• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

U.S. Department of State

Daily Press Briefing

.................

QUESTION: On another subject - Iraq. Last week the White House sent a report to the Hill on the Iraqis' weapons of mass destruction, and the tone of it seemed to be a bit more alarmed than what we've been hearing from this department. Does the State Department believe that the Iraqis are in fact going ahead with their various weapons of mass destruction?

MR. REEKER: I think at the time that the report was sent forward to Congress - August 25 and we discussed it at the end of the month - we mentioned then that this unclassified, one-time report does outline what we know about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction-related activities and the USG response to those activities.

The basic answer here is that there are activities of concern, and we continue to support UNSCOM in its efforts to improve a mechanism to monitor procurement of dual-use items with WMD applications. The report that you're referring to is consistent with all previous USG assessments, and accurately reflects our policy on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

We are concerned by activity at Iraqi sites known to be capable of producing weapons of mass destruction, as well as long-range ballistic missiles, as procurement activity by Iraq's long-established practice of procurement activity that would include dual-use items. I think as we pointed out from here several times, in the absence of UN inspectors on the ground carrying out the existing Security Council mandate, our uncertainties about the meaning of these activities will persist and, as time passes, of course, our concerns increase.

So I think that reflects -- and the report reflects -- why we believe the Security Council should work together with the UK - or on the UK-Dutch draft that we also talked about before - this draft resolution on Iraq which has 11 co-sponsors and will emphasize the importance of professional inspectors on the ground in Iraq supported by the full mandate already given by the UN Security Council to UNSCOM. That mandate includes immediate, unconditional access to any and all areas for inspection.

QUESTION: So it's supported by - it's UK-Dutch and is supported by the US, and there are 11 others on the Security Council?

MR. REEKER: Eleven co-sponsors is my understanding. That was as of last week at the time that we first were discussing this report.

QUESTION: In the Security Council?

MR. REEKER: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: So just doing the quick arithmetic, one country has not signed on. Which country is that?

MR. REEKER: I would have to check that for you but I would be happy to check the status of that resolution in the UN Security Council.

QUESTION: Phil, in the eyes of the State Department, has the continued weaponization in Iraq gone to the point where it would be recommended by State Department that the military get involved and intervene again: the US military?

MR. REEKER: Well, I think as I pointed out - I think as the report points out - the best means for the international community to know whether Iraq is taking steps to reconstitute its program of weapons of mass destruction is with inspectors on the ground would, according to the UN Security Council resolutions, have the right to visit any site they wish. They would clearly be the best deterrent for such prohibited Iraqi activity.

QUESTION: How would the State Department propose that such inspectors be reestablished in Iraq?

MR. REEKER: Well, I think if you refer to the UK-Dutch resolution on that - and we can work with you if you need to get a copy - that would outline where we want to go on there.

QUESTION: Other than the fact that the White House did this mandatory report, did you see anything in that story that was not at least three or four months old: anything that wasn't just rehashed, old information?

MR. REEKER: I did read the story in today's local paper, and didn't see anything that for me was new at all, and I referred to stuff that we had prepared when the report was first sent to the Hill.

QUESTION: Does it accurately represent your policies as it was explained six, seven months ago by various buildings?

MR. REEKER: I think when that report came out we reviewed some of those and made some of the points I made again today.

............

(The briefing concluded at 1:40 P.M.)

[end of document]