DoD News Briefing
Tuesday, November 16, 1999 - 2:01 p.m. EST
Presenter: Rear Admiral Craig Quigley, DASD PA
.................
Q: New subject? Given that the United States is backing the U.N. resolution that could result in lifting sanctions against Iraq, assuming that Iraq allows inspectors to return and do their job, how would that affect the current campaign that's going on in the no-fly zones? Would this be tied to any sort of requirement to de-escalate the tension in the no-fly zones? Are these issues linked at all or --
Admiral Quigley: Well, as you know, the drafting of that is still a work in progress. But as we speak, I don't think there's any language in there calling for some sort of -- I don't think the issue of either the Northern no-fly zone or Southern no-fly zone are addressed in the draft as it stands.
Q: In other words, would the Pentagon support lifting sanctions if it didn't include a requirement for Iraq to stop attempting to shoot down U.S. planes?
Admiral Quigley: Well, I think you're talking about slightly different aspects here. I mean, there's no authorization in place today for the Iraqis to fire at coalition aircraft. So that's -- (laughter) -- there is also an agreement to a cease-fire at the end of the Gulf War, and clearly that's in violation of that as well.
Q: Right, but at the end of --
Admiral Quigley: But you're talking here about a sanctions issue as opposed to the firing on the coalition aircraft.
Q: Well, at the end of December, Saddam Hussein did say that he was now going to begin targeting planes enforcing the no-fly zone, and he's carried that out. There have been more than a thousand bombs dropped. And my question, I think, is perfectly logical, which is, can you proceed with a resolution that could end up in sanctions relief while he's still progressively challenging the enforcement and trying to shoot down U.S. pilots?
Admiral Quigley: Well, I think you can because they're really very different issues. You've got many different U.N. Security Council resolutions in place now, subsequent to the end of the Gulf War. The government of Iraq is in compliance with some and not in compliance with others. Like I said before, it's never been okay to fire on coalition aircraft. But this is all about a sanctions regime and how the government of Iraq can -- the steps it must take to follow through in having those sanctions lifted. So, really two different issues, I guess.
Q: Just to follow up on a slightly different aspect, last week a spokesman at the podium said that there have been a number of close calls in the no-fly zone. Have there been any additional close calls since then? And can you provide any additional details on the previous incidents? How close were these close calls? Based on what were they determined to be close calls?
Admiral Quigley: No, there have not been any additional ones, to the first part of your question. And I'll have to take the second part.
Q: Do you have a way to describe for us how thorough you feel inspections need to be of Iraq if an inspections regime is reinstituted? Does it have to have the same kind of mechanisms that UNSCOM did, as far as the Pentagon is concerned, to get the kind of information that would make the military feel sanguine about what Saddam Hussein is doing?
Admiral Quigley: Well, those are negotiations, John, that this building does not involve itself. We care very much about the end product, of course, but we're not the negotiators in that regard. We, like other aspects of this government and many other nations around the world, want Saddam Hussein to comply with existing agreements that he made many years ago, some of which he has kept up with, others he has not. So the more that this process is transparent and understood by all, the more comfortable the Defense Department would be in that regard. But as I'm mentioned before, it's a work in progress and -- but anything in that direction would be something that we would support.
Q: But Craig, you say these are two separate issues. Let me see if I can recap this. What you're saying is that the United States would be willing to let a lifting of the sanctions go through if Iraq agrees to the inspectors' return and other things. But at the same time, that you would continue to attack Iraqi air defenses if they threaten allied aircraft. Is that what you're saying?
Admiral Quigley: On the first part, I don't agree with the way that you phrased that, Charlie. This -- the Department of Defense is not negotiating this. This is coming under the U.N.'s auspices and the United States government's representatives in that body, and that is not the Pentagon. So this is still a work in progress, but I see it as two different issues.
The question originally asked was, Is there some stipulation to stop -- or a demand being made to stop -- attacks against coalition aircraft? I don't know -- I don't think that's in there at this point, but that's never been an acceptable thing to do. This effort is about a process by which the government of Iraq can move to eliminate those sanctions as opposed to the second issue, and I see them as two different things.
Q: But the Pentagon would not then demand that Iraq agree to stop threatening these aircraft as part of any agreement to lift the sanctions? The Pentagon itself would not demand that?
Admiral Quigley: Again, this is a process in which we do not have the lead. There's a variety of parts of the United States government that go towards this process, but it is very much a work in progress.
Q: Well, you don't have to lead --
Admiral Quigley: I can't go --
Q: But you do have a say. I mean --
Admiral Quigley: We would make our feelings known within the process that that Security Council resolution was being voted on within the U.N.Security Council.
Q: Well, we're just asking what those feelings would be regarding whether or not there needs to be a demand to stop targeting --
Admiral Quigley: I'm not going to get into the intergovernmental conversations that would take place as we move towards that goal.
Q: Another topic?
Q: No, let's not --
Admiral Quigley: (Inaudible) -- Bill?
Q: How much of the U.S. presence in the region is devoted to enforcing the sanctions and therefore could be withdrawn if the sanctions were lifted?
Admiral Quigley: I can't give you a good answer. I'll have to take that question and give that some thought. It would be fairly comprehensive, if you take a look at the forces in Northern Watch, Southern Watch, and the maritime intercept operations. I'm not sure I can get you an exact answer, but we'll try.
Q: But Northern Watch --
Q: Can I follow up on that?
Q: Excuse me. The Northern Watch aircraft are not -- and in fact the Southern Watch aircraft are not enforcing the sanctions, are they?
Admiral Quigley: No, the no-fly zones. I misunderstood your question. Let's have that again, please.
Q: Well, I'm thinking in terms of the maritime presence and the fact that the ships there are enforcing the sanctions, aren't they?
Admiral Quigley: The maritime intercept operations are helping to enforce the sanctions, yes. The flights over Northern Watch and Southern Watch, over Northern Iraq and Southern Iraq, are to stop Saddam from killing his own people.
Q: I understand that. I'm wondering how much of the presence, though, could be scaled back if there were to be no sanctions? How much of your effort is devoted to keeping the flow of commerce?
Admiral Quigley: I will take that and we'll give you the best answer we can.
Q: On the same subject? But the Pentagon has not expressed concern to the White House or to the State Department that sanctions would be lifted while there is an Iraqi government bounty out on U.S. pilots and they're trying every day to shoot planes down? The Pentagon surely has been asked for input on this subject; yes?
Admiral Quigley: We have made our inputs known, but I am not going to be specific about the intergovernmental conversations in that regard.
.................Q: Going back to Iraq for a minute -- two questions.
As a means of, if nothing else, voicing support for U.S. pilots, can the Pentagon possibly envision supporting lifting sanctions as long as Iraq has a bounty on the head of U.S. pilots?
Admiral Quigley: I think I'll give you the same answer I gave Chris -- (pause) -- yes. (Laughter.)
Q: Well, then I can't follow up with a different question? (Laughter.)
Admiral Quigley: I can -- (inaudible) -- (laughter) --
Q: Well, I'd like you to repeat the answer because I don't understand it.
Admiral Quigley: There is discussion ongoing within the government of the United States. We are one of those organizations that are discussing that. I will not characterize the intergovernmental conversations that are taking place in that regard.
Q: You don't have a point of view?
Q: Well, I don't --
Admiral Quigley: I don't deal in "points of view."
Q: -- okay.
Admiral Quigley: I deal in factual presentations, where we are trying to accomplish a very difficult diplomatic objective through the forum of the United Nations. The government of the United States is a large organization with many voices that need to be heard. Ours is one of them.
Q: May I follow up with --
Admiral Quigley: We take that importantly. And we'll provide that voice as part of that overall process.
Q: Two Iraq follow-up questions: What is your current position at the moment about the fact that Iraq has a continued bounty on the head of U.S. pilots?
Admiral Quigley: We would like it to stop immediately.
Q: And my other question is, why is it so important -- or is it -- why is it important to get the inspections regime reinstated at this point? In other words, what progress, if any, have you seen the Iraqis make in the last year in reinstituting their WMD program or rebuilding the facilities that we struck during Desert Fox? What have they reconstituted?
Admiral Quigley: I'm not so sure that it's so much "reconstitute" as just our visibility -- our knowledge of the current state of play is much less thorough if you don't have an inspections regime in place on the ground in Iraq. You can only learn so much by other means. And the more we know, the more transparent and complete our knowledge in that regard, the more comfortable we will feel. And if you take some of that away, we feel less comfortable.
Q: Would the U.S. then want to see some sort of regime in perpetuity, so it would always know what Iraq is up to?
Admiral Quigley: Again, these are part of the ongoing negotiations for that within the United Nations.
Yes?
...........
Q: Thank you.
THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS PREPARED BY THE FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC., WASHINGTON, DC. FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE IS A PRIVATE COMPANY. FOR OTHER DEFENSE RELATED TRANSCRIPTS NOT AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SITE, CONTACT FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE AT (202) 347-1400.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov1999/t11161999_t1116asd.html
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
