• Military

• WMD Menu                           

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

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

10 November 1998

SECRETARY OF STATE ALBRIGHT: SADDAM CAN'T DICTATE TERMS

(USA Today 11/10/98 Lee Katz interview) (1250)
(Permission has been obtained covering republication/translation of
the text (including the Agency's home page on the Internet) by
USIS/press outside the U.S. of the following interview with Secretary
of State Madeleine Albright by USA Today columnist Lee Michael Katz.
(On title page, credit author and carry:
Copyright 1998, USA TODAY.  Reprinted with permission.)
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright spoke Monday with USA TODAY's
Lee Michael Katz about Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons
inspectors (UNSCOM), the Mideast peace process, global terrorism, the
economic crisis in Russia and the 50th anniversary of her emigration
to the United States. Excerpts have been edited for length and
clarity.
Q: How long can Iraqi President Saddam Hussein continue his defiance
of arms inspectors?
A: Obviously, it cannot go on indefinitely. What we have been trying
to do has been very systematic in doing things on our time line and
not on Saddam's. We are able now to show a consistent movement in the
(U.N. Security) Council.
If you go back a year ago, the council had been divided. He was
driving a truck through the fact that there had been dissension on the
Security Council resolutions last October. And we have felt that for
whatever actions we take, it's very useful for the international
community to be back as a united front against Saddam Hussein, so it's
Saddam Hussein against the United Nations.
Q: How does Saddam Hussein know that the United States means business
this time? Is the United States prepared to back up these threats with
military action?
A: As you know, the president has made no decision on it. What we want
is for Saddam Hussein to live up to his obligations. That is very
clear. And very important for us.... We are very concerned about his
ability to have what we constitute as weapons of mass destruction. So
we have wanted to have inspections by UNSCOM in order to be able to
ascertain whether he has weapons of mass destruction. What we have
been pushing for systematically, diplomatically, is for UNSCOM to be
able to do its job, and for the inspections to go forward.
Q: If there is military action against Iraq, could it prevent UNSCOM
from going back to work, leaving economic sanctions as the only check
on Saddam?
A: Let me just put it this way. At the moment, UNSCOM isn't
functioning, or it hasn't been, so we want UNSCOM back in there. But
absent that, or if it can't, then obviously we want sanctions.
Q: Suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden remains at large in
Afghanistan. The Taliban religious leaders there say they will
consider him innocent until they get proof by November 20 that he is
guilty of acts of terrorism.
A: I would be very surprised if the indictment had been put forward if
there were not proof. So I feel very confident about that. Secondly,
we wouldn't have put the reward forward if we didn't think that it
might prove useful in bringing Osama bin Laden and his people to
justice.
Q:  Are you getting tired of the Taliban protecting him?
A: I don't think that it is much of a sign of their desire to be
recognized in the international community. To be protecting someone
who is responsible for the loss of life doesn't add to anybody's
credibility.
Q: Are you worried that the new Mideast peace accord is falling part?
A: I really do regret that it has not yet been agreed to by the
Israeli Cabinet. But I have to say that there has been progress. And I
think that we can see that the Israeli public continues to be very
supportive of the agreement. It is my strong belief after a number of
conversations with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he wants the
agreement to go forward and that he is working very hard on the issue.
There's supposed to be bilateral security cooperation between the
Israelis and the Palestinians. They (Palestinians) are supposed to be
arresting people, and they have.... So certain aspects are going on; I
believe that the will of the leaders is there. And while I wish that
this had all happened earlier, I have faith that it will, in fact,
take place.
Q: Is your message to Prime Minister Netanyahu that he needs to move
quicker?
A: There was a bomb (in a Jerusalem market) in the middle of the
discussion, so you could understand why there might be a delay.
Obviously, I would like to see this happening on schedule. I happen to
believe that when leaders commit themselves to an agreement that they
have committed the will to carry it out.
Q: It's been three months since the United States offered to hold a
trial in neutral territory for Libyan suspects in the bombing of Pan
Am Flight 103. Is there some sort of deadline for Libyan leader
Moammar Gadhafi?
A: First of all, there has been no response, but there has been a
seeking of clarifications by Libyan lawyers through the United Nation,
so there is clearly an interest in the proposal. We have made very
clear that it's a "take it or leave it" proposal, no negotiations.
And as I told the families (of the bombing victims), with whom I met,
10 days ago or so, that December 21, which is the 10-year anniversary,
is a date that is seared into our minds. This offer -- not offer,
proposal -- is not on the table indefinitely. And if they don't accept
it, then we will go back to the Security Council and actually consider
some of the additional measures.
Q: So if the Libyans don't accept it by December 21, you'll suggest an
oil embargo?
A: I didn't say that. I'm not setting, I'm just saying that date is
seared into our minds.
Q: Are you worried about how the Russians are handling their economy?
A: We are all concerned about what's going on there. The (economic)
plans that have been presented thus far don't adequately deal with the
situation.
Q: Tomorrow is the 50th anniversary of your arrival in the United
States (from Czechoslovakia). Did you ever think back then that you
might become Secretary of State one day, much less the highest-ranking
woman in the U.S. government?
A: In my wildest imagination, that could never have happened. When I
was 11 years old, I remember very well coming in on the SS America,
which seemed like an appropriate name.
Even as a little girl, (there was) just relief that we were in the
U.S., and then, just a whole sense of amazement about what America was
like. I had lived through the war, (and) these were the Americans that
had liberated us. To be in a country that had liberated us, was a
great moment.
Q: You fled Nazis and communism, before you came to the United States.
Does that shape your philosophy as Secretary of State?
A: There's no question. I do believe in the tremendous goodness of
American power. Not just military power but being a nation that
welcomes immigrants. I see people living terrible lives, and I think
to myself that but for the grace of God, this could have happened to
me. I do feel a special obligation.