Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

DATE=9/16/02

TYPE=INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

TITLE=MILHOLLIN / IRAQ

NUMBER=3-345

BYLINE=REBECCA WARD

DATELINE=WASHINGTON

INTERNET=

///// AVAILABLE IN DALET UNDER SOD/ENGLISH NEWS NOW INTERVIEWS IN THE FOLDER FOR TODAY OR YESTERDAY /////

HOST: On Friday, the Bush administration once again called for a tough, new U-N resolution that would give Iraq a deadline of days or weeks to allow the readmission of weapons inspectors. White House spokesman Ari Fleisher says Iraq's refusal to allow the unconditional return of U-N weapons inspectors proves the Baghdad government has something to hide. But a report in the Washington Post newspaper quotes some experts as questioning whether the White House has produced any new evidence in its assessment of Iraq's weapons program.

Gary Milhollin (mill-hahl-in) is a nuclear weapons expert and director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control here in Washington. He is one of the experts quoted in the Washington Post. But speaking to News Now's Rebecca Ward, Mr. Milhollin says the Iraqi leader's weapons programs are clearly a threat to the world.

MR. MILHOLIN: He has defied the U-N in order to keep them. He could have ended the debate about what to do about them at any time during the last 10-years by simply giving up his weapons programs, but he has not done that. So now the question is, do we act preemptively or not?

MS. WARD: And the answer would be?

MR. MILHOLIN: You want me to answer that question?

MS. WARD: Yes.

MR. MILHOLIN: I think that it is a political question really. We have different groups of people looking at the same evidence and coming to different conclusions. The evidence is that Saddam has a dedicated program for making weapons of mass destruction. He appears to be continuing to do it. He is refusing to give them up. And the question is, do we wait to be attacked, which may happen, or do we take preemptive action and take the risk that things will get worse in Iraq, instead of better, after a war? That is something that has a great deal of uncertainty on both sides, and which is a question that now the public, the United States, has to answer.

MS. WARD: The Bush administration would likely argue that there has been at least four-years since the weapons inspectors have gone into Iraq, so diplomacy has not worked insofar as getting Saddam Hussein to relinquish his weapons program. So what would be the likely next step?

MR. MILHOLIN: The next step has to be some kind of an ultimatum given by the U.N. to Saddam Hussein, which will require him, I think, to submit immediately to unconditional U-N inspections. And as a result of those inspections, we will see whether Saddam is ready to give up his weapons programs or not.

MS. WARD: And what if he does not allow weapons inspectors back in?

MR. MILHOLIN: If he does not allow weapons inspectors to return, then we have a case where the U.N. has pronounced itself, Saddam has defied those pronouncements, and then the U.N. in order to maintain any credibility, has to do something.

MS. WARD: So military action at that point would be a likely step?

MR. MILHOLIN: I think at that point a military action would be unavoidable. You do not throw down the gauntlet, give someone an ultimatum, and then not react when the person fails to comply.

MS. WARD: So your point is the ultimatum needs to be made before there is any talk of military action?

MR. MILHOLIN: I think that we have a curious situation where, if the United States wasn't threatening military action, the U.N. probably would not do anything. But because we are threatening to do this unilaterally unless the U.N. acts, I think that is going to motivate the U-N to basically hand Saddam Hussein an ultimatum. At that point, I think we have the momentum built for military action, unless Saddam reacts to the ultimatum positively.

MS. WARD: But what if they do not? What if there is too much opposition to even that kind of strong language in the United Nations? What does the United States and its allies, such as Britain, do in that case?

MR. MILHOLIN: It seems to me that if the United States and its British ally are unable to negotiate with other members of the U.N. a satisfactory communication to Saddam Hussein, then the United States faces the prospect of going alone into Iraq, or with its ally Britain. And since President Bush has announced to the world that that is what we will do, it seems to me that at that point military action becomes inevitable.

MS. WARD: So, the bottom line, is there any way to avoid a confrontation with Iraq?

MR. MILHOLIN: I think what we are looking at here are alternatives, none of which are very attractive. Going to war now has tremendous uncertainties and has the possibility of high casualties, or at least significant casualties. And not going to war means that we will just continue to allow a threat to increase, and, at some point, if we have to deal with Saddam Hussein militarily down the road, it is going to be more difficult because he is going to be better armed. So neither of these options are good. The question is, which one is least attractive? And that's the dilemma we're in.

If this were an easy thing to answer, then we would not be having a debate.

HOST: Gary Milhollin is a nuclear weapons expert and Director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control here in Washington.

NEB/RW/RAE