11 October 2002
Powell Says Pressure Needed to Get Saddam to Disarm
("There should be little optimism" Saddam will comply with U.N., he
says) (1170)
The only way to get Iraq's Saddam Hussein to disarm will be to
confront him with consequences if he fails to do so, says Secretary of
State Colin Powell.
Powell was interviewed on National Public Radio October 11 following
the U.S. Congress' approval of a resolution authorizing the president
to take military action if needed to disarm Iraq. Powell said approval
of the U.S. resolution should help him win support in the United
Nations Security Council for a strong resolution there to put pressure
on Saddam Hussein.
"[W]e're not going to the U.N. to look for a reason to go to war," he
said. "We're going to the U.N. to look for a way of disarming this
very dangerous regime."
Powell said the United States will continue to formulate military
plans, and to examine military options in the case that Saddam Hussein
refuses to comply with U.N. disarmament demands. "There should be
little optimism that he is going to comply," Powell said. "His record
is very bad. And we hope he will comply, but I am also sure he will
not comply if he doesn't believe that there is a likelihood he will be
made to comply. And that is why it is so important that we not show
weakness at this time and the international community comes together."
Following is a transcript of Powell's interview:
(begin transcript)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
INTERVIEW OF SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN L. POWELL BY ROBERT SIEGEL OF
NPR'S ALL THINGS CONSIDERED
October 11, 2002
Washington, D.C.
QUESTION: Joining us now is the American diplomat in chief, Secretary
of State Colin Powel. Welcome, Mr. Secretary.
SECRETARY POWELL: Good evening. How are you?
QUESTION: I would like to ask you first, Senator John Warner of
Virginia, among many others, said last night of the Iraq resolution
that passed, "It is an act to declare war, to put in place the tools
for our President, our Secretary of State, to get the strongest
possible resolution in the United Nations." Could you tell us, if
there is not a strong resolution agreed to by all the permanent
members of the U.N., all those with veto power, would that alter U.S.
plans to proceed with military action against Iraq?
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, our plans right now are to work with the
United Nations to get a strong resolution with as many votes for it as
possible in order to put pressure on Saddam Hussein to disarm. And
we're not going to the U.N. to look for a reason to go to war. We're
going to the U.N. to look for a way of disarming this very dangerous
regime. But the only way that will work is if there are consequences
for his failure to disarm, his failure to act. And the Congressional
resolution that passed last night shows unity of purpose and unity of
effort within the American Government, and that will help me convey to
my colleagues at the Security Council that this is time for them to
show the same kind of unity.
QUESTION: Secretary General Kofi Annan said today he thinks it's
unlikely that the Security Council would back a single resolution
calling for both tighter arms inspections and also authorizing a
military strike. If the U.S. had to settle for a two-stage resolution,
would it be worth deferring plans, military plans, in order to
increase the chance of international support for an attack later on?
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, we still think one resolution is better and I
have the greatest respect for Kofi Annan and his views, but in this
case I still think one resolution is better for the simple reason is
that it doesn't give Iraq an opportunity to look at what's happening
in the Security Council and say, "well, you know, I can still
frustrate them because it will force them to take another vote on this
issue," and so I still believe, and the American position is that we
should try to get it all in one resolution.
QUESTION: But if you can't get it --
SECRETARY POWELL: -- but you know, it is a Security Council of 15
nations, so I am in consultation with other members of the Security
Council trying to take their views into account and see if there's not
a way to bridge this.
QUESTION: And it is, in fact, compromising U.S. plans one element of a
possible bridge?
SECRETARY POWELL: Our plans are that we have to continue with our
military planning and examining military options in the case that
Saddam Hussein once again refuses to comply with the new resolution.
There should be little optimism that he is going to comply. His record
is very bad. And we hope he will comply, but I am also sure he will
not comply if he doesn't believe that there is a likelihood he will be
made to comply. And that is why it is so important that we not show
weakness at this time and the international community comes together.
The best way to avoid war is for us to be strong now, both here in the
United States and within the United Nations, in order to show that the
will of the international community must be obeyed.
QUESTION: The New York Times reports today on administration plans for
a post-Saddam Iraq, a post-war Iraq, and it sounds a lot like post-war
Japan or Germany half a century ago. Should Americans assume that if
we go to war against Iraq there will be U.S. Forces based there for
several years and that an American general will govern there the way
McArthur did in Japan?
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, I think what the American people should
realize is that should it come to that and the President hope is does
not come to that, but should it come to that, we would have an
obligation, really, to put in place a better regime. And we are
obviously doing contingency planning, and there are lots of different
models from history that one could look at: Japan, Germany, but I
wouldn't say that anything has been settled upon even though The New
York Times' story reflected one particular model.
QUESTION: But would going to war assume that we would be going to base
troops there for some time into the future?
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, if you're going to war, obviously troops are
going to a theater and to a country and in the immediate aftermath of
such a conflict, there would have to be a need for some presence until
such time as you can put in place a better system. I mean, the United
States has done this many times in the course of the last 50 or 60
years and we always try to get out as quickly as we can once we have
reestablished peace, put in place a stable system, it is never our
intention to go and stay in a place and to impose our will by the
presence of our military forces.
QUESTION: Secretary Powell, 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 |
|
|
|
