• 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: Anything about the resolution?

MR. FOLEY: The what? The Iraqi resolution?

QUESTION: The omnibus resolution?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, I can give you a slight update. Not a lot new to say in terms of how we've been describing our approach to that resolution. As you know, we have a fundamental bottom line, if you will, as far as the United States is concerned in regard to this resolution. For us, the main element has to do with inspections of Iraq's programs of weapons of mass destruction and you've seen a lot of reporting in the press about this question of inspections and its relation to the suspension, possible suspension, of sanctions. And it is our very strong view that has not wavered and will not waver, that only if Iraq allows the weapons inspectors to go back, if the inspectors are able to fulfill key disarmament tasks - excuse me, if Iraq fills it key disarmament tasks and cooperates for a specified period of time, would the Security Council be able to decide on suspension of sanctions. There are other provisions, but that really is the critical one as far as we're concerned.

The text of the omnibus draft resolution has been placed before the Council and a vote is imminent. I would expect the United Kingdom to make its decision as to whether that will take place today or tomorrow. We would like to see it adopted with the broadest possible support among Council members, but I can't predict for you just exactly what the timetable for the vote will be.

QUESTION: Well, one of Blair's top people told at least two of us and a few others at breakfast this morning that there is a consensus at hand and that he expects a vote this week. A consensus would seem to suggest the Russians are aboard. Can you speak to that?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of that quote or that report. My understanding is that in terms of full consensus, in other words, 15 nations voting for a resolution that we can support along the lines I've just described, is not yet in place. I've not heard that. My understanding is that there is still gaps; there's still work to do. But in our view, it's time to vote.

QUESTION: It's apparently a different - somewhat different - you didn't explain - inspection system.

MR. FOLEY: Different from the UNSCOM system?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. FOLEY: I don't have the details before me, but it's a different organization.

QUESTION: Well, is the US insisting on - the US isn't relaxing, is it?

MR. FOLEY: No, not in any way. Not in any way. Let me make clear, because you asked the question, our bottom line is the same; is that you would have real inspectors who will have the freedom to do their job and to judge whether - and to elicit Iraqi cooperation, and that you would have to have Iraqi fulfillment of disarmament tasks and cooperation over a specified period of time. It has to be real, yes.

QUESTION: The full consensus you mentioned, is that still your objective and is that a realistic aspiration - or are you --

MR. FOLEY: No, what I said - I was responding to what Barry said. What I said, we're seeking the broadest possible support.

QUESTION: Not necessarily full consensus?

MR. FOLEY: Full consensus is an ideal and we would like to achieve it, but that remains to be seen.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. FOLEY: Well, we think it's --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) - something less?

MR. FOLEY: We're not willing to settle for something less than the ideal when it comes to the resolution itself; in other words, we're not going to support a resolution that waters down the integrity of an inspections regime. Clearly, we would like to achieve full consensus on that text.

What we don't want to do is see this drag out any longer and, therefore, we think it's time to vote.

QUESTION: You've used the word "specified period of time." Is that the words that you used?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, yes.

QUESTION: It seems to me, two weeks ago, probably it was Jamie used the phrase "substantial period of time." Does that suggest a US willingness to accommodate others on the Council?

MR. FOLEY: I can't really provide a parsing of the words that I used. What I can do is explain to you what we're interested in. There had been ideas and proposals that suspension of sanctions would be somehow automatic or that Iraq merely needed to cooperate in - just by showing up, as it were, or allowing the inspectors to show up; that this was something that would not require significant testing.

And however you parse it, however you describe it, what the United States and others in the Security Council - certainly a majority - are insisting on is a real inspection regime; is a testing period that allows the international community to determine whether or not the Iraqis are really cooperating.

QUESTION: That's fine.

MR. FOLEY: And whether disarmament is really going forward.

QUESTION: It usually means something when you change the guidance from specified - from substantial to specified.

MR. FOLEY: I don't want to say you've been here too long.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: Do you have that recollection as well, that you were using "substantial" two weeks ago?

MR. FOLEY: I don't. I don't, but I'm not challenging you on that. We'll have to check. Thank you.

..........

(The briefing was concluded at 2:40 P.M.)

[end of document]