23 December 1998
TRANSCRIPT: PICKERING "NEWS HOUR" INTERVIEW ON IRAQ, DECEMBER 22
(Says US policy on Iraq for foreseeable future is containment) (2470) Washington -- Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Thomas Pickering says the U.S. policy on Iraq has been made very clear: "for the foreseeable future, following the military activities which were to degrade his weapons of mass destruction and his ability to threaten his neighbors, we would move to a policy of containment. That is the centerpiece of the United Nations' policy. "Down the road and over the long-term, we are consulting with the opposition, talking to them about the future. We would like to see Saddam Hussein gone. It is working with and through people who are opposed to him that that can be worked out,"the Under Secretary said December 22 in an interview on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer. "The threat of the use of force and the potential for the use of force needs to remain out there if Iraq reconstructs its weapons of mass destruction and threatens its neighbors," Pickering said. "Iraq ... now has a choice: it can keep sanctions on forever, defy the United Nations and then we will have to be there to protect those red lines and to use our intelligence to make sure they don't. Or Iraq can once again accept UNSCOM back." Pickering said the U.S. is not trying to get the inspectors back and that UNSCOM should not go back to Iraq "until they pass some tests that indicate they're going to cooperate with it. Another "Potemkin" UNSCOM is not in our interest," he said. He stressed that "there is no way that sanctions can come off without UNSCOM verifying that they have disarmed -- the principal test for the removal of sanctions. If they want a comprehensive review, and they have talked about that, they clearly then will have to cooperate with the United Nations, comply with the resolutions, disclose and disarm, as UNSCOM and the resolutions require." Following is the State Department transcript: (Begin transcript) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE Office of the Spokesman December 23, l998 INTERVIEW OF UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS THOMAS PICKERING ON THE NEWS HOUR WITH JIM LEHRER December 22, 2998 Washington, D.C. Q: A debate is under way at the UN over economic sanctions and arms inspections in Iraq now that the bombing is over. The Clinton Administration's point man on the issue is Under Secretary of State Thomas Pickering. He was in New York yesterday, where he spoke with Russian diplomats and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. Ambassador Pickering joins us now from the State Department. Thank you for being with us. PICKERING: Good evening, Elizabeth, it's nice to be with you. Q: What was your purpose in going up to the UN yesterday? PICKERING: My purpose in going up to the UN was to consult with delegations and particularly the Russian delegation -- and to speak with the Secretary General and to get a vision of their perspective on the situation in Iraq. Q: Is a major rethinking under way? Newspaper and wire stories indicate that three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council are pushing for some significant changes in policy. Let me just quote French Foreign Minister Vedrine, who said, "it's time for a new chapter in the UN's management of the Iraqi issue because UNSCOM's probably done all we can to discover hidden weapons." PICKERING: Well, we've been looking at the situation along with others. There are differing views, but we hope that they can be brought together. Our view is clearly that the threat of the use of force and the potential for the use of force needs to remain out there if Iraq reconstructs its weapons of mass destruction and threatens its neighbors. Iraq, of course, now has a choice: it can keep sanctions on forever, defy the United Nations and then we will have to be there to protect those red lines and to use our intelligence to make sure they don't. Or Iraq can once again accept UNSCOM back. We don't believe it should go back -- certainly it shouldn't go back until they pass some tests that indicate they're going to cooperate with it. Another "Potemkin" UNSCOM is not in our interest. But there is no way that sanctions can come off without UNSCOM verifying that they have disarmed -- the principal test for the removal of sanctions. If they want a comprehensive review, and they have talked about that, they clearly then will have to cooperate with the United Nations, comply with the resolutions, disclose and disarm, as UNSCOM and the resolutions require. Q: Is there any chance UNSCOM could get back in? Tariq Aziz and others in Iraq have said that there's absolutely no chance they can get back in. What is US policy for trying to get the arms inspectors back in? PICKERING: Well, I want to be very careful. The US is not trying to get the arms inspectors back. The US recognized that in this case, Iraq has a choice: sanctions forever, the use of force to keep them from crossing red lines is one choice. The possibility of cooperating with the United Nations has always been there. If they choose to cooperate, and show that by concrete actions, then it's possible for UNSCOM to go back. Certainly we would support that. I suspect the other members of the Security Council would. Then they can move on down the road of disarming, disclosing, complying and moving toward the question of lifting sanctions. Q: Is there any other form that the weapons inspections could take besides UNSCOM, in your view? PICKERING: We're very satisfied with UNSCOM. I said that again today. We believe it is a highly professional international body that does its work in the best of all possible ways; clearly, without a political commitment on one side or the other. It reports to the Security Council. We believe that that kind of an effective body needs to remain there. We have told that is, the UN Security Council has told UNSCOM that it should design the verification system and carry it out the way it thinks is best to do the job. We have supported that; so UNSCOM is really, in its technical expertise and its professionalism, the body that the Security Council has relied upon to design and carry out the system that's best. If UNSCOM believes that there are improvements to be made and it has been making improvements all along the line I don't think the United States would stand in the way of that. But to have somebody else come in and substitute a new system because the Iraqis are complaining is a real travesty. Q: The Russians and others are said to be asking for the dismissal of UNSCOM's director, Richard Butler. Would the US oppose that? PICKERING: Well, as the Secretary of State has made clear and I repeated again today, we support Mr. Butler. We believe he ought to remain in place. Q: Bottom line, it sounds like there's no way out of this; because you're saying there can be no end to the sanctions unless Iraq cooperates with UNSCOM, and Iraq's saying it won't cooperate with UNSCOM. Am I missing something? PICKERING: No, Elizabeth, that's not just the US position; that's the position taken by all 15 members of the Security Council in resolutions, including Russia, France and China. That's what the Security Council resolutions say. That's what they and we are committed to carry out. We are, at this stage, attempting to do that. If Iraq doesn't cooperate, then it can have sanctions on in perpetuity, as I said. If Iraq chooses to cooperate, then it must come back into compliance with the Security Council resolutions. The resolutions are supported by the United States, but [also] by others. They're not a choice of the United States that somehow exclusively we're applying here, but it is the will of the international community, as expressed in the Security Council. Q: But am I wrong, or are the news articles today wrong in indicating that Russia, France and others are trying to find a way to break through what I just expressed is what I seemed to think was a dead end? PICKERING: Well, I think each in their own way is thinking about the problem in some of those terms. One of the values of talking to them, one of the values, perhaps, of my discussions yesterday was to make it clear that the United States is sticking by the resolutions. We don't overthrow resolutions unilaterally; it would be a serious mistake to do that and to change where the Security Council is. In fact, France and China and Russia are all permanent members of the Security Council. It would be a mistake to see the Security Council undermined from within, to see its authorities undermined; particularly in response to the very, very important question of Iraq and the threats that Iraq poses to the region. Q: What was your take on these events as of yesterday and today? How much more pressure do you think there will be in the Security Council from France, Russia and others for these changes? PICKERING: Well, I believe in all of the Security Council discussions there are differences of view; they get worked out. I think that there are efforts here that can go on in the consultations. The Secretary of State spoke again today with the Russian Foreign Minister. It was a good conversation. She's been in touch with the French Foreign Minister, with the British. We expect here to continue those consultations. Let us see how this process can work ahead. The Council has a very strong reason to defend its resolutions against attacks from the outside. It has a very strong, I think, reason to remain united as it was in the lead-up to the American strikes. Q: Mr. Ambassador, what exactly is US policy now? Is it containing Iraq, or getting rid of Saddam Hussein? PICKERING: Our policy has been made very clear. The Secretary said that for the foreseeable future, following the military activities which were to degrade his weapons of mass destruction and his ability to threaten his neighbors, we would move to a policy of containment. That is the centerpiece of the United Nations' policy. Down the road and over the long-term, we are consulting with the opposition, talking to them about the future. We would like to see Saddam Hussein gone. It is working with and through people who are opposed to him that that can be worked out. Q: I wish you would respond to something that Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor, said on our show last night. He said that the US needed more realistic goals in Iraq. He said that the US can't find all the weapons -- there's no way to prove that all these weapons have been destroyed and we can't remove Saddam Hussein without killing him or invading. Those are unrealistic and unattainable goals, he said. How do you respond to that? PICKERING: I believe that we're in this process for the long term; that patience in achieving our goals is very, very significant. The United Nations, the world community has given Saddam some very stark choices. He will have to decide how he moves with respect to those. We have our doubts about the fact that Saddam will ever comply. It's been very clear, and we have made clear that as a result of those doubts, we are working with others to see him gone. It's a longer-term possibility, it's a longer-term question; but we believe that we must continue at this. There are some foreign policy issues that aren't going to be solved overnight or in a day. I know that Zbig knows and understands that and even despite the fact that there is impatience, there is no magic silver bullet to solve all of this in the next few days. It is important that we remain firm and determined in this, as we were, for example, during the Cold War and the question of containment. Q: He also said that the United States has lost its sense of balance and proportion regarding Iraq -- a nation of 22 million people. He said, "It's a problem and a nuisance, but it's not a major world threat and shouldn't be treated like that." PICKERING: I believe it's a serious threat, particularly to the region, and it has world ramifications. Much of the economy of many countries in the world is still based in the need for petroleum. The region is one of the greatest suppliers of petroleum for the region. Saddam's moves in 1990 certainly threatened that. He's been at war against his other neighbor, Iran. He is a man that we find it very difficult to believe, to be convinced that he would turn the corner and reform. He is still working, we believe, to acquire or preserve as much as he can of his structure of weapons of mass destruction. He does prove, in our view, to have been a very, very serious threat to the neighborhood. That's a very important neighborhood in terms of where world economies are. Therefore, I don't believe we have exaggerated it. Q: Mr. Ambassador, do you believe the bombing advanced the US situation vis-.-vis Iraq at all? It seems, in this conversation, that we are stuck, in some ways, where we were before. We've talked about this many times on the show before with you or other members of the State Department, but with some fewer munitions factories and barracks. PICKERING: I believe in a couple of very important ways this particular effort made an extremely serious difference. One, of course -- and you've alluded to that in your question -- is that a large portion of the establishment that he was either preserving or rebuilding to construct or to be ready to construct weapons of mass destruction has been taken out. Military reports of that, I believe, are serious, substantial and convincing. Secondly, we have made it very clear that if he transgresses, that if he crosses the line, that he can expect a firm and determined response from the United States to support the processes that have been engaged in here by the Security Council. It is extremely important, however, that we judge these strikes primarily on the basis of their military accomplishment and the fact that we are determined not to see him present a new threat to the region, as we have said. Q: Ambassador Thomas Pickering, thank you very much for being with us. PICKERING: Thank you very much. (End transcript)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
