15 September 2002
Transcript: Colin Powell Says New U.N. Resolution on Iraq Must be Effective
(Powell interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN "Late Edition" Sept. 15) (4200) Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared on CNN's "Late Edition" September 15. He spoke about Iraq. The transcript follows. (begin transcript) Interview on CNN's Late Edition Secretary of State Colin L. Powell Washington, DC September 15, 2002 MR. BLITZER: Mr. Secretary, thanks for joining us once again on Late Edition. I want to get to Iraq and the war on terror and a lot of other subjects in just a moment, but the Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf says that he's ready to cooperate with the US as far as Ramzi bin al-Shibh. Do you want Ramzi bin al-Shibh extradited to the United States? SECRETARY POWELL: Well, that's really a matter for the Justice Department to decide; I'm sure that we're anxious to have access to him and to get him under control. But the specific legal requirements or requests, I'll let that remain with the Justice Department. But this is indicative of the kind of support we have received from President Musharraf throughout this campaign against terrorism for the past year. He really has been in the forefront of helping us -- chasing down leads, looking for terrorists -- because what he understands is that these terrorists are as great a danger to the people of Pakistan and to his government as they are to the people of the United States and our government. MR. BLITZER: Just how big of a fish is this Ramzi bin al-Shibh? SECRETARY POWELL: I think he's a pretty big fish. I mean, he's within the circle of those who are responsible for 9/11 and so I think he is a pretty big catch. I congratulate not only our law enforcement and intelligence experts who participated in this, but I also congratulate, as well, the Pakistani officials who worked on it. I hope that all the Pakistanis who were wounded and injured in the firefight that ensued will be OK. MR. BLITZER: Let's talk about Iraq. Tariq Aziz, the Deputy Prime Minister, says those UN inspectors might be allowed back in, but he's got some conditions: lifting of sanctions against Iraq and the US has to forget about a so-called military preemptive strike. Are you ready to accept those conditions in order to get the inspectors back in? SECRETARY POWELL: It's too late for us to sit around having the bi-monthly set of conditions presented to the international community by Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz. They know what they have to do. It is in all of the resolutions. I think what we have to do now is within the Security Council put down a strong resolution that first says these are the violations, they are in material breach, and this is what they have to do, not what we're going to discuss with them about what they should or should not do, this is what they have to do. And then I believe the third element of any such resolution, or resolutions if it turns out to be plural, should be, this is what the UN is prepared to do if Iraq does not respond. The time for Iraq to respond was years ago. They now have an opportunity to respond now with this new resolution. But what we cannot allow to have happen is to get into this haggling and listening to the duplicitous comments that are constantly coming out of Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz's mouth. MR. BLITZER: Do you want one resolution to emerge from the Security Council or a series of resolutions? SECRETARY POWELL: I think that the elements I just described -- material breach, this is what they have to do, this is what we're prepared to do if they don't -- really are one piece. Now, I really want to hear from my colleagues on the Security Council because some of them believe it is better to break this into two resolutions. I'm inclined toward one; but because this is a dialogue and it is diplomacy and we have to get the necessary votes, I want to hear the argument for two from my colleagues. MR. BLITZER: Breaking it up into two, that third element that you talked about, leaving that for separate resolution, that would, in effect, give Saddam Hussein two more chances. SECRETARY POWELL: Yeah, and the danger in that second resolution idea is that nations who are going to vote for the first resolution cannot, at that same time, be unwilling to vote for the second resolution because then it's just a resolution like the first resolutions, just like all other failed resolutions. So I think that that is a danger, and I think I have to point that out to my Security Council colleagues. But I don't rule it out because I want to hear the arguments and this is a negotiation. President Bush did not go before the UN to dictate what the resolutions would look like. We have our view, we have a strong view, and I'll present that view and I'll listen to others and see what will acquire the votes necessary to pass the resolution. The one thing I would make a strong point on, though, is that it can't just be business as usual. It has to be anytime, anyplace, anywhere if inspectors are part of the action required. We have to make sure that we do not get into the same kind of situation that existed four or five years ago when the role of the UN and the role of the inspectors was frustrated. The issue really isn't inspectors or inspections. The issue is: Is the Iraqi Government, Saddam Hussein, ready to act differently? We have every reason to be skeptical. We have every reason to be doubtful and dubious because of his past actions, but let's see what he will do in the face of this strong international consensus that this can no longer continue in this way. MR. BLITZER: And you've said you want this resolution, or two resolutions, from your perspective one resolution, passed not within months but within perhaps a few weeks. Can you be more precise? SECRETARY POWELL: Yes, here is our strategy coming into this. About five or six weeks ago, the President decided that we would go to the United Nations, and we've been working toward that end for the last several weeks, starting to talk to some of our friends and getting the President's message ready. He delivered a powerful speech on Thursday. Everybody wanted us to be multilateral, everybody wanted us to come to the UN. He did that. And he came and did not issue a declaration of war, but he issued a declaration of purpose that the UN will had to be obeyed. I then stayed in New York with the President, there a part of the time on Friday. But the rest of Friday I talked to Security Council members, all the Security Council members, many of the leaders, in a political discussion of what the elements of a resolution should look like and what we wanted to do next. They need time to go back and talk to their leaders, their cabinet ministers. They have the same kind of debate in each of those capitals that we have in ours. I think over this weekend and in the next several days of next week, we'll start to get feedback as to what they think in their capitals. I hope toward the end of next week -- and there's nothing fixed and firm about this, but I would think that toward the end of next week we can actually start working on the resolution in the way that such things are done with our Permanent Representatives, our ambassadors in New York. Ambassador John Negroponte is very skilled in this, our Ambassador. You can be sure he and I will be talking five, ten times a day as we go into this resolution-drafting process. MR. BLITZER: And so by not this coming week but perhaps the following week, there could be a vote? SECRETARY POWELL: I don't know; it could take time to negotiate a resolution, so it isn't that you have one day of discussion then you vote. It's going to take some time. But we're talking about weeks, not months. We can no longer have something like this drag on for months. And keep in mind that even though we're talking about resolutions and we're trying to get the collective will of the United Nations through the Security Council behind this resolution, the President still retains all of his options to act in any manner that he believes appropriate to protect American interests and American lives. MR. BLITZER: But what, specifically, what do you mean during that next two weeks, let's say? SECRETARY POWELL: What I mean is that we want to work within the multilateral organization that is designed for this purpose, the United Nations, and we hope the United Nations will meet its responsibilities at this time. But the President always has the option of doing whatever he believes is necessary to defend US interests. So it doesn't mean that if the UN fails to act, the United States won't act. The President has made clear that he will do what he believes is necessary, but at this point he is anxious to see the UN act. He has made no decision with respect to a military option, but certainly that is an option. MR. BLITZER: The parts of this resolution, the three parts you describe: the first part enumerating the violations that the Iraqis have engaged in; the second part what they must do, let the UN inspectors back in. Talk to me about the third part, the threat, in effect the ultimatum that is given if there is no compliance. How far do you want that threat to go? SECRETARY POWELL: I think the UN should speak clearly that if, once again, the Iraqis do not respond, the United Nations cannot just say, well, never mind, we'll be back here next year at next year's General Assembly session and talk about it again. I think that the United Nations has to ask for action to be taken by its member-states. Now, how that is actually phrased remains to be seen, and I don't want to put a particular term out there because I would like this to be part of the dialogue that we're having with our friends. But it should be an action event that nations, willing nations or all nations are prepared to act. It doesn't mean that every nation has to participate in a military operation; but once it becomes the word of the Security Council, it is something that is directed to all of the nations of the United Nations to work on. We are all obliged to take steps that would support that resolution. MR. BLITZER: And you think that's doable, that the four other Permanent Members of the Security Council -- the British will be on board, France, China, Russia will give the United States, in effect, and perhaps a small number, perhaps a large number of allies the right to use military force against Iraq if they are not in compliance? SECRETARY POWELL: I don't know. It would be very, very wrong for me at this point to say what France, China and Russia, or for that matter the United Kingdom, might do, although I have a better idea what I think the United Kingdom will do, and they've been very forward-leaning on this issue. What we're going to do is discuss it with them. I don't think there's any debate about the first element, that they are in violation. It can be called a material breach without any question. I don't think there's much debate about the fact that we need to put demands on Iraq, unconditional demands on Iraq. MR. BLITZER: They also (inaudible) wanting those inspectors back in -- the Russians, the Chinese, the French, everybody. SECRETARY POWELL: I think everybody has been saying to the Iraqis, let the inspectors in. President Bush has said it a number of times over the past year. There can't be inspections like the last set of inspections where they are frustrated because they can't go to this site or that site. If part of this action, the second element, has to do with inspections, then it has to be anywhere, anytime, talking to anybody that has to be spoken to in order to get to the truth. But remember, inspection isn't the issue. The issue is eliminating weapons of mass destruction and dealing with the other issues that are within those Security Council resolutions such as the return of Kuwaiti prisoners, accounting for the American airman who was lost over Iraq in the Gulf War, human rights issues, issues having to do with terrorism, issues having to do with the use of the Oil-for-Food program. There are a lot of elements. Maybe these sorts of elements might also be in another resolution. The President was careful in what he said. He said "resolutions" because we want to give the Security Council all the flexibility necessary to examine this issue and then make a considered judgment. MR. BLITZER: Two weeks ago when I interviewed Tariq Aziz, the Deputy Prime Minister -- he was in Johannesburg -- he said Hans Blix, the leader of the inspection teams at the United Nations, is persona non grata. He's not acceptable given his record when he was Chairman of the International Atomic Energy Agency. SECRETARY POWELL: We're not going to listen to these sorts of demands and these sorts of conditions put forward by the Iraqi Government. Hans Blix has been selected by the United Nations to head UNMOVIC. He is a very dedicated individual. He has spent the last several years of his life pulling together an experienced team of individuals who are ready to expand into an even larger team and perform this mission if the circumstances warrant. Hans Blix is the person who is going to do this, and we cannot allow the Iraqi regime to tell us who's going to head the UN inspection team. Now, once again, it is not inspections that are the issue; it is disarmament. The question is not whether they will let Dr. Blix in or not. The question is, are they making a fundamental change in their attitudes? If they are, then all of these other issues are secondary questions. Maybe we want them to come back to us before sending inspectors in with a declaration of the kind that was required under UN Resolution 687, letting us know exactly what they have out there and making it available for inspection and destruction. That would be an expression of seriousness on their part. Letting inspectors in after that if we find their input acceptable, might be an expression of seriousness on their part. But so far, for the last 11 years, they have not shown that kind of seriousness. They have tried to frustrate the role of the international community. If they have no weapons, what are they hiding? You can find all kinds of excuses, a thousand excuses -- there are spies on this team, we don't want this, when are sanctions going to be relieved and removed? The issue is Iraqi noncompliance, and we should not allow them to move us off that issue. I am very pleased that in all of my conversations on Thursday, Friday and through the weekend so far -- and I'm going back to New York tonight -- all the leaders that I have spoken to recognize that this is a challenge for the UN, and I think they all believe it is a challenge the UN must meet. MR. BLITZER: We have to take a quick commercial break. When we return, more on the possibility of a war with Iraq. I'll ask the Secretary of State, in addition, about the fate of a US pilot who went missing during the Gulf War. Late Edition will be right back. (Commercial break.) MR. BLITZER: Welcome back to Late Edition. We return now to my interview with the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell. You raised the issue of Scott Speicher, a US Navy Captain. You were Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He is the first US pilot who was lost over Iraq. Tariq Aziz insists he died in that crash and there is no issue here, it's over with. Recently the Pentagon changed the status from "killed in action" to "missing in action." Do you seriously believe he might still be alive? SECRETARY POWELL: I don't know. That's the issue. I think because we don't know, that's why the Pentagon changed their determination. If the Iraqis have information that would answer this question, they ought to stop playing games and they ought to stop playing with people's emotions, the emotions of the family, and bring that information forward. This is one of the problems with them is the way they act. It's not just Scott Speicher. There are hundreds of Kuwaitis and other nationalities who are unaccounted for. To traffic in this kind of human misery is the nature of this regime. MR. BLITZER: The UN Secretary General Kofi Annan spoke just before President Bush at the opening session of the General Assembly in New York, and at least to the average listener -- you were out there, you were sitting there -- it sounded like he was lecturing the Bush Administration. I want you to listen to this excerpt from the Secretary General's address: "Choosing to follow or reject the multilateral path must not be a simple matter of political convenience. It has consequences far beyond the immediate (inaudible)." And then he went on to list four crises around the world that represent what he called a threat to world peace. He didn't begin with Iraq; he began with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Was that seen by you as a snub to the US? SECRETARY POWELL: Not at all, because you left out one of the sentences in the latter part of the speech where he clearly says that Iraq must come into compliance and that the United Nations cannot turn away from this challenge. Now, we saw the speech the day before, and he was kind enough to share it with us. I smiled slightly because what he was going to see the next day is President George Bush standing before the multilateral organization and presenting a challenge to that multilateral organization, the United Nations. And so you wanted to see us multilateral? You saw it. And it was a powerful presentation. With respect to the crises we've talked about, we deal with those on a multilateral basis, whether it's with the Israeli-Palestinian issue -- I've worked closely with the European Union, with the Russian Federation, with the Norwegians, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, all of the international organizations. We're all working together and we'll be in New York on Tuesday to discuss this. With respect to the India and Pakistan situation, which the Secretary General also made reference to, I work with all of my European Union colleagues and others to try to help the Indians and Pakistanis resolve this situation. So the United States is working in multilateral fora. In fact, when you look at attitudes in Europe, (inaudible) but the attitudes of average people in Europe, as a result of polling, they are not different, terribly from what Americans think. They recognize that the United States has important responsibilities and works multilaterally. These occasional frictions that come along between us and our European and other colleagues are just that -- occasional frictions. MR. BLITZER: Let's talk about the congressional resolution in addition to the UN Security Council resolution. You want a congressional resolution. First of all, when do you want the Senate and the House of Representatives to pass a resolution giving you authority to do what? SECRETARY POWELL: We are in discussion with the House and the Senate, and it is our position that they should pass as quickly as possible and certainly before they recess for mid-term elections. MR. BLITZER: That would be within the next three or four weeks? SECRETARY POWELL: Within the next three or four weeks, which, and as you know, we will start sending up administration witnesses on this, this week and next week. What should be in the resolution is something to be determined by the House and Senate together, and of course we will provide input and assistance to their deliberations. MR. BLITZER: Even so, the Republicans say they need more information. For example, Chuck Hagel, an important member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Listen to what he told our Judy Woodruff on Friday. Listen to this. "They have not persuaded me. This is a dangerous, uncertain world. America must use its relationships with its allies. We must enhance our position in the world. We can't fight every war alone. We need answers from the administration." "We need answers from the administration." And you hear that from a lot of members who want to support you and are sympathetic, but they say you're still not giving them enough information. SECRETARY POWELL: Well, here are a couple of elements that (inaudible) debate, they don't need any more information. One, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime is in violation of 16 resolutions and multiple conditions within those resolutions. Nobody needs any more information on that. The other thing no one needs any more information about is that he has every intention of developing and acquiring and stockpiling and perhaps even using weapons of mass destruction. He's done it before. What we are debating is whether or not he has got X number of (inaudible) shells or Y number of biological agents. That is a legitimate discussion to have. We will try to give the Congress and our friends all the information we can, subject to not losing sources and methods by giving out too much. That process will continue this week with administration witnesses going up. We will put out more documents. We put out one document this past week. The British will be putting out a document. I think there's more than enough information out there to satisfy anybody who is interested with respect to the nature of this threat and why this is not a matter we can look away from. MR. BLITZER: Will you be providing any information, additional information -- do you have any information -- linking the Iraqi regime to al-Qaida and 9/11? SECRETARY POWELL: There is no question that there are some linkages between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaida, but so far I haven't seen anything that would give you a linkage to 9/11. We don't rule it out. We are constantly examining the information that comes to us, but there is no direct linkage between the regime in Baghdad and 9/11 yet. MR. BLITZER: Last week on this program when I interviewed Senator Bob Graham, the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, he was very blunt in saying the Iraqis have now been informed formally what would happen to them if they used weapons of mass destruction in the buildup or at any time. Listen to what Senator Graham said: "Our belief is that Saddam Hussein fully understands that if he were to use a weapon of mass destruction that it would result in the annihilation not only of him but of much of his society." Is that right? SECRETARY POWELL: I think the Iraqis might want to assume that, but I am not aware of any formal presentation to them. I'll have to talk to Senator Graham and see specifically what he was speaking about. He's always careful in his comments, in his presentations, but I think I want to make sure I understand what he is making reference to before I comment on it. MR. BLITZER: I think he was suggesting that the Intelligence Committee was asking people who briefed them behind closed doors do they know how serious the United States is if they were to use biological or chemical or a nuclear weapon? And apparently, the briefers suggested maybe they don't, so they went back and made sure in some fora that Saddam Hussein would know - SECRETARY POWELL: That may well be the case, but I have just heard the statement this morning and focused on it, so what I think I better do is make sure that I've had a chance to talk to Senator Graham and see what he might have been told. MR. BLITZER: Well, irrespective of what he said, would they be annihilated if they used weapons of mass destruction? SECRETARY POWELL: You know, we've been down this road before with the Iraqis, when I was in a position to communicate those messages, and they fully understand the potential consequences of using weapons of mass destruction. I'm quite sure they have a solid understanding of the capacity of the United States, our conventional capacity and other capacities. MR. BLITZER: We'll be right back. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. (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 |
|
|
|
