09 September 2002
Transcript: UN Inspection of Iraq Must Be "Unrestricted, Unconditional and Unfettered"
(Boucher outlines procurement efforts since 1998) (1540) Department of State spokesman Richard Boucher said the September 9 report of the International Institute for Strategic Studies on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction supports a wide body of reporting on Iraq's enduring capabilities and interest in developing its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Boucher said that the full extent to which Iraq was able to hide and retain its capabilities during active U.N. weapons inspections is not known, but that the regime's effort to conceal its stockpiles is well documented. "Since 1998 there have not been inspectors on the ground, and we continue to believe that any inspections need to be unrestricted, unconditional and unfettered," he told reporters at the regular State Department press briefing September 9. "We know they retained growth media and biological stocks. We know they've got chemical agents at various times, and we know that in the past the Iraqis' government has been willing to use those chemical agents," Boucher said. "We also know they've continued procurement activities. We know the examples cited over the weekend, that they tried to buy the specialized aluminum tubing that's need for centrifuges. They're trying to separate out nuclear material. When are they going to succeed, and how long do you wait to find out if they have or have not? The issue for us is that there's -- they're continuing these programs. If they succeed, when they succeed, it will be a grave danger to us all," he said. Following is an excerpt of the State Department spokesman's remarks September 9. (begin transcript) Q: What do you make, if anything, of Scott Ritter running around on the anti-attack Iraq bandwagon? And also on that, I notice that the Russians have announced that Bolton is going to go there next week. Is this part of -- for consultations on Iraq and other things. But is this part of what the president was setting up with the other U.N. -- the perm -- the other Perm Five members? MR. BOUCHER: I wouldn't say that. Let me describe to you Bolton's travel as a separate matter, and then we can move on to the questions of Iraq and former inspectors, if I can find it. Okay. Undersecretary Bolton is going to Moscow later this week to discuss a range of security and nonproliferation issues with senior Russian officials. He'll be in Moscow from Wednesday to Friday. This meeting is an advance meeting in preparation for the first meeting of the U.S.-Russia Consultative Group for Strategic Security, which will meet on September 20th. It will be chaired jointly by Secretary Powell and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. We expect Undersecretary Bolton to have meetings with Deputy Foreign Minister Mamedov, Minister of Atomic Energy Rumyanstev, Director of Russian Aviation and Space Agency Koptev, and other senior Russian officials. So he'll have -- Q: Where's that going to be, the 20th? MR. BOUCHER: The 20th is here. (To staff) -- Right? I just realized the sentence didn't include a place, but I'm 99 percent sure it's here. Q: Okay, and what do you make -- MR. BOUCHER: Okay, now, what do we make of former inspectors? I guess I really don't think I can try to parse every single statement that may have been made out there. What I would point to is the evidence, the evidence that the inspectors themselves found, and the evidence that we've seen since then of Iraq's continuing its efforts to develop these programs. In London, the Institute for Strategic Studies has a report today that began their conclusions very similar to those that we have had, and others. A great deal of this information has been made public in the past. The U.N inspectors did an extensive report in 1999 that outlined Iraqi efforts to maintain a capability in the area of weapons of mass destruction through 1988, when the inspectors were forced out. We've heard, since 1995, Iraqi defectors make clear that Iraq not only possessed weapons of mass destruction but also had an elaborate scheme to conceal them from U.N. inspectors. All these various reports, including the ones out today, indicate that Iraq produced thousands of tons of chemical and biological agents, including anthrax, VX nerve gas, mustard gas, ricin and others. Iraq has retained the expertise and rebuilt much of the physical infrastructure needed to produce these chemical and biological weapons on short notice. We continue to monitor Iraq's programs closely, but since 1998 there have not been inspectors on the ground, and we continue to believe that any inspections need to be unrestricted, unconditional and unfettered. We're concerned by activity that we've seen at certain Iraqi sites that are capable of producing weapons of mass destruction and long-range ballistic missiles. So we've had four years without inspections. We knew that as of 1998, we had certainly not been able to destroy their biological growth media, their biological toxins and much of their chemical stocks. We've certainly not been able to find every bit of their nuclear programs. And we know, with evidence of procurement activities and other reports since then, that they have continued to develop those programs and develop those areas. So without -- without a clear indication to the contrary, which Iraq was obliged to give under the U.N. resolutions it accepted, without a clear indication to the contrary that Iraq accepted many times in accepting inspections, I think we have every bit of evidence to conclude that Iraq had programs, they were partially destroyed, and they've tried to maintain and expand them since the inspectors were gone. There's been, as I think we said over the weekend, a decade of deceit and deception. And that's the problem that we're faced with as those programs continue. It may not be possible to predict exactly when they might reach fruition, but one has to deal with the problem sooner rather than later. Q: Also on Iraq, tangentially, I wondered if you had any remarks to make regarding Chancellor Schroeder's comments that Germany won't be clicking its heels for America. I mean, from your perspective, it could be seen as an attempt to get reelected by bashing America. Is that how you see it? MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't have any particular comments on particular individuals and particular statements that they might have made. What I would make clear is what the secretary and the president have made clear all along, that the problems of Iraq, the problems of Iraq continuing its attempts to develop weapons of mass destruction is a problem for the region, it's a problem for the world, it's a problem for the U.N. Security Council members, it's a problem for all of us, and all of us need to be prepared to deal with it. Q: So are you prepared to say, then, that Germany's position on Iraq hasn't damaged your relationship at all? MR. BOUCHER: I wouldn't make any sweeping statements. We obviously have a lot of important cooperation with Germany and it's a very important ally of ours. This is an issue I'm sure we'll continue to discuss. Betsy? Q: Richard, on Iraq, I think there are a lot of questions out there about whether -- as you have laid out, the U.S. has concerns that they have continued to develop biological/chemical, that they, you believe, are beginning to reconstitute a nuclear program which the inspectors had in '98 felt was pretty well decimated by their inspections. So the question is, why is there an urgency now? Do you think in six months that they could do this? Is there evidence that there are plans to attack their neighbors? I mean, I think that what seems to be missing here for many people is absolute evidence that even though they're going down this road, are they, say, three months away from being able to attack neighbors, the U.S., people in the region? MR. BOUCHER: I think the point I was -- first of all, you're asking almost for the impossible. Tell me the day before they finish their work, so that if it's not taken care of by then, we can take care of -- on that day and not have to worry about the day after. That's an impossibility. It may be six months. It may be one year. It may be two years. We know they retained growth media and biological stocks. We know they've got chemical agents at various times, and we know that in the past the Iraqis' government has been willing to use those chemical agents. So you could say: Why predict when you -- I mean, you already know that they have it. But second of all, in terms of -- we also know they've continued procurement activities. We know the examples cited over the weekend, that they tried to buy the specialized aluminum tubing that's need for centrifuges. They're trying to separate out nuclear material. When are they going to succeed, and how long do you wait to find out if they have or have not? The issue for us is that there's -- they're continuing these programs. If they succeed, when they succeed, it will be a grave danger to us all. And should we wait for that happen before we think about taking action? We think that we need to deal with the problem. (end transcript) (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 |
|
|
|
