18 December 1998
TRANSCRIPT: ALBRIGHT ON PBS LEHRER NEWSHOUR DECEMBER 17
(SecState discusses timing of attack on Iraq) (2210) Washington -- President Clinton's decision to launch a military strike against Iraq on December 16 was based squarely on the chief UN weapon inspector's report citing continued non-cooperation from the regime of Saddam Hussein, says Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Chairman Richard Butler, who is responsible for United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspections of weapons sites in Iraq, reported December 15 to the United Nations Security Council that his teams of inspectors were being prevented at every turn in the last year from doing their jobs by Iraqi authorities. "From the perspective of national security, the only time to take care of Saddam Hussein was now," Albright said in a December 17 televised interview on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer. As for the issue of the attack coming just before Ramadan, Albright said: "I don't think, frankly, that the President had much choice about the timing. If he had decided to wait, we would be in the middle of Ramadan, the holiest Muslim month, and would have offended every Arab and Muslim nation -- relationships which are important to us. "If we had waited until after Ramadan, then Saddam Hussein would have had four to five weeks to disperse everything and to destroy even more of the evidence. I don't think that would have been a responsible national security decision." The Secretary said President Clinton's political troubles at home have not adversely affected his standing abroad. "I believe that President Clinton is a highly respected leader abroad," she said. "I have seen the respect that he enjoys from foreign leaders. They see him as a very strong and decisive leader." Following is the State Department transcript: (begin transcript) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE Office of the Spokesman December 17, 1998 INTERVIEW OF SECRETARY OF STATE MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT ON NEWSHOUR WITH JIM LEHRER December 17, 1998 Washington, D.C. LEHRER: Madame Secretary, welcome. SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: It's good to be with you, Jim. LEHRER: The Republican leadership of the House decide this afternoon to begin the impeachment debate tomorrow. What do you think about that decision? ALBRIGHT: Well, I think it's not up to me to say. It's a process that Congress has. I think that the President is doing his job and working exceptionally hard, I think, and the military campaign is going on in Iraq. We are involved in a period where this is a big issue for our national security. We have forces abroad, the American people support the President's decision, and I think all of those points should be kept in mind. LEHRER: Not a problem that US military action is underway at the same time the House of Representatives is debating whether or not to impeach the President, that could lead to the removal of office of the Commander-in-Chief? ALBRIGHT: Well, I believe that the President did the right thing to make the decision to have this military campaign at this time. His decision was based on a report from Chairman Butler. This was the time to do it. We clearly -- I had nothing to do with the timing of the debate on the Hill, but I can tell you, from the perspective of national security, the only time to take care of Saddam Hussein was now. LEHRER: Now the Minority Leader of the House, Dick Gephardt, in arguing on the floor of the House this afternoon against beginning the debate tomorrow. He said that this will hurt our credibility throughout the world, particularly with the British, the Russians, the French, and the Chinese. Is he right about that? ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that -- I have to tell you, frankly, I think that in my discussions with foreign leaders, the subject has not come up. They know that we are moving forward to protect our national interests. I do think in my private discussions often that most of the leaders in the world do not understand what is going on in our Congress. LEHRER: How difficult is it to conduct foreign policy when the motives of the President are so openly and strongly being questioned, not overseas but here in the United States by members of Congress and others? ALBRIGHT: Well, I must say what has bothered me is that we have had such a great tradition of bipartisan support for foreign policy. Also, when any President has been abroad, then for the most part, there have not been negative comments. We certainly found that when the President was now in the Middle East. I think that the President and all of us national security advisers to him are concentrating on what we're doing. I don't think -- obviously, it's not something that anybody would wish for. But the United States is strong, the American people support what the President is doing, and, Jim, I don't think it's really appropriate for the Secretary of State to become involved in this particular kind of a discussion. LEHRER: Let me read you what R. W. Apple, Jr. wrote on the front page of the New York Times this morning. It was an analysis story. He said, "it became startlingly clear today how much the long months of evasion and legalisms, how much his enemies unceasing denunciations of him as a liar have cost Bill Clinton and the nation. How would you react to that analysis? ALBRIGHT: Well, I don't agree with that. I believe that President Clinton is a highly respected leader abroad. As Secretary of State, I have complete faith in his ability to make the decisions. I have seen the respect that he enjoys from foreign leaders. They see him as a very strong and decisive leader. When we've just been in the Middle East, for what has been clearly a historic visit, where, I think, he was in his finest role as peacemaker, in what I think will go down as history as an astounding and historic speech in Gaza. People that have followed Middle East affairs for many, many years think it's the most really meaningful speech that any President has delivered in the Middle East on Middle East issues. So, I don't think that this is something that is affecting our foreign policy. I have to tell you that, just frankly, that most of the people that I've talked to do not understand what is going on here. LEHRER: Jim Hoagland, Washington Post columnist, going back to the question of the timing thing that said that what the President did by doing it now has, "the military campaign launched under these circumstances is a foreign policy blunder of major proportions." He's referring to the fact that it happened at this particular time while impeachment was still going on and that indelibly linked them together -- in other words, the action against Saddam Hussein, which was justified, and the impeachment action. ALBRIGHT: Jim, the only thing I can tell you is that I know exactly why the timing of this decision took place. A month ago, the President gave Saddam Hussein another chance. We were all set to go, as all of you know, and Saddam Hussein said that he would comply. The President went the extra mile in order to see whether he would comply. Chairman Butler, who is an independent arms control expert, an Australian, with a commission composed of professional inspectors had decided that he would have a series of inspections. He consulted with various members of the Security Council. The permanent five told him that he was going to have this series of inspections. He was planning already when he started them to have them finished around December 15th. Frankly, I thought that Saddam Hussein would comply. He had a very good opportunity to comply and then go into a comprehensive review. But what happened during these inspections was that, first of all, there were a whole bunch of new things that hadn't been happening before. He created kind of safe havens, where the inspectors couldn't go. He said they couldn't inspect on Fridays. He blocked cameras from operating. He interfered with helicopters. He destroyed documents. We now know that the military was ordered to destroy documents. And on the basis of these facts, Richard Butler made an independent decision that UNSCOM could no longer work. Therefore, the timing of all of this was determined by the way that the commission operated its work, and also we were sensitive to Ramadan. This has nothing to do with what is going on here at home. I can assure you because I was part of every single decision. LEHRER: But the Hoagland point is different than that, that if the President had waited a couple of days or so, he would not have tainted the decision. In other words, while you and I are talking about this now, the front pages of every newspaper are talking about the timing issue rather than the merits of the bombing. That's the point. ALBRIGHT: Well, I don't think, frankly, that the President had much choice about the timing. If he had decided to wait, we would be in the middle of Ramadan, the holiest Muslim month, and would have offended every Arab and Muslim nation -- relationships which are important to us. If we had waited until after Ramadan, then Saddam Hussein would have had four to five weeks to disperse everything and to destroy even more of the evidence. I don't think that would have been a responsible national security decision. The linkage being made is being made by other people. If Jim Hoagland wants to make linkages like that, that is his prerogative. He's just wrong. LEHRER: Has the mission been successful thus far? ALBRIGHT: Yes, well, I think that we're on track, and I don't want to comment specifically on -- I think you need to ask Secretary Cohen about the various parts of the mission. It's very much on track, and it will continue for awhile longer. It's a substantial and sustained military campaign. We believe that it is on track, and it will continue. I have been in touch with over 24 ministers. We have been talking about the length of it and the necessity to have it be a sustained attack. LEHRER: Sustained over length of time, meaning what, another 3-4 days, another 2-3 weeks? ALBRIGHT: Well, I would like to say that we are very sensitive to Ramadan, which begins over the weekend, but I don't want to go into more detail than that. LEHRER: What is the measurement being used to judge whether or not it is, in fact, a success? ALBRIGHT: Well, what we're -- the purpose of the use of force here is to degrade Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, his ability to develop and deploy weapons of mass destruction, and his ability to continue to threaten his neighbors. So, the targets are related to that. They are those to do with weapons of mass destruction facilities, with security, command, and control. So the purpose of this is, specifically, to do with degrading his ability to as I said -- yes? LEHRER: Sure. Degrading is the word that you have used, the President's used -- what does that word actually mean in this context? What do you mean degrade, when bombing to degrade -- I mean, bombing is destroying, is it not? ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that -- I don't think we're pretending that we can get everything, so this is, I think -- we are being very honest about what our ability is, we are lessening, degrading his ability to use this. Weapons of mass destruction are the threat of the future. I think the President explained very clearly to the American people that this is the threat of the 21st century. It's hard to control, hard to get at, that we need to -- Saddam Hussein had the capability, with the VX agents, to destroy every man, women, and child on Earth, so we have a serious problem here. He is a threat, and what the President decided to do, I think, was very sound, very important for our national security, and take action when he could. What it means is that we know that we can't get everything, but degrading is the right word. LEHRER: Have there been any contact between the United States, directly or indirectly, with Saddam Hussein or the government of Iraq since these attacks began yesterday? ALBRIGHT: No -- LEHRER: Do you expect -- ALBRIGHT: Well, no, let me correct that. I mean, in New York, we have informed Ambassador Hamdoon of what we are doing and, obviously, Ambassador Hamdoon is in the Security Council meetings where we are also -- LEHRER: Is there anything that Iraq could do, say, in the next 24-hours or whatever to stop these, or is it beyond that now? ALBRIGHT: Well, this attack is going to go through its completion and what Saddam Hussein can do after it is to comply. He can let UNSCOM back in -- a real UNSCOM -- that can do its work. He can let it do what it's supposed to do and then we'll go into a comprehensive review. That's what he can do. LEHRER: Madame Secretary, thank you very much. ALBRIGHT: Thank you. (end transcript)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
