DoD News Briefing
Tuesday, November 10, 1998
Presenter: Minister of Defense Tony Tan, Republic of Singapore
.....................
Q: Mr. Secretary, on Iraq, if I may, is the United States now close, close to a military strike on Iraq? And if such a strike were contemplated, would Iraq be warned ahead of time, given a final ultimatum that it must cooperate with U.N. arms inspectors before the strike was launched?
A: (Cohen): First of all, the President has made no decision with respect to our response to Iraq's flagrant violation of his agreement with Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, and his flagrant violations of his obligations under the Security Council resolutions. The President continues to weigh options. He has taken, as he's indicated, nothing off the table. The military option is certainly still on the table. We would prefer and he would much prefer to see this resolved peacefully and that Saddam Hussein should reconsider his decision to terminate UNSCOM's activities. I believe that also reflects the sentiment of the Security Council, which has unanimously condemned Saddam's actions. And I believe that reflects the sentiment of the countries in the Gulf who believe that he is obligated to comply with the agreement that he signed with Kofi Annan. So, the President continues to review it. He has made no decision at this point.
Q: Do you expect if a strike is launched, if a strike was decidedly launched, would it come soon? Are you worried that Iraq is now building weapons of mass destruction?
A: (Cohen): I think that we've all indicated that time is running out on this, and it can't go on forever. That diplomacy always should have every opportunity to dance. But at some point, a dance has a beginning and an end. And we would hope that diplomacy would be successful on the part of a number of countries who have indicated that they think that Saddam has made a bad mistake, that he has an obligation to fulfill. And hopefully, their message will persuade him to reconsider. And that is our hope and we have to see how it will unfold, but that is our preference, obviously.
Q: You've indicated before, Mr. Secretary, and so has General Shelton the difficulty and -- if you select an air strike, the difficulty in reducing his ability to make weapons of mass destruction. There could be so many targets and our level of knowledge is, well, whatever our level of knowledge is. So air strikes end up getting you what, should you decide to take that option? And then what?
A: (Cohen): Well, as we've indicated in the past, that in the event that he continues to not allow UNSCOM inspectors to do their job on the ground, and we think that that's the preferable course of action. That's the most important as far as we're concerned, to make sure that he's not reconstituting his weapons of mass destruction. And then we certainly would consider the possibility of degrading his capability of manufacturing these weapons of mass destruction or the means of delivering them and posing a threat to the region. Beyond that, I don't think it's helpful or productive for me to comment in terms of how much damage could be done. We think that it would be a significant degradation of his capacity. But we're hoping that it doesn't become necessary to resort to that.
Q: Mr. Secretary, last spring, you were at a rather fractious town meeting on this issue in the midwest, Ohio I think it was. And at that point, there didn't seem to be a great deal of public support for action. Do you think there is support now? Do you think it is necessary to ask to build support?
A: (Cohen): I think the world has seen that Saddam Hussein, once again, has provoked a crisis by again refusing to live up to his obligations under the Security Council resolutions and now under the agreement that he signed with Kofi Annan. And I think the world sentiment now recognizes that he appears intent on not complying with the Security Council resolutions. The Security Council's credibility is on the line; the U.N.'s credibility is on the line. And I think the U.S. credibility as well in terms of simply allowing him to flout his obligations. And I believe that most people now recognize that, and if it becomes necessary to take military action, I would expect that there would be certainly more support than before. That remains to be seen.
.................Q: Mr. Secretary, the U.S. has long maintained that this is a dispute between the United Nations and Iraq and not the United States and Iraq. While the U.N. has voted to condemn Iraq's action, the process has not reached the point where the Security Council has voted in favor of military action. Does U.S. military action -- would U.S. military action undercut and damage the U.S. position that this is a dispute not between us and them, but between the U.N. and Iraq?
A: (Cohen): Well, as we've indicated, this is a dispute between Saddam Hussein and the United Nations, but it also remains that the United States has the responsibility also of helping to enforce this matter through UNSCOM and all the United Nations participate in that. But it's the United States forces in the region along with our British friends and French friends who are enforcing the resolutions. And so we have a key role to play, and I would expect that if military action is required, that would be consistent with the desire to enforce the obligations under the act.
Q: Would you seek permission from the Security Council before any action is taken?
A: (Cohen): I really can't comment on that. That's a matter for the President to decide.
Q: Would Iraq be given a final ultimatum before any strikes be launched?
A: (Cohen): I think Iraq is on notice that it is obligated to comply with the agreement that it negotiated and signed back in February. It is on notice that it needs to comply with Security Council resolutions. I think it has plenty of notice in terms of its obligations.
Press: Thank you.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
