29 August 2002
Boucher Says Regime Change Is Only Way to Solve Iraq Problem
(Says US sponsors meeting of Iraqi opposition in London in early September) (4590) Regime change is the "only way to fundamentally solve the problem" of Iraq, said State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher at August 29 regular briefing. "The goal with the regime change in Iraq is to eliminate the danger that Iraq poses to us all and continues to pose as long as this regime pursues programs of weapons of mass destruction," he added. Boucher also provided information on the Future of Iraq Project, which involves leaders of Iraqi opposition groups, intellectuals and representatives of various organizations, to discuss a post-Saddam future. He said that the State Department is convening a working group meeting on September 4th and 5th outside London to discuss "democratic principles." "[W]hat we've done with these projects over the course of the summer, and into the next few conferences, is to give Iraqis -- to give Iraqi opposition figures, Iraqi representatives, Iraqi groups, Iraqi academics, free Iraqis a chance to talk about these issues, an opportunity to talk together about how they intend to run Iraq, because in the long term, it's not the United States that's going to decide how Iraq is run, it's Iraqis that are going to have to decide," said Boucher. According to Boucher, this is the fourth working group meeting in a series of six conferences. The other series were "Transitional justice" on July 9 and 10; "Public Finance" on August 7th and 8th; "Public Outreach"-- the media training -- on August 27 to 30; "Public Health and Humanitarian Concerns"; and "Water, Agriculture and Environment." Asked if the U.S. government would support the formation of an Iraqi government in exile, Boucher responded that these conferences are "not designed to select, either by us or by others, some government in exile." He said that Secretary of State Colin Powell has been in touch with several European foreign ministers in last 24 hours to discuss several matters including Iraq. Boucher assured reporters that "the secretary's been in close touch with the president, with his other colleagues in this administration, as they continue to discuss this issue, and the secretary certainly is working with them on how to proceed." Following is an excerpt on Iraq from Boucher's August 29 regular briefing: (begin excerpt) Q: Iraq. Is the administration considering, even though it might not work, another effort, through the United Nations, to get inspectors admitted, as sort of example of U.S. interest and resolve? MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I have anyone one way or the other on that at this moment. What I would say is, we all need to be quite clear that Iraq is under very obligations from the U.N. Security Council. The Security Council has made clear repeatedly that Iraq needs to live up to those obligations, and that continues to be the case. If the Security Council decides to make that clear again at some point, it would be consistent with what we've done in the past. But I don't have any prediction one way or the other. Q: Do you know whether the U.S. is actively trying to persuade the Security Council to make another effort -- a renewed effort to publicize -- MR. BOUCHER: I don't think we've proposed anything in the form of a resolution or anything like that up there now. Q: But you said the other day you're doing your utmost to get inspectors back, right? MR. BOUCHER: Yeah. That's to make clear to Iraq they need to allow inspectors in and to make sure that other members of the Security Council do so as well. Q: Well, Richard, what do you make, if anything, of the suggestion from Britain that perhaps a deadline should be given to Saddam for the return of inspectors? Would you be prepared to support such an initiative -- MR. BOUCHER: Well, let's first let the British government decide. There was a statement from the Foreign Office, I think, that said that -- what I said, first of all, that Iraq is already under U.N. Security Council obligations that they've accepted and have failed to implement. And second of all, they said that there was a -- I think an MP's report suggesting a deadline be set and they would consider that. So let's see what the British government decides, if they want to go forward or not. Q: Oh, so you're not -- you don't -- you know, so they've put this out there into play, you have no comment on it? MR. BOUCHER: I think the MPs have put it into play and I -- the British government said they would -- Q: Well, the British government has put it into play -- MR. BOUCHER: The British government said they'd consider it. Q: Right. MR. BOUCHER: Okay? So let's just -- Q: Well, so you don't want to -- you don't want -- MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to start commenting at this point. If the British government has a proposal to make, I'm sure we'll hear from them. Q: You're worried that perhaps if you say something about it, that might sway the Brits one way or another? What -- I don't -- MR. BOUCHER: No, I'm -- I'm -- you're asking me on the idea, and I'm saying we haven't taken a position at this point on the idea of going back to the U.N. And then you're asking me, well, what do you think about the British idea of going back to the U.N., and I'm saying we haven't taken a position one way or the other on it, but let's see what the British do. Q: I sort of asked the same question yesterday, but I just want to make sure that inspectors or no inspectors, the policy of the United States is still to seek a regime (sic). So should the Iraqis allow inspectors in, the United States would still seek to end Saddam's reign of terror? MR. BOUCHER: The only way to fundamentally solve the problem is through regime change. Inspectors can have a role in helping find things. Would there be -- should there be a regime in Iraq that's not trying to cheat and hide but, rather, intends to come clean with the international community, inspectors would be more useful. But, you know, inspectors have a role either way, but the only way to really solve the problem is through regime change. Q: Richard, foreign governments continue to be alarmed -- obviously with no good reason at all -- including the French and others, the Saudis again, in the last 24 hours. Has the secretary been in touch with any of these governments to explain, reassure, calm down? MR. BOUCHER: The secretary's been in touch with any number of -- well, let's see -- not any number -- five European foreign ministers that I can think of over the last 24 hours or so, talking about a number of issues. As you know, the Europeans have their own informal discussions scheduled over the weekend. We've been talking to them about issues like the International Criminal Court, assistance to Southern Africa, the rebuilding of Afghanistan -- questions like that. Iraq comes up in most of those conversations. I know he's talked to Foreign Minister Straw. He's talked to Spanish foreign minister Ana Palacios. He's talked to High Representative Solana, foreign ministers -- I'm trying to think. He's talked to Foreign Minister Fischer. I'm not completely sure whether he connected with Foreign Minister Villepin, but they were trying to get in touch with each other. Q: So these are all in the last 24 hours? Q: (Inaudible) -- yesterday? MR. BOUCHER: Last 24 hours is -- can't remember exactly when the Spanish foreign minister was -- that may have been 36 hours or so. MR./MS. : (Whispering.) Yesterday. MR. BOUCHER: It was yesterday? Okay, we'll put that in the last 24 hours. Spanish foreign minister, British foreign secretary, the German foreign minister -- I really apologize for not writing these down. I was thinking I would remember them. Q: Well, that's -- (inaudible) -- you said the -- MR. BOUCHER: And he's trying to connect with the French foreign minister. Q: Solana -- that was two days ago. MR. BOUCHER: Solana was two days ago, yeah. Q: And that was part of the Solana-Patton-Moller. MR. BOUCHER: Solana, Patton and Danish foreign minister Stig Moller. Q: Right. Can I -- Q: Can you give us the gist of what the United States is asking -- you know, when we spoke the other day about let's called it beating the war drums, you made the point, there's no point asking other countries to support a decision that hasn't been taken yet so far as using force. It hasn't been taken, so we don't ask them to support something we haven't decided on. But here's Armitage in Japan, and he's on a campaign, and he won't give you a laundry list -- that's a phrase I never heard before -- of the countries that may have (subscribed ?). But what are you asking countries -- or are you simply laying out the problem? What is it you take -- what is he and the secretary taking up with these countries, so far as Iraq is concerned? MR. BOUCHER: I would say it's taking up the fact that Iraq's defiance of the Security Council and development of weapons of mass destruction constitutes a danger that we have to deal with, and discussing with these countries how to deal with that. Q: Richard, can I go back to the conversations with the foreign ministers, and also the report this morning, which I'm sure you guys were all heartened by, that the French were going to be mute and they weren't going to make any criticism of the U.S. policy towards Iraq. Within, you know, hours of the New York Times hitting the streets this morning, President Chirac had told French ambassadors that this was a -- that a unilateral and preemptive strike on Iraq would be a big mistake and it was hugely worrying to the French. What do you make of that? Is that just, you know, well, a sovereign country can say what -- or a democratically elected leader can say whatever they want? Is that -- does that concern you at all? MR. BOUCHER: It's democracy. Q: Does that concern you at all? MR. BOUCHER: No. We like democracy. Q: But it sure makes it hard to -- (inaudible) -- of countries - Q: You like democracy, obviously. But what do you make -- what do you make -- MR. BOUCHER: Do I -- do I have any comment on the fact that the French may have gone back on commitments they made to the New York Times; is that what you're asking? (Laughter.) I don't think our -- Q: Well yeah, do you have a comment on that? Because you won't comment on anything else. Maybe you can do that. MR. BOUCHER: The fact that there is a lot of discussion and that there are a lot of questions -- 10 to 15 minutes of every press conference in the world now seems to be devoted to the question of military action against Iraq -- is not a big surprise to us. As you know, this administration, the president has said that these issues do need to be discussed. We intend to discuss them inside our own country, but as well with others. And that democratic governments around the world are having discussion and debate on these issues. Is there a definitive moment of consultation and decision? No. But there's plenty of discussion around and there are plenty of questions and answers around. Does that surprise us? No. Q: Okay. Can I ask you one last one, and I'll be quiet? Does it signify anything that while the vice president, the national security adviser, the Defense secretary, the president himself, the deputy secretary of State have all been making public comments about Iraq, that Secretary Powell himself has not said anything about it publicly, at least? Does that mean anything? MR. BOUCHER: I think, first of all, if it were true, it probably wouldn't mean anything. But it doesn't mean anything. The fact is that most of the interviews the secretary's been doing recently have been about September 11th and won't air until around that date. But he's had plenty of comments I can say that he's said to various people exactly what I've been saying to you, is Iraq is a danger that has to be dealt with, and there's no question of that. But I would say at the same time, the secretary's been in close touch with the president, with his other colleagues in this administration, as they continue to discuss this issue, and the secretary certainly is working with them on how to proceed. Terri? Q: Do you have anything yet on the possibility of an Iraqi opposition conference being held the 3rd and 4th? And also -- MR. BOUCHER: Yes. I owe you an answer, and we are behind it. Q: Are you hosting it? Are you the sponsor? Are you setting it up? MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, let me see how to describe it, if I can. A group of Iraqi oppositionists, intellectuals and independents will convene outside London on September 4th and 5th. This is the first meeting of the, quote, "democratic principles," unquote, working group, and it's the fourth working group that we have convened as part of the first series of the working groups on the Future of Iraq Project. There's intended to be six working groups in all to discuss the future of Iraq, to bring together academics, intellectuals, representatives of various organizations to talk about how they can organize, how Iraq can be organized in the future, in a post-Saddam future. And this is the fourth in a series of six conferences, and this one is being held in London, and we are convening it. Q: Okay. A follow-up on that. MR. BOUCHER: Sure. Q: There's also a report out today saying the Iraqi opposition says it has support from the United States to form a government in exile and that there will be a conference -- another conference in September aimed at that; that's already scheduled to be held in the Netherlands. Does the U.S. support -- MR. BOUCHER: I'll check on the Netherlands. Q: Okay. MR. BOUCHER: I'm trying to see if I have the next two -- Q: But what about the point of a U.S. -- of the U.S. government supporting the formation of a true government in exile? MR. BOUCHER: There's -- certainly we're looking at regime change. We're looking at opportunities for representatives of the opposition in Iraq, for academics, for Iraqi exiles, individuals and others to discuss the future of Iraq and how Iraq can be organized and operate as a independent country in the future. But -- let me just say that's the subject of the conferences that we're sponsoring. That's the subject of this project. Leave it at that. Q: (Off mike) -- got specific backing at that meeting that was held with the six groups here at the State Department a couple weeks ago. MR. BOUCHER: Let me double-check on if there -- if the Amsterdam meeting is part of the series and whether there is a specific agenda for that at this point. Q: Well, can you just answer -- is the State Department willing to support a constellation of Iraqi opposition figures as a government in exile? MR. BOUCHER: The future -- this project -- this Future of Iraq Project is not to -- Q: Right. No, I -- (off mike). This is, I think, a different thing -- MR. BOUCHER: -- is not designed to do that. It's not designed to select, either by us or by others, some government in exile. It's designed to give free Iraqis a voice in their future to talk about their future and talk -- help organize their future. We certainly look forward to a day that Iraq has a new government that can live in peace with its neighbors and respect its own people. There are a large number of Iraqis outside Iraq, and they're -- they need to discuss these issues. But I think just -- that's what we're doing now. That's the point we're at now. I wouldn't go farther than that right now. Q: Putting aside the Future of Iraq project, there's, as I understand it -- and I could be wrong -- there's a separate process which are these six opposition groups that you invited in August 9th to meet with Feith and Grossman. They are then discussing among themselves how to have a larger opposition conference outside of the Future of Iraq project and, as I understand it, not funded by the U.S. government. Now the report says that whatever they come up with in this conference would then by -- or they have word from the U.S. government that they would then be supported as a government in exile. So my question to you is, would you even consider supporting a group of opposition people outside of the Future of Iraq project as any kind of government in exile, as this report on the wire suggests? MR. BOUCHER: We're not at that point now. We're not at the point in terms of the future of Iraq generally to say that it's time to create a government in exile. Q: Richard, I think I heard you say it falls in a series of -- (six ?)? MR. BOUCHER: Yeah. Q: I only recall one previous time, which was the transitional -- MR. BOUCHER: Transitional justice, July 9 and 10; public-finance working group on August 7th and 8th; public outreach -- the media training -- right now, 27 to 30. Remaining two working groups are public health and humanitarian concerns and water, agriculture and environment. Now there are other -- there may be others in the future after that. Q: By any chance, did someone here take note of General Zinni's remarks? And I wondered if there's any -- MR. BOUCHER: I think everybody in this room did, and we talked about it yesterday. Q: Oh, did you yesterday? I didn't (come ?). MR. BOUCHER: Maybe even the day before; I can't remember. Q: Is he still in the -- he's not really in the employ of the U.S. government, is he? He's a -- MR. BOUCHER: He's an unpaid senior adviser that we've used for security issues in Israeli-Palestinian things. Q: Was there a discussion yesterday of his -- MR. BOUCHER: Yes. Q: -- mention that you shouldn't get the Arabs made at you; you should do the Israeli-Palestinian thing first? Presumably, they'd like -- (inaudible)? MR. BOUCHER: If a discussion is people asking all these same questions and my saying, "Zinni is a private citizen, he can say what he wants" -- Q: Okay. All right. MR. BOUCHER: If that's a discussion, yes. Q: Now, this may be the wrong place to ask, but that other place is sort of in motion. Is there anything State wants to say about consulting Congress, dealing with Congress on Iraq? Rumsfeld -- Senator Warner wants him to appear. There's a move afoot to have hearings after Congress comes back. Does Secretary Powell have a view that you could give us on to what extent and when Congress should be brought into play on this? MR. BOUCHER: I think the White House has already given the administration's view. I'm sure that's Secretary Powell's view as well. Q: I'm a little confused about the view with -- I mean, it's coming from -- MR. BOUCHER: Well, then your reporters can ask at the White House. Q: -- public affairs people, traveling public affairs people. MR. BOUCHER: Let's not denigrate the credibility of public affairs people. Q: Well -- yeah, that's true. Some are very good. But we get a chance very now and then to talk to the top person -- not lately. So I thought maybe -- you know, this whole thing is part of this notion that Mr. Powell, with all due respect, is the voice that hasn't been heard much on this whole matter. I just can't help feeling -- MR. BOUCHER: I don't know, you may not have heard some things because you were on vacation. You may not have heard from him because he -- Q: No, no. I was gone three days. MR. BOUCHER: -- he took a little bit of vacation too. But the fact is, he's been in touch, as I've said, with European colleagues, foreign ministers around the world. You know he talked to Foreign Minister Ivanov last weekend. When he takes some time off, he's on the phone all the time with people here, as well as with foreign minister colleagues. He's made clear on Iraq in those conversations, as he has, you know, throughout -- really throughout the administration, but throughout the summer, that Iraq is a danger we have to deal with. That's as simply, as succinctly as I can put it. Second of all, he's been in close touch, as I just mentioned, with the president, with other colleagues in the administration on a very regular basis. And they're continuing their discussion of these issues and how to go forward. And as I mentioned, third of all, he's expressed his view publicly, but for people who won't air it until early September, and that just happens to be what he's been doing these last few days. Q: Well, no one, I don't think, in high places thinks Iraq is something you don't have to deal with, the question is how does the secretary of State, who has a long military background and great experience in that field -- we don't hear his position. We hear Vice President Cheney. Here we go with beating the drums again. And Mr. Powell's relative silence suggests maybe he doesn't agree with the hawkish views that are coming from other people in the administration. Is that unfair? MR. BOUCHER: Three times I've said there's no relative silence from Powell, from the secretary. But I would say he owes his views first and foremost to the president, and you can be assured that the president, the other colleagues in the administration are discussing -- Secretary Powell is discussing all these things with them as we go forward. Howard? Q: Richard, back on the post-Saddam planning, I'm not understanding why the time is not right now for you to be more specific about what's supposed to happen the day after Saddam is toppled. I mean, if you're lucky, there'll be a coup, you know, and next week you might be looking at creating a new government there. Why isn't it time for you to move beyond the general discussions about these general topics and to the specifics about how that's going to work? MR. BOUCHER: Because that's what they are discussing. It's for Iraqis to discuss. And what we've done with these projects over the course of the summer, and into the next few conferences, is to give Iraqis -- to give Iraqi opposition figures, Iraqi representatives, Iraqi groups, Iraqi academics, free Iraqis a chance to talk about these issues, an opportunity to talk together about how they intend to run Iraq, because in the long term, it's not the United States that's going to decide how Iraq is run, it's Iraqis that are going to have to decide. Q: Do envision a process similar to what happened in Afghanistan? I mean, do you see some kind of international meeting of the powers -- interested powers to -- MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. It's just premature to start speculating on how those things might unfold. I mean, first and foremost, we've made clear the president hasn't decided on options when it comes to regime change. Q: No. But like I say, your fondest hopes would be that regime -- MR. BOUCHER: We're talking about steps after that, and I don't know how to say. Down here? Q: Yes, is it the U.S. belief or the administration's belief that by toppling Saddam Hussein's regime that it will in fact diminish Islamic extremism throughout the region? I mean, I guess it would be in light of the war on terrorism, but -- MR. BOUCHER: I wouldn't jump to the conclusion. I think the administration's conclusion has been that you need regime change in Iraq for the neighborhood to be safe, for the world to be safe from the threats that Iraq poses. Q: But in reference to al Qaeda or the war on terrorism, what is the goal with the ousting or the regime change in Iraq? MR. BOUCHER: The goal with the regime change in Iraq is to eliminate the danger that Iraq poses to us all and continues to pose as long as this regime pursues programs of weapons of mass destruction. Mark (sp)? Q: Richard, you said the only way to take care of the problem fundamentally in Iraq is regime change, but you also said that inspectors have a role to play either way. In the absence of regime change, what can the inspectors accomplish in Iraq? MR. BOUCHER: Let's look at it this way. If the Iraqis -- if an Iraqi regime wants to come clean and get right with the world, inspections can help demonstrate that they've done that. If an Iraqi regime like the one we've got continues to try to cheat and hide, inspections have shown in the past the ability to find some things the Iraqis were trying to cheat and hide on, and destroy some things that they might have omitted. But you'll never have -- as the vice president said the other day, you never have that assurance that they've eliminated all the programs, because they're still trying to cheat and hide, and have to face the fact it's possible to cheat and hide on some of these things. So either way, there's a role for inspectors. It's obviously different. And either way, the only way to fundamentally solve the problem is to change -- have regime change and have a regime that's not trying to cheat on its international obligations but rather wants to get right with the world and its neighbors. Q: Given the strong possibility that they would cheat and hide, why does the United States invest time and effort in trying to get the inspectors back? MR. BOUCHER: Because there is some value to inspections. The president's made that clear. Q: Can I change the subject? Q: Can I have one more on Iraq? MR. BOUCHER: No, let's let him change the subject. Okay. Q: (Off mike.) MR. BOUCHER: Fair is fair. Q: Okay. It's a philosophical question. (Laughter.) No, no, no, no. This is a very good question, I think. Q: (Off mike.) Q: Is "regime change" just another way of saying "war"? MR. BOUCHER: No. Q: It's not another way of saying "war"? MR. BOUCHER: No. Q: Seeking to change a regime is not another way -- I mean, isn't that what people go to war to do? Q: Yes. Q: And I'm saying -- Q: No, not always -- MR. BOUCHER: There are other ways that regimes change. That's -- I -- you can go to -- go to a history professor for that one. I'm not going to pretend to be the -- anyway -- (end excerpt) (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
