR. RUBIN: We believe that the whole world is making clear that it's on our side and on the world's side against Saddam Hussein's failure to cooperate.

With respect to any specific military cooperation issue, I have no comment.

QUESTION: But Jamie, you look at the file and the Saudi Foreign Minister, your great friend in the Persian Gulf - the US protects Saudi oil fields; Americans have died to protect Saudi Arabia. There he is visiting your other great friend of the Middle East, Hosni Mubarak, and he's announcing that really what you need is a lot more diplomacy. Is there some dearth of diplomacy to turn Saddam Hussein around, or have you been diplomatic enough?

MR. RUBIN: We're not discouraged.

QUESTION: You're not discouraged. What do you think his message is?

MR. RUBIN: By what we're hearing from around the world. What we're hearing from around the world is a clear and ringing call on Saddam Hussein to reverse course - from every quarter, from every country. That is making it very clear that it's Saddam Hussein against the world. That is what we're hearing from around the world.

Beyond saying that, I have very little to offer you.

QUESTION: Are all options still open, including the option of military force?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

QUESTION: What would be the goal of using military force?

MR. RUBIN: At this point, I do not want to begin down the road of discussing the various pros and cons of using military force. And once you begin to describe its objective, you find yourself quite naturally down that road. I'm not in a position to be on that road.

QUESTION: Put it a different way, then, Jamie. You're engaged in a process now with some idea of where you want to end up. Can you describe to us where you want to end up - whether by force, by diplomacy or some other means.

MR. RUBIN: We have made very clear that until Iraq complies with the requirements of the Security Council, it cannot get out from under the sanctions regime and cannot regain its status in the world.

If Iraq does not cooperate with UNSCOM, sanctions will remain on indefinitely. Clearly, UNSCOM has been unable to do its job for many months and for eight of the last 12 months. That is a major concern; it's a grave matter. We are considering our options on how to proceed.

Beyond saying that, I don't know how to answer your question.

QUESTION: Has the Secretary made any phone calls today or in the last, say, 24 hours?

MR. RUBIN: No.

QUESTION: Is it fair to say your objective is to have UNSCOM back up and running?

MR. RUBIN: Can we agree that this is a spare briefing?

QUESTION: On this subject.

QUESTION: Would it be fair to say that the US objective is to have UNSCOM back up and running at full in Iraq, regardless of --

MR. RUBIN: That has been our objective for a long time; it's the whole world's objective. There's nothing new about that.

QUESTION: And if UNSCOM is kicked out of Iraq then, obviously, that won't happen.

MR. RUBIN: Obviously.

QUESTION: What would you do to --

MR. RUBIN: Are you trying to lead me down a certain path?

QUESTION: I'm trying to pull teeth here.

MR. RUBIN: Or put words in my mouth. You know how we love that.

QUESTION: And then if that happens, how do you maintain the checks on his weapons?

MR. RUBIN: Well, I've answered that question last week; I'm happy to repeat it again today. If we have evidence that Saddam Hussein is reconstituting his weapons of mass destruction, we will act. We have no such evidence at this time.

QUESTION: Can we have a check on updating on any activity in the inspection area - cameras. I know you consider it inadequate, but is there anything that --

MR. RUBIN: My understanding is that UNSCOM, due to the fact that they have been unable to do their job, has decided to reassign some of its inspectors. UNSCOM has stated that five more inspectors left Monday, with another ten scheduled to depart Wednesday. We also understand that over 100 inspectors will still be in Iraq after Wednesday.

QUESTION: How many?

MR. RUBIN: One hundred after Wednesday. Thus, UNSCOM remains fully prepared to resume inspections if allowed by Iraq. UNSCOM decides which inspectors to reassign based on the lack of activity. It is a fluid situation, and we obviously think it's up to UNSCOM to report this.

The reassignment of inspectors reflects the situation in Iraq. There are no UNSCOM inspections proceeding at this time.

QUESTION: Are the people being withdrawn being withdrawn without respect to their nationality?

MR. RUBIN: UNSCOM decides which inspectors to reassign. We don't make those decisions for them, and it reflects their expertise and professionalism not, as far as I know, their nationality.

QUESTION: Is there unimpeded overflight access to Iraq to discern what Iraq is doing with its weapons of mass destruction, if anything? And has there been any challenge to U-2 flights?

MR. RUBIN: I understand that U-2 flights have flown previously. I don't know when the next one is scheduled; I'll have to check that for you. Obviously, we have our own ways of seeing what's going on there.

QUESTION: Satellite as well, I take it.

MR. RUBIN: We have our own national technical means.

QUESTION: To what extent does UNSCOM now have to change its method of operation, to the extent you can talk about this from the podium? The Scott Ritter case has been widely reported now and his methods of operation.

MR. RUBIN: I was wondering - we had 25 questions without that; but go ahead.

QUESTION: The lengthy and exhaustive disclosures of how he operated would suggest that that kind of operation is now finished. I mean, can UNSCOM continue operating without using the kinds of methods that he was using? Doesn't it have to reconfigure itself completely and --

MR. RUBIN: UNSCOM has always been much larger than any one inspector or any one method of operation. UNSCOM is a very complex operation that has many parts to it. Each of the parts may have their own views how important a part they are to the operation. But Ambassador Butler and Ambassador Ekeus before them have made clear that UNSCOM has been doing its job, even when sometimes there is frustration at the lower levels on particular issues.

Let's remember that the best way forUNSCOM to get its job done is for Saddam Hussein to disclose the weaponry that has not been disclosed before. No matter how wily or sophisticated or thoughtful an inspector is, we do not believe that it's necessarily true that those inspectors are going to miraculously happen upon all of the treasure trove of Iraqi documents and materials. This is a systemic process that has to work with a myriad of activities and not one single activity.

There's been a focus on one single activity, I think much to the detriment of the enormous work and hard work and serious work done by hundreds of other people who have been maligned by suggestion that their work was irrelevant. Their work isn't irrelevant. Their work is extremely important. The whole world thinks their work is extremely important, and that's why the whole world is demanding that Iraq cooperate.

QUESTION: Didn't Ritter's disclosures, in his various interviews, in any way affect UNSCOM's ability to carry on its inspections? Did they in any way affect US policy?

MR. RUBIN: Well, they haven't affected our policy. It's certainly given some talking points to some of the anti-UNSCOMers in the world. He certainly played into the hands of those who would have believed that this was somehow a spy operation, when in fact it was something mandated by the international community through the Security Council where information was specifically sought from countries around the world pursuant to a Security Council Resolution and that information was supposed to be provided.

There was a call in the original resolutions for all countries of the world to provide information to UNSCOM so that they could do their job. The fact that this is exaggerated and put in mysterious terms has tended to give arguments to people that are the very arguments that Saddam Hussein has been pursuing for some time. But it's more about arguments than it is about substance.

QUESTION: So in some sense Saddam Hussein, if you have read the extensive pieces that were even published on him, you would have reason to think that there was a spy operation whether a rogue spy operation or a spy operation going on. I mean, I don't know whether he uses this as an excuse, but could he draw that conclusion?

MR. RUBIN: Now you want me to speak for Saddam Hussein? That's a job I definitely don't want.

(The briefing concluded at 1:45 P.M.)

[end of document]