• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

22 October 2002

Boucher Says Iraq Resolution Talks "Messy" But Moving Forward

(Says if Iraq complies with U.N., it has "nothing to fear") (2670)
State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher characterized the current
discussions among the five permanent members of the U.N. Security
Council on the text of a resolution concerning Iraq as "messy" and
"complicated," but moving forward.
Speaking to reporters at the daily press briefing in Washington
October 22, Boucher said the United States has been willing to
accommodate some suggestions put forward by other Security Council
members, and has made some changes to the text.
However, he added, "the parameters of what we want remain intact:
identifying Iraq's violations, reinforcing UNMOVIC (U.N. Monitoring,
Verification and Inspection Commission) and IAEA's (International
Atomic Energy Agency) mandates on inspections and time lines, and
clarifying that there will be consequences for noncompliance. We
continue to listen to ideas about how to accomplish these goals. The
goals remain the same," said Boucher.
Though the process of reaching agreement on the text "may be messy,"
it "doesn't necessarily have to take a long time, if people bear down
and try to do it," he said.
When asked if a clear and strong resolution would lead to Iraqi
disarmament, the spokesman said the answer "is really up to Iraq. In
the end, it depends on Iraqi cooperation."
"If they're going to get rid of their weapons of mass destruction and
allow the inspectors to verify that, then Iraq should have nothing to
fear," said Boucher.
Boucher said the Bush administration supports the U.N. inspection team
led by Dr. Hans Blix and Dr. Mohamed el-Baradei, IAEA
director-general.
The United States, he said, had "tried to make sure that they have the
wherewithal, the support, the people, the capabilities that they need
to perform inspections and to have trained and good inspectors. So we
have, I think, done and will continue to do what we can," said
Boucher.
Following is an excerpt from the October 22 State Department briefing
containing Boucher's comments on Iraq:
(begin excerpt)
MR. BOUCHER: All right, let's talk about the resolution, and in that
context I'll talk about some of the phone calls the Secretary has been
making.
We have worked and we're continuing to work the resolution in New York
at the United Nations. We've circulated a draft text yesterday to the
Permanent 5 members of the Security Council. We've talked with them
again this morning. I'm not sure if that meeting is still going on or
not. And we expect to bring in the elected members of the Council, the
nonpermanent ten, into those kind of detailed discussions shortly.
We think these discussions are moving forward. As we've made clear,
the revised draft incorporates input from our Permanent 5 partners on
key elements, including revised and additional procedures for
inspections and follow-up in the Security Council should Iraq fail to
comply -- the issue of consequences.
The parameters of what we want remain intact: identifying Iraq's
violations, reinforcing UNMOVIC and IAEA's mandates on inspections,
timelines and clarifying that there will be consequences for
noncompliance.
We continue to listen to ideas about how to accomplish these goals.
The goals remain the same.
I'm not going to get into particular language at this point. We just
can't carry this process out in public. The President made clear last
night that we were trying diplomacy for one more time in order to
disarm Saddam Hussein peacefully. It needs to be a resolution that can
accomplish that goal.
We have also, I think, made clear all along that the clearer and the
stronger the resolution, the better chances of Iraqi compliance and
the less likelihood for Iraq to miscalculate in a tragic manner.
We have put forward a draft that we think reflects both our needs and
the comments and input that we've heard from other governments as
we've gone along. The resolution makes clear that Iraq is in material
breach of its Security Council obligations. This is something that the
Council has said in nine Security Council resolutions and presidential
statements. It makes clear that there should be serious consequences
for Iraq's failure, continued failure. That's something the Security
Council has said in 11 resolutions and presidential statements --
that's 11 in a combination of resolutions and statements that total
11.
The resolution provides specific improvements to the inspection regime
so we don't go back to the procedures that Iraq has used in the past
to lie and to cheat and to manipulate. And it provides for, as I said,
Council action, and it requires the inspectors to report immediately
any failures or interference that Iraq might put up in the face of the
inspections.
It's intended to be tough. As we've said, we think it's important for
the Council to take strong action. I would note, as we've said before,
the President retains his authority to take steps that he decides are
necessary to ensure our national security.
One more caveat. This process is the beginning of discussion of the
full text. We've talked to other members of the council about key
elements, key paragraphs in varying degrees. We're now discussing the
whole text. This is going to be a complicated process because it is a
long text, it's probably going to be a messy process. I would advise
people not to overreact to the comments and debate that they might
see. We're not going to negotiate this one in public, but we're going
to work very hard with others because we do believe that at the end of
the day other members of the Council want a strong Security Council
resolution that can effectively disarm Iraq. And that's what we're
trying to do.
QUESTION:  You were going to make some reference to context.
MR. BOUCHER: In terms of working it, we had those meetings that I
mentioned up at the United Nations. The Secretary has also been in
touch with his ministerial counterparts this morning. He has talked to
Foreign Minister Ivanov of Russia. He has talked to Foreign Secretary
Straw. He has talked to Secretary General Kofi Annan, who is in
Turkmenistan, I think. And he has talked to Foreign Minister Villepin,
Foreign Minister de Villepin of France.
So the Secretary has continued to work this, as we have continued to
work it in New York, and we will continue to pursue our goals.
QUESTION: Let me pick it up, please, if I may, on just one part of
your statement, the part about consequences. Is a vote for this
resolution a vote for consequences or is there another step that would
be required before Iraq would suffer consequences?
MR. BOUCHER: I think I have to say that in any case the President
retains his authority to do what's necessary, along with like-minded
governments, however that should turn out. We think that a vote for
this resolution can be a vote that expresses the determination of the
Security Council to deal with the issue of Iraq's defiance and Iraq's
threat to the world, and therefore it needs to be a strong resolution
and that's what we're going for.
Okay, let's work methodically.  Eli.
QUESTION: Yeah, I just want to go back to -- and I know you don't want
to discuss this in public, or at least the details. But you said
"provides significant improvements to the inspection regime" so you
don't see a return of the cheating.
Two things. One is, could you say whether or not the resolution now
would have US participation in those inspections? And second, can you
go into any more specifics about why you think this time or this
language will make it different than before?
MR. BOUCHER: On the issue of specifics of membership in the inspection
teams, no, I don't think I can address the resolution quite on that
level of detail at this point since the details are just beginning to
be discussed in that manner by the five members. Although these
elements and some of these pieces have certainly been discussed
because this was one of the paragraphs that a lot of people focused
on. So, but I can't at this point say, you know, this procedure, that
procedure, this procedure, that procedure, and this is what it says
about this, that's what it says about that.
I can say that it's a series of authorities, procedures and
instructions for the inspectors that will help -- that we think will
help them accomplish their goals. Will they then -- does that then
lead to the second part of the question? Does that then say, well,
this will work, this will disarm Iraq? And I think the answer is
really up to Iraq. In the end, it depends on Iraqi cooperation.
What we do know is that the old procedures could never, because of the
limitations, particularly on things like presidential sites, would
never provide a satisfactory answer to whether Iraq had disarmed in a
verifiable manner. And so with these new procedures, we've gotten rid
of the restrictions of the old ones. But ultimately whether Iraq
disarms and whether we can verify that Iraq has disarmed will depend
on Iraqi cooperation.
QUESTION: Can I maybe take another bite at the apple? Do you trust
non-American members of the inspection regime, whatever it is, to
accurately and timely report obstruction, delays and the sorts of
things that you fear Iraq will -- that Saddam will try to --
MR. BOUCHER: Dr. Blix has a variety of people and Dr. El Baradei on
these teams, on the inspection teams. We have made sure in terms of
our support for them over a long period of time, before the recent
resolutions began to be discussed, going back the last year and all of
the Secretary's meetings this year and other things we've done with
them, have tried to make sure that they have the wherewithal, the
support, the people, the capabilities that they need to perform
inspections and to have trained and good inspectors. So we, I think,
have done and will continue to do what we can to support them.
How many of their people are American and how many are non-Americans?
I don't think I can answer that. But I think we have done and will
continue to do everything we can to support them so that they can
conduct effective inspections.
QUESTION: Richard, I think we're getting mixed signals on your degree
of impatience. We have seen signs of impatience, and yet today you're
saying the negotiations can be complicated and messy. Can you tell us
how long you're prepared to give the United Nations on this and what
kind of recourse you have if this delay goes on much longer?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not prepared to give a timeframe for this. It is
complicated. It is messy. But I did make clear yesterday -- and I'll
say again today -- we think it's time to wrap it up. So it may be
messy but it doesn't necessarily have to take a long time if people
bear down and try to do it. We'll just have to see. We'll just have to
see.
QUESTION: And another one. There is a former inspector out there today
who was interviewed, saying that he used information that he'd gleaned
from the inspection mission to help the Pentagon with targeting. Under
the procedures which are now proposed, is there any guarantee for Iraq
that this kind of thing will not happen again?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think we're at the point of people needing to
provide guarantees to Iraq. I don't know which inspector that might
have been or what the basis was. Certainly the inspection regime has
been changed since the old one with the creation of UNMOVIC. And so I
don't think that's the issue. The issue is whether Iraq's going to
cooperate with the inspections. If they are going to get rid of their
weapons of mass destruction and allow the inspectors to verify that,
then Iraq should have nothing to fear.
QUESTION: Richard, a couple of quick things. One, you said that the
draft provides for Council action. That, presumably, is when and if
the inspectors report back that there is noncompliance? In other words
this provide -- when you say "provide for a Council action," that
refers directly to consequences?
MR. BOUCHER: I think that that's one of the elements. There are a
number of elements that would point to the determination of the
Council to make sure that there are consequences. But we ask the
inspectors to report any interference or failures immediately and make
clear that there would be consequences, and providing for Council
action is one of the various elements of the resolution.
QUESTION: Providing for is different than requiring, though; am I
right?
MR. BOUCHER:  Yes.
QUESTION: Okay. So, now, you seemed to suggest in the answer to
Barry's question that said that there was --
MR. BOUCHER: And none of these phrases, or few of these phrases are
exact quotes of the resolution.
QUESTION: No, no. I'm not suggesting that. But in your answer to
Barry's first question you suggested that -- I think you did -- there
was people overreacting to the Russians. Exactly what was the
overreactions when the Russians say that this draft is unacceptable
and that they say that, you know, that there's hardly -- and they and
the French both say that there's very little difference between this
one and the one that you and the Brits put forward earlier this month?
MR. BOUCHER:  Well, let's examine where we are.  
QUESTION: I guess, before you go into that spiel, my question really
is here -- (laughter) --
MR. BOUCHER: You can call it a spiel, I'll call it an answer, but do
you want an answer?
QUESTION:  Oh, no, no.  I said spiel, not spin.
MR. BOUCHER:  Spiel.  No, I know.
QUESTION: Oh, okay. Well, yeah, I would. But what I'm trying to get at
here is, how different do you guys think this is from your original
one, because obviously your partners on the -- at least some of your
partners on the Council don't think there's very much difference at
all?
MR. BOUCHER: We discussed with our partners in the Perm 5 some of the
key elements. The United States has attempted to make some changes in
those elements to accommodate the input that we heard. That has
resulted in some changes in other parts of the resolution. But we
haven't discussed the whole resolution paragraph by paragraph with
everybody yet, and that's what we're doing now. So there are pieces
that are changed. There are pieces that hadn't changed. There is the
bulk, probably, that hasn't changed because those are not -- those
paragraphs weren't subject to the focused discussion that we've had
for the last several weeks.
QUESTION:  All right.  
MR. BOUCHER: Now I can't remember the part that I was going to tell
you the whole big answer to.
QUESTION: Well, are you saying that the Russians, when they say over
--
MR. BOUCHER: Oh, that we shouldn't overreact when people say it's
unacceptable?
QUESTION:  Yeah.
MR. BOUCHER: I have to say just look where we are since the
President's speech. We put forward a draft that the United States and
the United Kingdom put forward at that time. We had intense
discussions during the course of this consultation with countries who
proposed a different approach, a two-resolution approach. We had
discussions with countries who thought themselves about proposing a
second draft or several drafts. We had discussions with countries who
didn't think there needed to be a resolution at all when we started
this.
And now we're bringing together the Perm 5 for a discussion, a
specific textual discussion, on the basis of a draft that the United
States put forward. As I said, that textual discussion is pretty
messy, it's complicated, but we think we're moving along the process
that needs to take place, that needs to take into account the views of
others, that needs to reach agreement in the Council so that we get a
strong determination to express to Iraq that they need to comply.
(end excerpt)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)