18 September 2002
U.S. Consulting with Security Council on Iraq Resolution
(State's Boucher says Iraq must allow unrestricted weapons inspections) (3340) The United States has begun consultations at the United Nations on a resolution addressing Iraq's past violations of its UN obligations, what Iraq would have to do to correct its violations, and consequences if Iraq does not correct them, State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher said. "We have made clear from the start, the Secretary of State has, that Iraq's defiance of the United Nations, Iraq's failure to live up to a whole series of obligations, was an issue that the United States felt and that, frankly, the Secretary General felt the Security Council needed to face," Boucher said, briefing reporters at the State Department September 18. The spokesman added that the United States insists that Iraq allow unrestricted inspections, without the option to "pick and choose" how it will comply with the UN resolution. Boucher noted that Iraq has a history of obstructing UN weapons inspectors. "We've reviewed the history a bit of Iraq's acceptance of inspections without conditions, and regrettably, it seems that every time Iraq accepts inspections without conditions, that we find them shooting, refusing, or otherwise throwing out inspectors within a period of one to six months. Sometimes it took them 18 months," Boucher said. The spokesman said the head of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission Hans Blix plans to brief the Security Council September 19 as part of the effort to produce a resolution. Following are excerpts from Boucher's September 18 briefing, containing his comments about Iraq: (begin excerpt) Now, as far as Iraq goes, I think the situation is as we described it after the President's speech. We said that we would begin consultations immediately with other members of the Council on the resolution. We began those consultations. We are continuing to discuss new resolutions with the other -- some of the other members of the Council. We haven't circulated anything to everybody yet. We're discussing with some of them possible language for a resolution. That's what we said we would do and that's what we are doing. And we are moving forward with them to make sure that the Council specifies what Iraq has to do to demonstrate its willingness to comply with disarmament. It's not for Iraq to pick and choose some provisions of some resolutions and say it may or may not comply; it's for the Council to say what Iraq has to do. And Iraq has used any number of tools in the -- I mean the Council has used a number of different tools in the past to try to ascertain Iraq's compliance with its disarmament obligations, and it's for the Council to specify which tools and which means need to be used this time. Second of all, it's for the Council to specify what "inspections without conditions" means. Clearly, the view of many Council members that you've heard is it can't be like it was in the past. A number of the members of the Council that we talked to and friends of Iraq or people who talk to Iraq -- I don't want to accuse anybody of being friends with the Iraqi regime, but people who talk to Iraq told us over the last several days that they were, in fact, telling Iraq that Iraq had to comply, that Iraq had to allow unconditional, unfettered sorts of inspections. And so there is a lot of pressure on Iraq; there has been and will continue to be. Our view is that unconditional inspections, inspections without conditions means that the inspectors can go anywhere anytime, see anyone, inspect anything, at the time or place of the inspectors' choosing. We made clear it has to be different and it's for the Council to specify -- Security Council -- to specify how it should be different. Let me say one more thing about this. We've reviewed the history a bit of Iraq's acceptance of inspections without conditions, and regrettably, it seems that every time Iraq accepts inspections without conditions that we find them shooting, refusing or otherwise throwing out inspectors within a period of one to six months. Sometimes it took them 18 months. In May of 1991, Iraq accepted inspections without delay or hindrance. That was one month before Iraqi personnel started shooting at inspectors who were approaching their vehicles. Iraq accepted inspections unconditionally in October 1991. That was the month that they then refused to comply with Security Council Resolution 715. A year later, Iraq was refusing to destroy materials that had been found in proscribed programs, and then nine months after the unconditional acceptance, at that point then came the standoff in the parking lot of the Ministry of Agriculture in June of 1992. Iraq accepted unconditional inspections again in November 1993 and in October of 1994. That's 18 months before refusing UN teams access to sites that were designated for inspections. Iraq signed a memorandum accepting inspections that would be "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted," in February of 1998. That was only six months before the Iraqi leadership and the Ba'ath Party refused any further cooperation, thus halting inspections indefinitely. So I think our view is very firmly that we will have to define in the Security Council what Iraq needs to do to comply with its obligations. We will have to make clear that "without conditions" means without conditions, and it's for Iraq to comply with that, not for Iraq to go cherry-picking on resolutions. QUESTION: A quick follow-up. Just a few days ago, the US hadn't rule out, we were told by a senior official at a briefing at the UN, a two-step process, and the French typically -- the French had a typical two-step process in mind. Well, the first step is inspection. I guess what I'm asking -- well, I know what I'm asking you, but I'm asking you if that's still being entertained. MR. BOUCHER: First of all, -- QUESTION: Because you said resolutions, by the way. MR. BOUCHER: By the way, the President said resolutions in his speech. QUESTION: Right. But I'm wondering, but the President has since said -- MR. BOUCHER: Slow down, slow down -- QUESTION: -- that inspections is not the point, disarmament is. MR. BOUCHER: Slow down. Let's correct the things that are wrong, and then I'll tell you what the things are that are right. QUESTION: Okay. MR. BOUCHER: The French proposal, as I remember reading it, and as the French have talked about it, is for two resolutions. Okay? Not necessarily for inspections first and then a resolution. Okay? Second of all, the Security Council in the past, the inspectors, have used a variety of tools to try to ascertain whether Iraq was complying or not. They've used required declarations, they've required disclosures, they've talked to people, they've talked to people outside, they've exchanged information, they've done inspections themselves, they've installed monitoring equipment. There have been a whole variety of different ways used, and we would think that the inspectors would use a variety of ways. But remember, disarmament of weapons of mass destruction is one piece of Iraq's obligations. While we were in New York, there were discussions of how these other pieces might be handled. And that's another possibility for a separate resolution or in the resolution. So there are various ways of handling this, all of which are being discussed by Security Council members now. What are the elements to ascertain disarmament? How do we insist on the other requirements? And I think also, once the Council has specified what it will take Iraq to get out of its breach of previous resolutions, does the Council at this point -- what does the Council at this point say about the consequences if it does not do so? So those elements are all under discussion. And yes, the elements are all under discussion in New York, as we said they would be by this time. There are some various pieces of language that are under discussion with some delegations in New York, as we said they would be at this time. And we're proceeding down the road to have the Council specify what Iraq has to do. Howard. QUESTION: I realize, Richard, that you'd like to pretend the Ivanov fight didn't happen yesterday, but it did, and he said explicitly -- MR. BOUCHER: I'm not pretending. I'm just not getting so excited as maybe you are. QUESTION: Well, okay. I'm trying to contain my excitement. MR. BOUCHER: Good. QUESTION: He said explicitly several times that what the Iraqis have done now is enough, there's no necessity for a new resolution, the inspections should proceed under the old rules; and in six months time, after they've done some work, then we can assess where things are at. How are you going to move the Russians off that position? MR. BOUCHER: I think first of all, he said a number of things yesterday. He was talking about resolutions. He even, I think, talked about all necessary means if the Iraqis don't comply. These are all elements that need to be under discussion, and they are under discussion with the Russians, among others. The Secretary has been in touch with various Security Council members. He talks frequently with Foreign Secretary Straw. He's talked with the French Foreign Minister a number of times, keeps in touch with Kofi Annan. He's talked to Ivanov several times. So, you know, they had some conversations around the Quartet meeting yesterday. So this is an ongoing process of working with other delegations, both at the Secretary's level and as well as our delegations in New York, to come up with what belongs in a resolution. So I think you need to look at what people said. You've seen a lot of initial reactions from various people. Those are their initial reactions. We're working through this with other members of the Council. But I come back to say what we're doing is what we said we would be doing, and what we're doing with other delegations right now is what we said we would be doing with other delegations right now. So we're working this through and we're getting to the point where the Council can be specifying what it wants, and not accept the Iraqi letter as the be-all and end-all of what Iraq has to do. QUESTION: I would just follow up. The Russian perception is clearly that a new resolution is not necessary, that old rules are laid out, and that they should just let things proceed now. And he specifically mentioned the six-month timetable. MR. BOUCHER: First of all, we have always said that the Iraqi obligations are already clear in many, many resolutions, including the obligation on inspections. So that's correct to say that it's not necessary to have a new resolution for the inspectors to go. But on the other hand, we think it's important for the Council to specify what it means at this juncture. You all were asking us two days ago, "Why do you need a new resolution if all this stuff is already clear?" The same answer applies: We think it's important for the Council to specify what it wants at this juncture to bring Iraq into compliance. I remind you, we'll be talking to all these people not only the way we have, on the phone and etcetera, but the Russians come to town tomorrow. We'll be having meetings with them and the Russian Defense Minister and Secretary Rumsfeld here on Friday. Those are on the Treaty of Moscow and the strategic framework issues, but obviously we'll have a chance to continue our discussions with them, as we do with other Security Council members. Terri. QUESTION: There was a Security Council meeting this morning to discuss some things that even their schedule said would include Iraq and the inspections. Can you tell us if anything's moved as a result of this meeting? And can you honestly say that any delegation other than the British are working with you on language at this point? MR. BOUCHER: We are talking about elements of resolution and some language with other delegations as well, talking about elements with a broader group and the specific language. So we're proceeding on that. I don't know exactly what the discussion was this morning for the Security Council -- they meet all the time -- but I think there's a briefing by Hans Blix tomorrow afternoon as part of the effort to come up with a resolution. We'll talk to him. The Security Council will talk to him about inspectors tomorrow afternoon, I'm told. I don't have anything on meetings today, but clearly the Perm Reps in New York, Permanent Representatives, are all in touch with each other and see each other on these issues. QUESTION: Did the Secretary get a briefing from Blix's office after yesterday's meeting with the Iraqis? Or did all the Security Council members -- MR. BOUCHER: There wasn't a formal briefing. The Secretary was back in Washington by the time that occurred. QUESTION: Right. But did he hear about it? MR. BOUCHER: I think people have -- we've had some reporting on it, but my understanding is that this meeting tomorrow afternoon is to talk to Blix about inspections and what sort of language we could put in a resolution, but also to hear from him on his contacts. John. I'll back come up here. QUESTION: I've got a couple on the inspectors, teasing out the implications of what you're saying. Is it the clear US position now that you want inspectors in Iraq? Dr. Rice said on Sunday you weren't sure about it at that stage. MR. BOUCHER: We see inspections as one of the tools that the Council can use to try to ascertain, try to determine, whether Iraq intends to comply with its obligations. Inspections are one of the tools to use to find out if Iraq is truly and finally ready to abide by these obligations. As I pointed out, the Council has used a number of different tools in the past, including this one, and we think at this point it is proper for the Council to specify what it wants, what it wants to see Iraq do. Inspections could be one of those. QUESTION: And is it your clear position that you want a new resolution before any inspectors go? Because the previous resolutions, I think, said let the inspectors in immediately. You say wait till we've got the resolution? MR. BOUCHER: I don't have a specific position on that. We'll have to see on the timing of all this and how it can work. A clearer position is that if there are inspections, any inspections need to be done in a really unfettered manner. They need to be different than before. They need to be able to go anywhere, anytime, anyplace, talk to anyone they need, to do their job. Betsy. QUESTION: How confident are you that you will get a resolution before the inspectors go in? MR. BOUCHER: Well, I don't have the position of whether we need one before the inspectors go. I will have to check on that. But we are talking to other members of the Council about a resolution. We're engaged on that. I don't see anything that changes that course. As I said, you've seen a lot of initial reactions, but as Council members sit down and look at the history of this, look at what's needed, look at what the Council has to do -- remember, both the President of the United States and the Secretary General called on the Security Council to face up to its responsibilities. That situation hasn't changed, and we think that Council members will face up to those responsibilities and take the matter in its hands to tell Iraq what Iraq needs to do to comply. ....... QUESTION: Can I try Iraq again? You've mentioned, almost in passing, that there are other issues with Iraq which might be dealt with in resolutions. And of course, we remember the piece, the white paper, or whatever -- The Decade of Deception -- I forget the title exactly. But it cited several US allegations, mistreatment of people, illicit economic activity. MR. BOUCHER: Facts. We call them facts, Barry, not allegations. QUESTION: Well, they are facts, but they would argue, I guess, that they are allegations. But in any event, are you suggesting that all of these might, in one way or another, in the US view, be contained in resolutions? And if so, will they contain grave consequences of provisions? In other words, are you trying to lay the groundwork for action against Iraq for any one of a half dozen or so factual or claimed violations? MR. BOUCHER: We have make clear from the start, the Secretary of State has, that Iraq's defiance of the United Nations, Iraq's failure to live up to a whole series of obligations, was an issue that the United States felt and that, frankly, the Secretary General felt the Security Council needed to face. How the Council decides to act on the various provisions that Iraq is violating, we will have to decide in terms of discussing the resolution. The resolution, as we have described it, that we seek is one that would identify the violations by Iraq, is one that would specify what Iraq had to do to correct those violations, and third that would specify that there would be consequences should Iraq not correct those. We've talked about resolution or resolutions. You may find that some of these things are dealt with in that resolution, whereas others might be dealt with elsewhere. Those kind of issues are still under discussion. Terri. QUESTION: Apparently, there's some grumbling that Kofi came out too soon with the Iraqi letter and was too quick to welcome it. And I believe there were even allegations by the White House that the media got the letter from Iraq before it was even passed to the members of the Security Council. Is that true, as you understand it, and have you heard anything else? MR. BOUCHER: I don't know if that's true or not. You know, I'll go get my copy, you can get your copy and we'll see what the fax machines say on the time of transmission. QUESTION: Well, I got these from you. (Laughter.) MR. BOUCHER: Oh. Well, then. QUESTION: Have you heard that kind of grumbling, that kind of dissatisfaction, and that perhaps he's being too optimistic about it? MR. BOUCHER: No. I mean, let's all remember, you know, anybody that's examined Iraq's behavior in the past was not surprised that we had this kind of move by Iraq. You know, did we know it was going to be Tuesday? No. But everybody knew that as the Council showed unanimity from the President's speech, as the pressure built on Iraq, not only from members of the Council responding to the President's speech, but members of the Arab world and other nations responding to the President's speech, the pressure grew on Iraq, the threat of force was out there -- only under those circumstances have we ever seen Iraq take any steps in the past -- and as in the past, under those circumstances, Iraq came forward with something that appeared to address at least one of the issues that was important to many members. And therefore, Iraq's behavior is anticipated. The reaction from people who saw one of their key issues being addressed was anticipated as well. But the fact is, as we sit down and work through the obligations of Iraq, as we sit down and work through the responsibilities of the Security Council, and as we sit down and work through what it will really take for Iraq to demonstrate that this time is different, that this time they do intend to comply, I think you'll find that we all in the Security Council want to face up to those responsibilities and have the Security Council tell Iraq what it has to do, and not Iraq pick and choose what it might or might not do. (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 |
|
|
|
