• Military

• WMD Menu                           

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

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

07 November 2002

Powell Says Continued Pressure Needed to Get Iraq to Disarm

(Discusses U.N. resolution, North Korea in AP interview) (3560)
Secretary of State Colin Powell says a strong United Nations Security
Council resolution on Iraq would increase the chances for a peaceful
outcome to the international community's concern over Saddam Hussein's
possession or development of weapons of mass destruction.
In a November 7 interview with the Associated Press, Powell said that
pressure by the international community caused the Iraqi leaders to
reverse his opposition to weapons inspections after a four-year
deadlock, and that continued pressure from the knowledge that "failure
this time will result in action by the international community" is
necessary to bring about his compliance.
"If we succeed in getting the resolution, he will be faced with the
united will and determination of the international community, and he
will have to make a choice. War is not inevitable. And it will not be
[chief U.N. weapons inspector] Dr. Blix's fault if conflict comes. It
will not be the fault of the United States or the United Nations. It
will be a choice that Saddam Hussein has made," said Powell.
The positions of the United States and the other members of the
Security Council on the draft resolution have been brought almost to
"convergence," said Powell. "They had their principles and red lines
and we had ours, and we found a way to converge. And I think the
convergence is near complete," he said.
Turning to North Korea, Powell said he was pleased at the response of
the international community to Pyongyang's admission of developing
nuclear weapons. Dialogue is taking place between North Korea, South
Korea and Japan but not with the United States, he said.
He said the Bush Administration could not accept the idea that North
Korea should somehow benefit from violating its agreement not to
develop nuclear weapons.
"It's a little hard to say to our publics that it is a repeat of 1993
and 1994, we caught them in something and we've compensated them for
giving up that something we caught them at, and they've done it again
and we're going to compensate them again. That doesn't seem to me to
be a policy line one could follow," said Powell.
The secretary was also asked about the recent midterm elections in the
United States and the impact of a Republican-controlled Congress on
U.S. foreign policy.
Powell said that while the results give President Bush "the ability to
push his foreign policy objectives forward," he doubted that there
would be "any changes of a dramatic nature coming." He suggested that
the administration might be better able to focus upon issues out of
the public spotlight, such HIV/AIDS in Africa and global poverty.
The "Millennium Challenge Account . will probably have a better chance
of getting the money for now," said Powell, in reference to funds
which would be made available to developing countries to promote
economic and democratic development. "And these things don't get
written about," he said.
Following is a transcript of Secretary Powell's interview with the
Associated Press:
(begin transcript)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
For Immediate Release
November 7, 2002
2002/993
INTERVIEW
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
By The Associated Press 
November 7, 2002
Washington, D.C.
 (10:30 a.m. EST)
QUESTION: Guess what. Iraq. It is in the bag do you think? Is it a
done deal? Richard said the other day you're making a couple of
modifications they've asked for.
SECRETARY POWELL: We're still working on some suggestions. If you
followed the discussions at the UN yesterday, you know that different
delegations raised issues. Yesterday was the first time we formally
tabled a resolution. Really it was the third draft that we had of it.
And we have to give our other Security Council colleagues time to
reflect on it. So some changes have come forward and we're looking at
all of those.
But I am still hopeful that we will have a vote in the very near
future, perhaps tomorrow, and we're still driving toward that goal.
Maybe it will or will not occur, but we're still hopeful there will be
a vote tomorrow. And we're working off the remaining differences, in
touch with my various colleagues, as I have been in the past. I've
spoken to Foreign Minister Straw this morning, and I expect to speak
to Minister Ivanov and Minister de Villepin and perhaps others before
the day is out.
QUESTION: Is it still true that the bottom line is intact?
SECRETARY POWELL: Yes.
QUESTION: The tough provisions are still -- 
SECRETARY POWELL: Yes. I think as you've heard me say many times
before, Barry, I think it was essential that we have a resolution that
acknowledges Iraq's material breaches of the past and of the present
-- they have not gone away -- and that we made clear that further
violations related to this resolution should be also considered
material breaches, and that we have in place a tough inspection regime
and that the Council has to be prepared to make sure that Iraq
understands that there will be consequences for continued violation of
resolutions. So our lines are crystal clear.
But I think it's clear to everyone that we took this time, this seven
weeks now, almost -- I think it's seven weeks today since the
President gave his speech. We took this time to talk to our friends
and allies to make the case. And there were tough discussions and
negotiations and we tried to listen and to accommodate them. They had
their principles and red lines and we had ours, and we found a way to
converge. And I think the convergence is near complete.
QUESTION: Are you going to go up there, do you think, to bring it
home?
SECRETARY POWELL: I haven't made a decision on that.
QUESTION: What is a reasonable amount of time to give inspections a
real chance to work?
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, what we're looking for, really, in the first
instance in the days and weeks following the passage of a resolution
is whether or not the Iraqis are going to cooperate in a way in which
they have not cooperated in the past. If they don't intend to
cooperate, I think that will become obvious rather soon, and the UN
will then have to make its judgment as to whether they want to
participate in a charade with the Iraqi Government again or whether
they want immediately to convene to see whether something else should
be done.
If Iraq does indicate a clear willingness to cooperate -- and I have
no idea whether they will or they won't, but the history is not good
on this, as my colleague Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly reminds the world
-- but if they decide to cooperate this time, then Dr. Blix and Mr.
ElBaradei will go in and start to do their work.
It will take some time for them to bring their baselines up to 2002,
to deploy their people, and to start doing inspections. I cannot speak
for them as to how many months they think it would take, but certainly
it will take time for these inspections to be conducted, and a lot
will depend on what the inspections find and how extensive the
inspections are. So I can't give you a precise timeline with respect
to how many months it will take.
And then I could ask the question back, "Take to do what?" Take to
exhaust everything one can look at? Take to come to a conclusion that
these weapons do or do not exist, and if they do exist, we've found
them and we've destroyed them? I'm reluctant to speculate on how long
it could take because then that gets us into a discussion, "Well, when
does the war begin?" And I am very reluctant to do that for obvious
reasons, because I don't know.
QUESTION: But months is, when you said --
SECRETARY POWELL: The plan that Dr. Blix is executing on, the basic
design of the UNMOVIC inspection regime, is something that takes
months, not weeks.
QUESTION: North Korea?
SECRETARY POWELL: North Korea, yes.
QUESTION: You've been calling for the immediate dismantlement of their
nuclear program. That obviously hasn't happened.
SECRETARY POWELL: Not yet.
QUESTION: Have you thought about consequences if they don't dismantle?
SECRETARY POWELL: We are looking at every possible option. The North
Koreans have been making a variety of statements in recent days,
telling former Ambassador to Korea, Don Gregg, an old friend of mine,
that the Agreed Framework is hanging by a thread and perhaps it wasn't
nullified. But we have a very clear record of what they said to
Assistant Secretary Kelly, with multiple translators present and would
repeat.
But whether it is hanging by a threat or nullified is kind of
irrelevant to the stark fact that they are conducting enrichment
activities that are totally inconsistent with their obligations under
the Agreed Framework and other agreements. And so however you choose
to characterize the status of the Agreed Framework, it has been
violated, and seriously violated. And until that violation has been
corrected, it's difficult to see a way forward. The suggestion that
somehow the rest of the world should come forward now and start to
offer things to North Korea because they violated their obligations is
not something that we can accept. We believe that the North Koreans
know what they have done. We have found them out and we believe that
they have to do something about this in order for us to begin moving
down a track that will bring them some relief from the economic
straits they find themselves in.
We are talking to all of our friends and allies, and I sense broad
agreement within the international community that this problem has to
be dealt with. It's a little hard to say to our publics that it is a
repeat of 1993 and 1994, we caught them in something and we've
compensated them for giving up that something we caught them at, and
they've done it again and we're going to compensate them again. That
doesn't seem to me to be a policy line one could follow. They put out
a release earlier today suggesting that I was -- I had insulted them,
but I think they have insulted the international community by
violating their obligations.
QUESTION: You have called for verification of the dismantling.
Wouldn't this require international inspections? This is a phrase
which you have not used so far in the past month, but isn't that what
it would require?
SECRETARY POWELL: Yes. I am not sure I used verification at different
points in the past, both with respect -- not only with respect to
their nuclear weapons but to the other elements of their national
strategy to which we have had problems -- proliferation activities,
removing troops from the DMZ and other things we think they should
take to create a better environment for the international community to
help them out of the distress they find themselves in.
But to verify you have to be able to go, look, see, touch and examine.
IAEA inspectors and Department of Energy inspectors are in North Korea
now monitoring the facilities that were captured in the Agreed
Framework. And so it seems to me there would have to be some kind of
verification of what they are or are not doing with respect to the
enriched uranium efforts.
QUESTION: Do you know how long it would take for the North Koreans to
reprocess the plutonium, which is now under IAEA control?
SECRETARY POWELL: Our best estimates are that if that large quantity
of plutonium were suddenly no longer under constraint that it would be
a matter of months before they would have the ability to start
reprocessing it into a form that could be useful for the making of
nuclear weapons.
QUESTION: Can I ask you a semi-political question? Does the election
do anything to foreign policy? Does the Republican surge somehow
strengthen the President's hand? Are there areas where you might
expect some change, some new emphasis?
SECRETARY POWELL: We obviously are very pleased with the election
results. I think it's an expression on the part of the American people
that they support this President and they support his policies,
foreign and domestic. And to the extent that that view of the American
people is now reflected in the Senate as well as the House, I think
does give the President the ability to push his foreign policy
objectives forward. I don't know that it suggests there are any
changes of a dramatic nature coming. I think the President has clear
policies out there. Everybody knows what we have been trying to
achieve, and not just in places like Iraq and the Middle East, but
what we have been trying to achieve with respect to a better
relationship with Russia and China, which we have achieved. We do have
a solid relationship with both of those countries; what the
President's trying to achieve with respect to fighting some of the
crises that exist that people don't spend enough time thinking about
-- HIV/AIDS in Africa,
poverty, his Millennium Challenge Account. That's a good example.
Millennium Challenge Account we will probably have a better chance of
getting the money for now. And these things don't get written about
that often, but as soon as I leave you in a little while, I am going
to go down and talk about the AGOA. That's a major initiative of the
Department and of the President.
And so I would think by having both houses in Republicans' control,
both bodies in Republican control, that it might be a little easier to
push the President's agenda forward. But his agenda was pretty clear
before, and I think it's pretty clear after the election.
QUESTION: Terrorism is a big part of the agenda, and I think a lot of
people wonder, I actually wonder, how many terror-supporting states
can the US or anyone else take on at one time? You have Iraq and you
have -- isn't the problem overwhelming?
SECRETARY POWELL: No, not at all. I mean, if there are terrorist
activities out there and terrorist-supporting states out there, you
can't pretend that they are not out there.
QUESTION: Right, of course.
SECRETARY POWELL: How you deal with them is another matter. And some
present greater immediate danger than others. And people have said to
me, "Isn't everybody in the 'axis of evil' therefore an equal
candidate for a cookie-cutter policy"? It's been a long week.
The answer is no. You look at each one, you examine the nature of the
threat making sure you understand what you are trying to accomplish,
you look at the tools that are available to you, you look at the
alliances that you have, you look at what the international community
thinks about a particular situation, and then you select the
appropriate tools to deal with the problem. And those tools can be
political, diplomatic, economic, military, law enforcement,
intelligence. And I think a wise foreign policy is one which does not
use a cookie-cutter.
QUESTION: The Republic of North Korea's nuclear capabilities, I
believe, fits your definition of a greater immediate danger. So why
aren't we being more aggressive in dealing with them, as aggressive
as, say, Iraq?
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, I'm not sure it is -- in terms of immediate
danger you have to have not only the capability, but the intention. A
threat comes from the capability matched with intention. And in the
case of Iraq, we have seen the intentions of this man made manifest
many times over the last 20 years by invading his neighbors, Kuwait
and Iran; by firing weapons of mass destruction at Iran, at Saudi
Arabia. The scuds that came down on Saudi Arabia and our troops could
have had chemical warheads in them -- same thing with Israel. So he
has demonstrated no reservations about using these weapons, to the
extent that he even used them on his own people. And so it seems to me
that's a very real and present danger.
North Korea is a country that has huge economic problems, problems of
poverty, problems of starvation, which constrains them to some extent.
You wonder why they would be investing in enriched uranium, which
cannot feed anybody. But they are.
But there are other ways to deal with it without saying we now have to
have a UN resolution and try to use all available means against North
Korea.
We discovered what they were doing. They tried to hide it from us. We
brought it to the international community. We are pleased at the
response that we have gotten. Iraq has been a problem for years and it
has finally now come to a head. In the case of North Korea, most of
us, to include this administration, thought that the 1994 agreement
had capped their program with the plutonium processing capability and
what's going on in Yongbyon, and we discovered eight years into the
Agreed Framework that it was not so. They had broken out and were
moving in another direction.
And so we have only had this information since early July and we have
only acted on it since Mr. Kelly went to Korea. So we are still in the
process of examining the situation, formulating our policies,
discussing them within the administration and discussing them with our
friends and allies, and, frankly, watching the North Korean response
and the North Korean reaction.
QUESTION: A dialogue without disarmament is not in the cards?
SECRETARY POWELL: But there is dialogue taking place. The North
Koreans are talking to the Japanese. They met in Kuala Lumpur. They
are talking to the South Koreans. And I am sure they are talking
quietly to the Chinese and the Russians. All of those nations should
have a greater concern about this than we do. They are the neighbors.
They are within range.
And so there is a dialogue going on. And we tried to begin a dialogue
with the North Koreans when I met with, as you recall, Barry, in
Brunei with the Foreign Minister and when Mr. Kelly met with them a
month or two ago. But right now, we have no plans at the moment for a
dialogue between us and the North Koreans. We do stay in the usual
touch with UN representatives in New York.
QUESTION: On Iraq, as far as solutions, given Saddam's history of
deception and animosity, weapons use, do you think that getting
inspectors back there in the end in will actually make more likely
than less likely that, in the end, the only way to get rid of them and
to disarm him is with military action?
SECRETARY POWELL: That decision is in Saddam Hussein's hands. If we
succeed in getting the resolution, he will be faced with the united
will and determination of the international community, and he will
have to make a choice. War is not inevitable. And it will not be Dr.
Blix's fault if conflict comes. It will not be the fault of the United
States or the United Nations. It will be a choice that Saddam Hussein
has made.
QUESTION: You used as one of your lead arguments that a tough
resolution was the best way to avert a war because it tells him that
we mean it, that the world means it.
SECRETARY POWELL: Right.
QUESTION: Do you still feel that way? Do you think he might bend to
this?
SECRETARY POWELL: I don't. I gave up many years ago speculating on
what Hussein would do or not do. I know of the efforts he has made
over the last seven weeks to suggest to the international community
that he has changed. For four years he said no inspectors, no, never,
never, never. Two days before he said you can send them back in, he
was saying you can't send them back in.
All of this is happening not because we have seen a change of heart or
a change of policy, but because of pressure. And the pressure is not
just a wordy resolution. The pressure is the certainty that failure
this time will result in action by the international community. If the
international community chooses not to act, the United States will
with like-minded nations. The President has made it clear on many
occasions we will act if there is no other alternative.
But what we have been working on is a resolution of purpose, not a
resolution of war. The President has made that clear.
QUESTION: Are you going into the KEDO meeting with a position that you
can talk about?
SECRETARY POWELL: The TCOG meeting or the KEDO meeting?
QUESTION: The KEDO meeting on Monday on oil shipments.  
SECRETARY POWELL: Yes. I am not prepared to discuss what our position
is yet. We are still discussing that.
MR. BOUCHER: That is what I said yesterday.  (Laughter.)
QUESTION: We'll ask again.
MR. BOUCHER: You'll ask me again today, but now I know what the answer
is.
SECRETARY POWELL: I really should read your press conferences.
MR. BOUCHER: No, you shouldn't.  (Laughter.)  
QUESTION: That's enough for you.  Well, thank you very much.
SECRETARY POWELL: Thanks, guys.  Good to see you.
QUESTION: Nice to see you.
SECRETARY POWELL: Enjoy the three-day weekend coming up. I hope I can.
QUESTION:  Not in our contract.  (Laughter.)
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)