17 December 1998
RICHARD BUTLER SAYS HIS REPORT WAS HONEST, FACTUAL
(UNSCOM chief inspector rejects criticism) (730) By Judy Aita USIA United Nations Correspondent United Nations -- The chief UN arms inspector December 17 defended his assessment of Baghdad's failure to cooperate with the UN Special Commission saying that his report was "honest, factual, and objective" and its timing "was not constructed to suit US purposes." Ambassador Richard Butler, chairman of UNSCOM, the UN Special Commission overseeing the destruction of Iraqi weapons, talked briefly with journalists outside the Security Council chambers. It was Butler's first encounter with the press since he presented his report of Iraq's poor cooperation with his weapons experts to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. Shortly afterwards, the United States and Great Britain began air strikes on Iraq's military sites. "I will say it simply, slowly, and plainly that any suggestion that that report was not factual and was not objective is utterly false," Butler said. "That report is factual, clear, objective and honest, and suggestions to the contrary are wrong," he said several times. "It was my report, as promised, on time, and based on the facts," he said. Russia had criticized Butler during a closed Security Council meeting December 16 for his handling of the inspections and the timing of the report. News operations repeated those criticisms as the bombing of Iraq unfolded. Butler also forcefully addressed the criticism he has received about the timing of the release of the report on December 15 as President Clinton's domestic political troubles were coming to a head. "Sadly I have heard that there have been suggestions...that the timing of this report and the purpose of this report was in some way structured to suit United States purposes. That is utterly wrong," Butler said. Butler accepted full responsibility for the report which he said he wrote after consulting with UNSCOM's inspectors in Iraq. "There is no doubt in my mind that the conclusion I came to -- supported absolutely by them -- the simple conclusion that Iraq did not keep its promise of full cooperation is correct," he said. "Whether we're talking about inspections or documents or interviews," the mandate we were given "was to say whether or not Iraq had cooperated fully. The answer, I deeply regret, is: No, it did not." Butler said that UNSCOM inspectors were able to do some work but "not the substantiative disarmament work we are expected to do." Butler said he told the Security Council on November 24 that it would take two to three weeks for UNSCOM to determine if Iraq was seriously living up to its promise of cooperation. "I went to Paris, I went to Moscow. I talked to other ambassadors here. Every one who asked me, I said you will have this report on the 14 or 15 of December....That was the program, that was the plan. Thanks to the help of my excellent staff, I was able to keep to that date," he added. "I want to say as simply and as plainly as I can: that report was based on the experts of UNSCOM. It danced to no one's tune. It was not written for anyone's purposes including....for the purposes of the United States," Butler said. Asked for his assessment of whether UNSCOM would be able to continue working in Iraq after the bombings, Butler said "We can do our work the moment Iraq genuinely decides to give us cooperation. Without rancor, without regards to the past, we would go back and do our work" in Iraq. Butler was also asked why his assessment of Iraq's cooperation differed from the assessment of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is responsible for Iraq's nuclear program. First, Butler pointed out, IAEA only reported that Iraq has provided the level of support requested, IAEA did not say that Iraq had provided full and complete cooperation. He added that IAEA, unlike UNSCOM, never dealt with completed weapons programs. "That made our jobs vastly different."
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
