15 September 2002
Transcript: U.S. Will Take Case Against Iraq to U.N. Security Council
(Powell speaks on NBC's Meet The Press September 15) (4950) Secretary of State Colin Powell was interviewed by Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press September 15. The topic was U.S. policy toward Iraq. The transcript follows. (begin transcript) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE Office of the Spokesman For Immediate Release September 15, 2002 INTERVIEW Secretary Of State Colin L. Powell On NBC's Meet the Press September 15, 2002 (10:30 a.m. EDT) MR. RUSSERT: First, the Secretary of State, General Colin Powell. Welcome. SECRETARY POWELL: Good morning, Tim. MR. RUSSERT: Will the United Nations Security Council adopt a resolution which puts the inspectors back into Iraq, guaranteed unfettered access; if it's denied by Saddam Hussein, followed by all necessary means, including military action? SECRETARY POWELL: Well, we'll have to see; but you've certainly laid out the elements that I think have to be in a resolution. One, a clear recognition that Saddam Hussein is in material breach of all the obligations that he entered into as a result of these many UN resolutions. The second element of any resolution has to be action that he must take in order to try to deal with this breach. And then I believe a third element of any resolution or combination of resolutions has to be what the UN will do, what the international community will do, if he does not act in the way that has been demanded by the United Nations. So this is a test for the United Nations, as the President has said. Everybody said, take it to the international community; and that's exactly what President Bush did last Thursday. MR. RUSSERT: You said "combination of resolutions." Wouldn't it be better to have just one resolution, do it or else? If you divide it into two resolutions, you could have politicking, negotiating, he could say no to the inspectors, and you couldn't get a subsequent resolution demanding military action. SECRETARY POWELL: You're absolutely right. It would be easier to do it in one resolution. But the Security Council is a group of 15 nations that come together, five Permanent Members and then 10 elected members; and what we have to do is get a sense of what all of those members think is the right way to go. So the President used the word "resolutions" in his speech in order to show that we want to hear from our friends and colleagues. Now, the President gave his speech on Thursday. We had a large number of meetings on Friday with members of the Security Council, other leaders; and we want to give them time to get back to their capitals, consider what the President said, and come back with instructions this week so we can actually begin the work on resolutions, I hope, no later than the end of the coming week. MR. RUSSERT: That was a last minute change in the President's speech to add that "s"? It was very intentional? SECRETARY POWELL: The President knew what he was doing when he used the word "resolutions." MR. RUSSERT: Jim Baker, the former Secretary of State under former President Bush, has a piece this morning in the papers which says that it is absolutely not acceptable to have any more than just one resolution. SECRETARY POWELL: Well, we'll see what the Security Council thinks is acceptable or not acceptable. A case can be made that perhaps two resolutions -- I'm not making that case, but there are others in the Security Council who I want to hear from in greater detail who believe that there is a case for two resolutions. It has all the dangers you indicated, Tim; you get into a debate, you get into a discussion. What I've said to my Security Council colleagues: don't vote for the first resolution; if you want two resolutions, don't vote for the first one at the same time you know you will not vote for the second one. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a solution this time where the Iraqis are required to act; and if they do not act, then the UN must act and not just say let's come back next year and examine this again. MR. RUSSERT: Would it help us in the United Nations in terms of negotiations if the US paid the $250 million we still owe to the UN? SECRETARY POWELL: Oh, absolutely. But I think everybody in the UN recognizes that the United States fully intends to meet all of its outstanding obligations. It's just a matter of getting some legislation passed and also getting the cap lifted, a little technical element -- the cap lifted on the amount we owe toward peacekeeping operations from 25 percent to 27 percent, then we'll be cleared up with the UN. That's going to happen. MR. RUSSERT: The key members of the Security Council, the Permanent Members -- the United States, Great Britain firmly on board. The French? SECRETARY POWELL: The French are considering everything that they heard in the President's speech, and I had very good conversations with my French colleague, Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, and I am sure he will be consulting with President Chirac. President Chirac made a statement last week indicating that they would prefer two resolutions, and that's what Foreign Minister de Villepin said to me also. And we will be discussing that next week with his Permanent Representative in New York. MR. RUSSERT: The Chinese? SECRETARY POWELL: The Chinese listened carefully. They understand the seriousness of this matter. They too believe that Iraq should come into compliance with the resolutions, and they have not expressed any further opinion yet. I would expect to hear from them next week, as well. MR. RUSSERT: The Russians -- former President Yeltsin of Russia said this morning, "Iraq is not spreading terrorism. I do not see any danger from Saddam Hussein." SECRETARY POWELL: Well, I certainly appreciate former President Yeltsin's position; but I think President Putin and my colleague, Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, do believe that Iraq does present a danger and that Iraq should comply with all of the UN resolutions. Now, how far Russia is willing to go with respect to the action Iraq should now take and what action the United Nations should take in the absence of Iraqi action remains to be seen. The purpose of our meetings on Friday and the President's speech on Thursday was not to lay out a resolution but to begin a political dialogue for several days to a week -- let everybody think about it, reflect about it, and come back, then we'll begin the work on the resolution and we'll see what we're able to accomplish. But I can assure you that the United States is going into this discussion on a resolution or resolutions with a very firm position that Iraq is in material breach. We'll see what action the Security Council wants to place upon Iraq to perform; but it has to be tough, it has to be something that is not going to be debated and negotiated with the Iraqis, and there has to be a time deadline to it, there has to be some time dimension to this or we're just kicking the football further down the field. And then the third element will be, of course, what the UN is willing to say now with respect to the actions it will take in the absence of Iraqi compliance. We have to remember that what the President did is exactly what so many people were asking for the President to do: consult with our friends and allies, bring it to the international community. These are UN resolutions that have been violated, not an issue with the United States alone, but the entire international community. And that's exactly what the President did. Frankly, I think in that speech the President has changed the entire political environment in which this matter is being considered. MR. RUSSERT: By challenging the UN to prove their relevancy? SECRETARY POWELL: By challenging the UN to prove its relevance. In 16 resolutions, multiple conditions have not been met. Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz saying one thing one day, something else the other day, essentially humiliating the UN by the way in which Iraq has responded to the demands of the United Nations. And what the President said, if the UN is to be relevant, especially in a case like this, the UN has to meet its responsibilities, step up to the challenge that has been presented to it by Iraqi intransigence and violation of all these resolutions. MR. RUSSERT: How much time are you giving the United Nations Security Council to act? A few weeks? SECRETARY POWELL: I think it's a matter of weeks and not months, otherwise we'll just be dribbling this along. So it's a matter of weeks. Now, I don't want to be more precise than that because drafting UN resolutions is not one of the easiest things in the world to do, and then get the necessary votes for it. MR. RUSSERT: And in the resolution, how much time would Saddam Hussein have to comply with the demand to readmit inspectors? SECRETARY POWELL: This is something we'll have to discuss within the Security Council, but it too will be a relatively short timeline. MR. RUSSERT: Weeks? SECRETARY POWELL: Well, we'll see. I don't want to nail myself down yet. But you can be sure that we will go in with a negotiating position that it should be a very short period of time. There isn't a need for a long period of time. The Iraqi regime, Saddam Hussein, knows what he has to do. It's been out there for years. So we don't need to give him a lot of time because we're not entering into a negotiation. What we're really looking for, more than anything else: Are the Iraqis going to make a strategic choice right now to do something other than what they have been doing? The issue isn't so much inspectors, no inspectors, ultimatums, no ultimatums. The question is, are the Iraqis finally going to obey international law? And if they are, it's one issue. If they're not, then the UN has to be prepared to act, in our judgment. MR. RUSSERT: If and when the inspectors get back in, no negotiations on the ground -- SECRETARY POWELL: There can be no further negotiations, and it can't be an inspection regime of the kind we saw run aground in 1998. Dr. Hans Blix, who is the head of UNMOVIC, the inspection team, has made it clear that he does not want to go back in and start negotiating at different sites and palaces and all that kind of nonsense. All of that has to be cleaned up. It has to be anytime, anyplace, with any person who might have knowledge of these weapons of mass destruction activities, if we get back to an inspection regime. I don't know if we will or we won't. But it has to be tough and it cannot be some sort of haggling operation with the Iraqis. They've had their chance, and we see what happens when they are allowed to participate in that kind of negotiation. MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe Saddam Hussein would bring the inspectors back? SECRETARY POWELL: I don't know. I'm not going to predict. I don't know. The UN should test that proposition and be prepared to act if he says no. MR. RUSSERT: If, in fact, he did allow the inspectors to come back in and he did cooperate, could we have disarmament without regime change? SECRETARY POWELL: The fundamental issue that got us to the regime change policy was not -- disarmament certainly was number one, but there are a number of other elements in these UN resolutions: oppression of minorities, returning of Kuwaiti prisoners and other prisoners to include accounting for an American pilot who was lost. There are many other conditions that would also have to be looked at, and that might be the subject of yet another resolution. But I think if we got to that point where reasonable people could say we're disarmed -- and I'm not sure it's just inspectors alone that can make that determination -- we'll have to see where we are at that point. MR. RUSSERT: So Saddam Hussein could save himself by disarming? SECRETARY POWELL: I am not going to go that far. Our policy remains regime change. Why? Because we saw in 1997 and 1998 under the previous administration that Saddam Hussein was essentially disregarding the instructions of the United Nations, disregarding his obligations, and it seemed the only way to make sure that the UN would be obeyed would be regime change, to change the regime. That still remains US policy, and we will see what the UN effort is able to do. The President retains all of his options to act in a way that he believes is appropriate to defend US interests and the interests of our friends and allies. So even though we are now working closely with the UN, the President went up there to deliver a declaration of purpose, not a declaration of war; but at the same time, he retains all of his options as President of the United States to do what he thinks is necessary to defend us. MR. RUSSERT: Many Democrats are asking, why has this issue been focused on so dramatically just 60 days before the mid-term elections? Why not six months ago? Why not six months from now? What is the clear and present and imminent danger that Saddam Hussein poses toward the United States that demands that it be raised now? SECRETARY POWELL: We didn't just raise it now. We have been working on this issue since this administration came into office. One of the first things we set about doing was to keep the sanctions regime from falling apart. When we came into office, that sanctions regime that was providing some level of containment on the Iraqi regime was falling apart. We worked for a year, saved the sanctions and made it a more sensible system that does not punish the Iraqi people. So we have been working this for a long time. It has no relationship to any mid-term election coming up. What makes it imminent, as opposed to next year being more imminent or last year perhaps being imminent? The fact of the matter is what has not changed is his intention, his intention to continue moving in the direction of enhancing his ability to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction. Waiting for another year will not cause that intention to be any greater or less. The intention is there. He has demonstrated it. MR. RUSSERT: And we can afford a war in Afghanistan and a war in Iraq? SECRETARY POWELL: Well, we are not talking about a war yet. The President has reserved all his options; but I am confident that, should it be necessary to undertake military action elsewhere in the world, we can do it at the same time that we are continuing the campaign in Afghanistan. MR. RUSSERT: And if we toppled Saddam Hussein, who would run Iraq? SECRETARY POWELL: If the Iraqi regime were to leave the scene in one manner or another, then that would be a major issue for the international community: how the international community could help the people of Iraq put in place a government that is more representative of the people than the current government is, and at the same time keep the country intact. This is a country that has many, many benefits and has many advantages compared to other developing countries. It has oil. It has an educated population. There is a great deal of potential. If only the wealth of this country had been used for good purposes rather than evil purposes over the last 20 years, Iraq could have been an island of stability in rather a destabilized area. And let's hope that might be the outcome regardless of how Saddam Hussein ultimately passes from the scene. MR. RUSSERT: On September 11, former President Clinton appeared on the David Letterman show and offered some words of advice -- let me show you what they were -- about the war: "You're looking at a couple of weeks of bombing, and then I'd be astonished if this campaign took more than a week. Astonished." Do you agree with that? SECRETARY POWELL: Oh, I'm not going to comment on that. I will let our military authorities and Secretary Rumsfeld in due course comment on what the nature of any campaign might be. We're not talking about war right now. We're talking about the declaration of purpose that the President put before the United Nations the other day. He retains his options, and I can assure you that my colleagues in the Pentagon -- whom I know very well and I know exactly what they are doing right now -- will put together a plan, if it ever comes to a war, that will try to resolve it as quickly and as decisively as possible. MR. RUSSERT: Ken Adelman, who worked in a former Republican administration, said it would be a "cakewalk." SECRETARY POWELL: You know, there are a lot of people who think combat is going to be a cakewalk; but it seems to me you'd better let the military leaders who have to actually run this campaign decide how to conduct such a campaign, if such a campaign is necessary. MR. RUSSERT: One concern that was raised is if we begin to build up for a military operation, would Saddam Hussein try his own preemptive strike? Again, here's President Clinton: "But if he's got these stocks of chemical and biological weapons, and if he knows he's toast, don't you think he'll use what he can and give away what he can't to people who will be using them on us for years to come so he can have the last laugh?" Would we, in effect, put Saddam in a position where he would use his chemical and biological weapons before we had a chance to be ready? SECRETARY POWELL: These are all hypotheticals, which are charming to talk about in late night talk shows; but I think that in the serious shows, like this morning, we should not just wildly speculate about what he might or might not do. We know what capability he has, and you can be sure that all that has been factored into whatever planning we are doing now. MR. RUSSERT: But in the Persian Gulf War, which you were very much involved in, Israel was patient. Even though SCUD missiles went into Israel, they held back. Will you expect Prime Minister Sharon to withstand an Iraqi attack and not join in the war effort? SECRETARY POWELL: Right now, there is not a war underway, and the President has not decided whether or not military action -- unilaterally on the part of the United States or with other willing nations -- will be required or not. But I can assure you that if we ever start down this road, we will be in the closest consultation with all of our friends in the region, to include Israel. MR. RUSSERT: Senator Bob Graham, Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said something last week that caught a lot of attention. Let me show you: "We have recently let Saddam Hussein know what the consequences of his use of weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological, or, if and when he acquires it, nuclear -- against any of his neighbors, and that would be annihilation. That is what has been conveyed to Baghdad. And that, according to our best information, is what Saddam Hussein expects if he were to use a weapon of mass destruction." Can you confirm that? SECRETARY POWELL: I have no idea what the Senator is referring to. I'll have to chat with him about it. MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe and agree with something that Brent Scowcroft said way back in August? And I'll show you: "Let's suppose we launch an attack on Saddam Hussein tomorrow. I think we could have an explosion in the Middle East, and thus destroy the war on terrorism." SECRETARY POWELL: I don't think it will destroy the war on terrorism if it was necessary to act in Iraq. I think that the Middle East region is quite volatile right now and obviously we would have to take into consideration the impact of a conflict in Iraq. But there is another way of looking at it as well; and that is if you were able to get rid of this regime, if this regime were to go, you might find all kinds of new possibilities and opportunities in the Middle East as a result of a more stable, non-threatening regime in Baghdad. MR. RUSSERT: There were reports, however, that you called General Scowcroft after those comments and thanked him for them. SECRETARY POWELL: I talk to General Scowcroft constantly; he is a good friend of mine. And I talk to many other people on a regular basis. I try to keep as informed about the different points of view out there as I can. I think it's the duty of a former National Security Advisor, as well as a sitting Secretary of State, to talk to former National Security Advisors and former Secretaries of State of all persuasions. MR. RUSSERT: That was very diplomatic. SECRETARY POWELL: Thank you. (Laughter.) MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to Iran and North Korea. Why aren't they also targets of the United States -- either resolutions to get rid of weapons of mass destruction, with a threat of military action if need be? SECRETARY POWELL: The President has clearly stated that there are problems with both of these regimes, and they are all on what he defined as the "Axis of Evil." And we are working both accounts in different ways. We don't think they present quite the real and present danger, and neither one of them is in flagrant disregard of 10 years' worth of UN resolutions. We have to remember Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, Iraq used chemical weapons against its own people. I think this regime really stands in first place with respect to something that has to be dealt with. We are in contact with the North Koreans. They understand the issues that we have with them. The President also said we're willing to talk to you anytime, anyplace, to see if it's not possible to change the nature of this regime. And frankly, our strong diplomatic position, our hard position, seems to be having some effect because we have seen some changes in North Korean attitudes and behavior recently, some other things that are not so encouraging. So we'll just keep pursuing that. And we also sense that there is a churning taking place in Iran. There seem to be different factions debating what the future of that nation should be, the nature of its political system in the future, the nature of its economic system and whether they get a whole lot out of trying to develop weapons of mass destruction, or whether that just continues to push them in a corner of being a pariah on the face of the earth. So the Iranians are going through a bit of dialogue over this, and we'll watch it and see how it develops. MR. RUSSERT: But we know the Iranians are harboring al-Qaida terrorists, and the President said we would not allow that. North Korea -- your Under Secretary of State John Bolton went to Korea and said North Korea is armed to the teeth, including weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles; they're the foremost vendor of missile technology in the world. SECRETARY POWELL: Yes, and that's why they will have to change those attitudes or change those policies, or they will continue to sink deeper and deeper into a swamp out of which they won't be able to get. They can't feed their own people, they don't have an economy that's functioning, and they are slowly falling apart. That's why I think they're starting to find new ways to engage with us. And we'll see whether there is seriousness of purpose in their efforts and whether or not there is a way to get them out of this business of weapons proliferation. We'll just have to wait and see; but that's why the President put them on the "Axis of Evil," because they are pursuing these sorts of things. MR. RUSSERT: Where in international law does it provide that the United States of America has the right to change the government or topple the government of an independent sovereign country? SECRETARY POWELL: I think we can find in international law on the inherent right of self-defense within the UN Charter authority, if such authority is needed. The President has a responsibility to defend the people of the United States under our Constitution. It's one of the principal responsibilities of a Commander-in-Chief and of the President of the United States. MR. RUSSERT: Are you concerned that a country like China would say, well, Taiwan represents a terrorist threat; we're going to take it out? SECRETARY POWELL: I don't see that as a link or that anything that might happen in Iraq would necessarily drive a similar situation elsewhere in the world. Obviously we would have to watch that. What makes this different are these resolutions. What makes this different is 11 years of violation. And the UN every year notes these violations and doesn't do anything about it. So how relevant can the UN be if it does not take some kind of action in the face of this kind of violation and intransigence? MR. RUSSERT: Someone you know well, General Anthony Zinni, who works as a special assistant, special envoy, for you sometimes, had this to say: "It's pretty interesting that all the generals see a possible war with Iraq the same way, and all the others who have never fired a shot are hot to go to war, see it another way." SECRETARY POWELL: No sensible person wants to go to war if war can be avoided. I'll never step back from that statement and that position. But sometimes war cannot be avoided, and when it cannot be avoided, then do it and do it well. I think that's what Tony was saying, and Tony is one of the great heroes in my book. He is one heck of a Marine. He's done a great job for his nation over many years, and he speaks straight and candidly and has strong feelings about this. MR. RUSSERT: Is there reluctance at the Pentagon to go to war with Iraq? SECRETARY POWELL: I won't comment on the Pentagon. My interaction with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and with General Tommy Franks and all of our meetings suggests to me that they are doing the right kind of military planning, the kind of planning one would expect them to be doing. You can be sure that whatever they are doing, they are presenting the President all of his options; and they are prepared to execute the spirit of the President's decision, whatever they are called upon to do. MR. RUSSERT: There are some in the administration who argue that it was not necessary to go to Congress for authorization, it was not necessary to go to the United Nations for a Security Council resolution, it was not necessary to seek inspections to return one more time. It appears the President has now adopted those three positions. Is that a victory for Colin Powell within the administration? SECRETARY POWELL: Colin Powell doesn't worry about victories and losses. All I care about is do I give the President my best advice and the best information upon which he can make a decision. In this instance, he weighed all the advice he was getting, he looked at all of the options available to him; and he decided that whether he needed the legal authority or not, it was the right thing to do, the correct thing to do, to bring the Congress of the United States into this in consultation and ask them to pass a resolution in due course. And it'll be in the near future. The President believes strongly that we ought to try to get a resolution from Congress before they adjourn. And that's the right way to do it. The President saw that clearly. The President also recognized, and we had a number of conversations about this, all of the President's advisors discussing this issue, that because this was a clear violation of UN resolutions -- and nobody can argue about this. You can argue about whether he is one day or one year away from having a nuclear weapon, but you cannot argue about the fact that he has the intention of acquiring such technology, and you cannot argue about the fact that he is in violation of these resolutions. This is not arguable. And so the President decided it was the right thing to do to take this problem back to the international community from where it originated. That's exactly what he has done. I think it was a very "statesman" speech that he gave the other day, and all of us were solidly behind everything that was in that speech. MR. RUSSERT: We'll be watching. General Powell, thanks for joining us. (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 |
|
|
|
