U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1999
Briefer: JAMES B. FOLEY
| IRAQ | |
| 9-11 | Threats Against Neighbors / Frustration & Desperation / US Position / Visit by Deputy PM Tariq Aziz to Turkey |
| 11-13 | Discussions with French Pres Cheric re French Plan / Oil Embargo / Support for Sanctions / Inspection Regime |
| 12-14 | Status of UN Assessment Panels / Not Comprehensive Review / Butler |
| IRAQ / RUSSIA | |
| 10-11 | Reports of Transfer of Military Equipment / US Contacts With Russians |
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #20
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1999, 1:10 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
...............
................. QUESTION: Have you anything to offer on Iraq's continuing menacing approach to Turkey?MR. FOLEY: Yes, I do. Iraq's explicit threats to strike against its neighbors are ample proof - as if any more were needed - that Saddam Hussein continues to present a danger to the security and stability of the region.
It is really astonishing -- Saddam Hussein's continuing propensity to damage his own cause. He is on one day trying to make nice with his neighbors, to build bridges to his neighbors; on the next day, he is urging the overthrow of the governments of his neighbors, he is threatening military strikes on his neighbors. This all harks back to what the crisis with Iraq is all about in its origins - namely the fact that Saddam Hussein invaded and conquered one of his neighbors.
The international scrutiny and the international framework of obligations that have been imposed on Iraq since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait all stem from this fundamental sense on the part of the international community that Saddam Hussein represents an inherent threat to his neighbors, and as well to his own people.
It is precisely because of Saddam's threat to regional peace and security that we maintain a robust military presence in the area. As Secretary Albright has made clear in the last few days, including this morning, we are prepared to use force in response to Iraqi actions against our forces in the region or against its neighbors.
So the long and the short of it is that once again, Saddam Hussein is damaging his own cause. He is reminding everyone why the international community needs to remain vigilant and to hold him to his international obligations.
QUESTION: What does or do these actions -- Saddam Hussein's actions - say to the US in terms of the success of its policies since the end of Desert Fox? Is this a sign of Saddam's weakening control over his own regime?
MR. FOLEY: That's difficult to assess. As you know, the ability to monitor closely events in Saddam's inner circle is very difficult from this remove. It's a very opaque system and opaque regime. One can judge on the basis of certain forms of evidence. We've been saying ever since the end of Desert Fox that Saddam Hussein seemed frustrated and seemed desperate - desperate and frustrated because his military was missing in action during that conflict; desperate and frustrated because he didn't enjoy much support in the region.
So we've seen a series of actions since Desert Fox which, to our mind, speak to his frustration and desperation. We've spoken about incidences of repression and execution of Shia elements in the south. It's very clear that Iraq's attempts to defy and to violate the no-fly zones in the north and the south are intended to cause a stir, to summon support for his cause. The end result has been clearly a bit-by-bit degrading of Iraq's air defense systems, which we've been happy to cooperate in as Saddam continues to challenge the no-fly zone in the north and the south.
So I think taken all together, there's every sign that he feels the profound failure of his efforts to escape from sanctions. We will remain vigilant; we will defend our forces; we will enforce the no-fly zone; we will insist that Iraq comply with all of its international obligations. We believe, as we've said for many months now, that increasingly people in his region understand that he has cynically exploited the plight of his own people in order to try to escape from sanctions, precisely so that he can build the kind of weapons that will threaten his neighbors, threaten his people.
In other words, he's simply making our case every day that he lashes out irrationally and attacks his neighbors verbally or otherwise. But from our point of view, it would be a serious and profound mistake, as Secretary Albright said this morning, if Iraq were to try to make good on the threats that they've issued in the last few days to its neighbors.
QUESTION: On Iraq and Russia, what do you know about any attempts by Russia to sell weapons and equipment to Iraq? And I don't - I mean, there's been - I guess the Russians deny that there was any contract. Well, I mean, there can be a deal without a contract. Is there any --
MR. FOLEY: Well, I think what's of import is not so much whether there's a deal or whether there's a contract -- that may be a semantic matter - but whether there is actually some transfer of military equipment to Iraq in violation of UN Security Council resolutions, something which, if it occurred, we would take very seriously.
However, having seen the press reports about such a deal, we have no information to confirm the content of these stories. So, again, it's simply a press report, and we've not been able to confirm it. We've not seen evidence that it's true, either.
QUESTION: Is that something you'll be discussing with the Russians, though?
MR. FOLEY: I believe we will be discussing it with the Russians. I don't know if it's been taken up yet. But again, at this moment, we do not have reason to credit the report.
QUESTION: More on Iraq, last week you said there was going to be discussion on the Turkish invitation of Tariq Aziz and the visit of Tariq Aziz to Ankara. I'm wondering if during those discussions, expressing whatever it was that the US expressed to the Turks about that information, if the subject of Ocalan came up at all during those talks.
MR. FOLEY: Well, that's a very nice way to shoehorn in another question. I have, in response to a previous question, indicated that issue has been discussed through diplomatic channels with quite a number of governments, including the Turkish Government.
However, your lead-in question, I'll take at face value, which was about the visit of Deputy Prime Minister Aziz to Turkey. Our understanding of his meetings in Ankara yesterday is that those meetings served to underscore the Iraqi regime's total isolation and the consensus within the international community that it is Iraq's refusal to comply with UN Security Council resolutions which is solely responsible for the current confrontation. I believe the Turkish authorities made clear in public that that was the message that they delivered to Mr. Aziz in private.
.................
QUESTION: Given what you've just said, I take it, then, that when President Chirac comes here this week, you won't even entertain his suggestion that the oil embargo be lifted, which he said publicly today he would propose to President Clinton?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't want to foreshadow or forecast the nature of President Clinton's discussions with President Chirac; in any event, that's something that the White House will comment on. But I'm pretty certain that this issue will be raised. I believe President Chirac has said that he intended to discuss it with President Clinton. The US and France are historic allies. France was our first ally, dating back more than two centuries. We have historically waged common battles, and we are united in many fora on many tough challenges, including Kosovo, including Iraq. There may be differences of view about a given approach; but we look forward, though, to discussing French ideas with President Chirac.
We've said before that the French proposal has some interesting elements, which we wish to engage on with the French and with other Council members. However, we still have a number of questions about details of the plan, which remain unclear.
It is important to bear in mind that the central issues on Iraq have not changed and must be addressed, as I indicated a few minutes ago. First, Iraq must comply with its obligations under all relevant resolutions of the Security Council. Second, the Council has decided that Iraq must be disarmed of its weapons of mass destruction. That process is not complete.
QUESTION: You've said a half-dozen times this afternoon that Iraq must comply. Now you specified, of course, one of those resolutions - disarmament; but you're willing to talk to the French about lifting the oil embargo. How do you expect to know if they've disarmed since you backed off the --
MR. FOLEY: We're willing to talk to France about French ideas. The United States does not favor the lifting of the oil embargo, as we've stated previously.
QUESTION: All right, well, how are you going to make sure now that Iraq disarms now, now that you've backed off the inspection system, the Scott Ritter approach to Iraq? This is never the time or place to challenge Iraq --
MR. FOLEY: Well, we've not backed off the inspection system.
QUESTION: You've backed off; the Russians have backed off; the French have backed off, and you've sort of trailed behind them like a puppy, backing off, too, because you don't have enough allies to be tough.
MR. FOLEY: I don't know you can accuse the nation which launched, with our UK allies, Desert Fox being a puppy on this. We have -
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. FOLEY: I'm talking about in December.
QUESTION: I understand.
MR. FOLEY: We would be pleased if UNSCOM were able to go back into Iraq and do its job. We've always said that that's the best way of ensuring disarmament because of UNSCOM's capability and expertise and credibility in this regard. That has not changed, and we don't favor any kind of watered down inspection system that will go in and do a phony job in Iraq.
In the absence of such a credible inspection regime, we remain prepared to use force as necessary under the conditions that we've stated. I think perhaps I could bring you up to date on what's happening in the Security Council. I believe it was last Friday that the Brazilian permanent representative, Ambassador Amorim, finalized his plans to name members of the three panels in the Security Council - the assessment panels that will be looking at the separate issues of disarmament, humanitarian issues and Kuwait issues.
Each of the three panels has a discreet agenda defined by the Security Council for examination at this time. What the Ambassador did last week was to announce the naming of the panelists on each of the three panels. We've reviewed that list announced by Ambassador Amorim, and we are very satisfied with the list. The members of all three panels are respected professionals, whose expertise in their respective fields is widely recognized.
We note, for example, that the majority of the disarmament panelists are members of UNSCOM or the IAEA. Their thorough knowledge and extensive experience will be essential to enabling the panel to make a substantive and factually-based review of Iraq's compliance with its disarmament obligations.
As the Council said in its January 30 note creating the panels, the overall goal is to achieve "the full implementation of all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." With that goal in mind, the assessment panels will look at the facts and evaluate the extent of Iraq's compliance or non-compliance with the requirements of the Council's resolutions. Based on that evaluation, the panels will suggest ways to reengage on securing full Iraqi compliance with the resolutions.
So that's where we are now. The panels have been established, and they're going to get to work in New York.
QUESTION: Just to go back to the French - the embargo thing here. It seems to me there's an inconsistency between what you were saying earlier, that Iraq's isolated, its neighbors don't like it, nobody likes their bad guy and they're just proving that again and again and again. And yet, the President of France is coming here, publicly saying the embargo should be lifted - the oil embargo - and that's a pretty juicy plum for them; and I believe the Russians agree. So the Chinese, who knows? So arguably, almost half of the Security Council disagrees with you and does not accept the United States' characterization that Iraq is further isolated, when they're, in fact, trying to give it the biggest favor they could possibly give it.
MR. FOLEY: I think that if you put that question to Saddam Hussein, whether he's satisfied with the status quo, satisfied with the level of international support he's gotten for his continued intransigence, satisfied with the response he's received following Operation Desert Fox, I'd be willing to wager - especially based on his actions and the comments of the Iraqi leadership - that they are something less than fully satisfied with the levels of international support they've been receiving.
In terms of sanctions lifting, Saddam Hussein wants sanctions lifted yesterday. That has been consistently thwarted and disappointed. As far as the United States is concerned, that is not going to happen. What we have agreed to in New York is the establishment of these three panels to assess Iraqi compliance across the board on the different areas of Iraqi obligation - be they disarmament, humanitarian and Kuwaiti issues -- which are of importance to the United States.
So I believe that this is a very measured process. The United States will participate in this work and participate in the Security Council, where we continue, of course, to have a veto.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up. You mentioned the three panels, but Richard Butler is not on any of those three panels. That was another key demand of Iraq, lift the embargo, get rid of Butler and now that's two of the things that he wanted.
MR. FOLEY: I think what Iraq wanted was a comprehensive review of sanctions, which they're not going to get because they weren't deemed to be in compliance and to be cooperating with UNSCOM. As I indicated, the professional expertise of the IAEA and UNSCOM is going to be brought to bear in these panels and we're confident of that. That's why I'm in a position to say that we welcome these panels.
QUESTION: So there will be no problems that Butler is not -
MR. FOLEY: Not that I'm aware of, but you could put the question to him. My understanding is that he's satisfied with this arrangement.
.................
[end of document]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
