• 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: Iraq. It's almost a year now since Operation Desert Fox and there's been no arms inspections in Iraq since then, and the Pentagon last week was saying that it really doesn't know what is going on in Iraq now vis-à-vis weapons of mass destruction. I wonder if you could assess from this distance the success of that strike a year ago given what's happened since and the fact that the stated goal, which was to potentially bring Iraq back into the fold in terms of allowing unfettered inspections, has not been achieved?

MR. FOLEY: I'd have to disagree with quite a number of things that you said there. The goal of the Operation Desert Fox was not to bring Iraq back into compliance or to persuade Iraq to resume or allow the resumption of inspections. It was in the absence of inspections that we took the action we took to degrade Iraq's capabilities in the weapons of mass destruction area.

And if you're asking for an assessment one year removed for the efficacy of those strikes, I would challenge the premise or the nature of the question. We made an assessment at the time of the strikes. We believe that we did succeed in significantly degrading Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction capabilities, but we were very honest at the time in stating - and have stated ever since - that the only way to be - the best way, rather, to continue to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not reconstituting his weapons of mass destruction is to have inspectors on the ground.

I see George sort of nodding off since he's heard this many times before, but it remains our view that having inspectors on the ground is the best insurance. Nevertheless, we maintain robust national capabilities to monitor as best we can what Saddam Hussein may be up to in this area and we identified very clearly last December certain red lines that, if crossed, could provoke further military action on our part. We're watching it vigilantly, but when all is said and done we firmly believe that it is important to have inspectors back inside Iraq, not only to monitor what may have happened in the last year, to monitor the current state of Iraqi programs, but indeed to proceed to the actual work of disarmament, of disarming Iraq's programs of weapons of mass destruction such as they remain. And to do that, you have to have inspectors on the ground.

What we are not prepared to contemplate, though, is some kind of a Potemkin inspection regime, one that is unable to actually do its job of monitoring and disarming Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. I think that precisely is the problem that Iraq has with the proposal currently before the Security Council and that it is a credible and legitimate effort to have credible and legitimate inspections resumed, and that's what we are insisting upon.

QUESTION: I have some information from Greece according to which the Greek Foreign Minister, Mr. Papandreou --

MR. FOLEY: We still have another question on Iraq. I'll come back to you.

QUESTION: Is there any change in the status of attempts to pass a resolution in the Security Council? Are you aware of any progress towards the agreement on --

MR. FOLEY: As you know, there was a vote by the Security Council last Friday to extend the current phase of the Oil for Food Program by one week, through December 11. Our hope is that in this time in the days leading up to December 11th that the Council will make progress on the Omnibus Resolution, which does quite a number of things. It allows for the resumption of inspections under new organization, it holds out the possibility of suspension of sanctions in the event of Iraqi compliance with its disarmament obligations in a period of testing, and it significantly enhances the Oil for Food Program and allows greater resources to be devoted towards providing food and medicine to the Iraqi people.

We note Iraq's rejection of any extension of the Oil for Food Program short of six months. That was Iraq's position. However, if Iraq does reject the extension, it will show again that it is the Security Council, not the Iraqi Government, that cares about the welfare of its people.

Now, we believe discussions among the Permanent Five members in the Security Council have made a good deal of progress in recent weeks. We also believe that a Security Council vote on the omnibus draft is likely this week. We would like to see this draft adopted with the broadest possible support among Council members. I can't predict the exact time for the vote or, indeed, what the vote count will be, but there is an increasing view that the time has come to vote and to resolve this matter clearly.

QUESTION: What would you say to the contention that the United States will simply find any way to continue to declare Iraq to be in noncompliance in some way as long as Saddam is in power and that, you know, no chain of events could bring Saddam and his regime back into the fold so long as he remains the leader of Iraq.

MR. FOLEY: I don't think we've ever disguised our feeling that given Saddam Hussein's track record and given the way he has signaled his intentions over the years that it is perhaps unlikely that he's actually willing to part with his weapons of mass destruction programs. However, I reject categorically the idea though that we foreclosed that possibility. We're willing to see Iraq comply with the Security Council Resolutions and to receive the benefits of actually meeting its commitments,.

But that means one thing: It means disarming Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction programs and, on that, we're not willing to compromise. That is the bottom line given Saddam's track record in using weapons of mass destruction even against his own people, against his neighbors.

And given that Iraq has suffered significant isolation internationally in the last almost ten years and the political and economic costs to Iraq of its isolation, I think one can only conclude that these programs of weapons of mass destruction are very important to Saddam Hussein because it was the judgment of the Security Council and the international community at the time that the Gulf War ended in 1991 that Iraq could conceivably comply with its disarmament obligations in a matter of weeks. And, of course, this is unfinished business, to say the least, now eight, nine, years after the fact.

So I would really flip the question that you pose. I think the question is will Saddam every be willing to part with his programs of weapons of mass destruction. I think that is where I think one can ask skeptical questions.

So, are we moving to another subject? Dimitris, you had a question?

QUESTION: Actually, two questions. The first one is that, according to information from Athens, the Greek Foreign Minister, Mr. Papandreou, had a telephone conversation with Secretary Albright in which he asked for US assistance on the upcoming Helsinki conference on the issue of candidate status for Turkey.

On the same issue, according also to information from Athens, Assistant Secretary Grossman met with some key ambassadors from members of the European Union here in Washington to discuss this issue and the Cyprus issue. Can you say anything about that?

MR. FOLEY: Not really. I'm not going to be in a position to talk about the Secretary's or Assistant Secretary's diplomatic encounters or conversations with counterparts in that regard. What I can do is tell you what our position is, though, as has been stated from this podium in recent days. We acknowledge the obvious, which is that we're not a member of the EU. That said, though, as President Clinton indicated when he was in Greece, we strongly support the EU's decision to start accession talks with Cyprus. We also believe, as the President said, that Turkey should become a candidate for membership in the EU. That is our view. It's not a secret.

QUESTION: And the second question is on that, your position. On the upcoming Helsinki conference, Greece requests from the European Union, and in a way assistance from the US from that, for the European Union to secure the accession process of Cyprus without problems and despite any solution or not of the Cyprus problem, and also requests some kind of road map for Turkey that has to do with human rights issues, democracy issues, and the acceptance of Turkey for the jurisdiction of International Court of Justice to regulate Turkey's differences.

What is the US position on all of these issues?

MR. FOLEY: First of all, I'm not going to talk about our diplomatic conversations in reference to your first question. Secondly, I've stated what our broad view is on the questions. Namely, we support the EU's decision to start accession talks with Cyprus. We believe that Turkey should become a candidate for membership in the EU. Those are broad positions.

In terms of the particulars, the specifics, the details, the fact that we're not a member of the EU is even more relevant when you get down to the nitty-gritty. Those are matters for the EU to decide and it's not up to the United States to micro-manage those issues. In terms of what our views may or may not be, we're going to leave those private.

QUESTION: Many times you've stated your position, for example, on the ICJ issue and the Greek-Turkey --

MR. FOLEY: Yes, we have and the President did during his visit, but you're asking our views on those matters in connection with accession to the EU, whereas we've stated our positions in the past on those matters on their own merits. But I'm not going to get into those questions as they relate to EU accession or candidate status areas.

QUESTION: Has the US issued some new regulations or restrictions on contracting in Russia?

MR. FOLEY: I've not heard that. If you have any details after the briefing --

QUESTION: I realize the Secretary is about to arrive in the region, but --

MR. FOLEY: I should have indicated, actually, at the top of the briefing I'm not going to talk about Middle East peace process issues while she is in the region.

QUESTION: A question about Chechnya then?

MR. FOLEY: Sure.

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

QUESTION: There's a report in the current New Yorker magazine that Iraq has ordered a number of medical machines which contain a special high-speed switch which, as it happens, is the same kind of high-speed switch which is used to compress nuclear compounds in an atomic bomb. According to this report, the State Department vetoed the sale by Siemens, a German firm, but then it looks as if a French firm has stepped into the deal and is supplying these rapid precise switches.

Do you know anything about it and if not, could you look into it, please?

MR. FOLEY: First, I don't know anything about it. I've not heard of that. Second, without coming out on the specifics of this report but the idea that there can be dual-use imports that contribute to Iraq's ban or prohibited programs of weapons of mass destruction underscores the vigilance which, the United States at least, has brought to the work of the Sanctions Committee at the UN. You know we've been criticized for exercising this vigilance even though I think the numbers demonstrate that overwhelmingly requests for Iraqi imports have been approved when they are purely humanitarian in nature. But I've not heard this report. Any Iraqi imports though, be they from one country or another, however, would have to be approved by the Sanctions Committee. But I'd have to look into the question for you.

..........

(The briefing concluded at 1:50 P.M.)

[end of document]