• Military

• WMD Menu                           

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

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

10 November 2002

Transcript: Powell Says U.N. Resolution Is Saddam's Last Chance

(Interview on Black Entertainment Television November 10) (3090)
Secretary of State Colin Powell says now "is the time for all of us to
join together and say to Saddam Hussein 'this is your last chance'" in
order to avoid a conflict with Iraq.
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 has come about in some measure
because "the United Nations is, frankly, pretty fed up with the way
Iraq has handled [previous resolutions] over the years," Powell said
in an interview with U.S. cable channel Black Entertainment Television
November 10.
"[W]hat makes this resolution different," Powell said, "is the United
Nations has said if Iraq tries to do in the future what it has done in
the past with respect to inspectors, the inspectors are to report that
[to] the Security Council, and the Security Council will convene
immediately to evaluate the situation and determine what should be
done.
"So there is force behind this resolution, and Iraq should be under no
illusions that if they fail to disarm, they will be disarmed by
military force if necessary, by the United Nations applying military
force, or the United States with other nations so inclined to join us
applying the military force," he said.
If Iraq defies Resolution 1441, Powell said he hopes "the U.N. will
come together and act, if military force is required. But if the U.N.
is unwilling or unable to act, then the United States is prepared to
act. And the president has made this clear," he said.
Concerning previous emphasis on the necessity for regime change in
Iraq, Powell said, "[R]ight now, the focus of this resolution and our
immediate efforts are on disarmament, and that's what we're working
on. We'll see whether or not we're going to have a changed regime, or
regime change becomes necessary."
As to how long it may take to determine whether Iraq is serious about
complying with the new resolution, Powell said, "We will know early on
whether or not Saddam Hussein intends to cooperate. It isn't whether
we find a presidential palace that is locked and we can't get into.
The real issue is going to be: is there a new attitude of cooperation
on the part of the Iraqi regime. If there is a new attitude, then the
inspectors will be able to do their work. If there is not a new
attitude, all the inspections in the world won't help if they're
frustrating and denying and deceiving, just as they have done in the
past."
The transcript of Powell's remarks follows:
(begin transcript)
U.S. Department of State
Secretary Colin L. Powell
Washington, DC
November 10, 2002
Interview on Black Entertainment Television's Lead Story with Beverly
Kirk
MS. KIRK: With us this morning to discuss Iraq and what lies ahead is
Secretary of State Colin Powell. And, Mr. Secretary, thank you very
much for being here today.
The first question: Has Iraq, in any official way, responded to the
resolution as yet?
SECRETARY POWELL: No. They have made a few statements that we dismiss
as the usual bravado that comes back out of Baghdad. There is one
statement this morning that said that they would calmly review the
resolution. So I suspect that they will take their time this week and
look at it, and we will see what they say next Friday.
There is an Arab League meeting taking place this weekend, and we'll
see what the Arab League also says with respect to the resolution.
MS. KIRK: Although authorities from Egypt attending this meeting of
the Arab League are indicating that Iraq has said it will indeed
accept the resolution.
What happens if Saddam Hussein ultimately rejects it?
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, the resolution speaks to that. If he rejects
this resolution, does not submit the declaration that's required in 30
days, and demonstrates clearly that he is not going to cooperate, this
is a matter that will cause the Security Council to go back into
session and to determine what should happen after that. And the final
section of the resolution talks about serious consequences.
At that time, the United States will also begin to make its judgment
about what it will do, either as part of a United Nations action or
what we will do separately with other like-minded nations, if the U.N.
chooses not to act.
MS. KIRK: We've been down this road before. Many have said there has
been resolution after resolution after resolution. Iraq has yet to
fully comply in a way that the community of nations expects it to
respond. And I spoke with former chief weapons inspector David Kay
yesterday, who says he expects more of the same, that Iraq will
initially accept this and then throw in a whole bunch of caveats.
What will the United States do if this is, indeed, what happens?
SECRETARY POWELL: It's not just what the United States will do. It's
what the United Nations will do. There is no doubt in my mind that the
United Nations is, frankly, pretty fed up with the way Iraq has
handled this over the years.
And what makes this resolution different is the United Nations has
said if Iraq tries to do in the future what it has done in the past
with respect to inspectors, the inspectors are to report that [to] the
Security Council, and the Security Council will convene immediately to
evaluate the situation and determine what should be done.
So there is force behind this resolution, and Iraq should be under no
illusions that if they fail to disarm, they will be disarmed by
military force if necessary, by the United Nations applying military
force, or the United States with other nations so inclined to join us
applying the military force.
MS. KIRK: Now, the U.S. had to make some concessions in order to bring
the French and the Russians on board to back this resolution. A
two-part question: First of all, the vote was unanimous. What kind of
message do you think that sends?
And the second question: the unexpected factor in that vote was that
Syria went along. What did you have to do in order to bring the
Syrians along to agree to this?
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, we're very pleased it was a unanimous vote.
And in any negotiation like this where you have 15 sovereign nations,
each nation brings its own principles, its own ideas, to the table.
And a great nation, a powerful nation like the United States, should
listen to others. And that's what we did. We listened. We
accommodated. We adjusted. But we never lost sight of our principles.
We never went away from our redlines. There had to be a strong
indictment against Iraq. We had to have a strong inspection regime.
And there had to be consequences if Iraq violated this resolution. We
never stepped away from those principles, but we were able to
accommodate the views and needs of other nations.
And at the final hour, frankly, we waited to hear what the Syrians
would do. And I think the Syrians, when they realized that all other
nations were going to join, they realized that they did not want to be
left out. They wanted to send a powerful signal to Iraq that this was
the time to comply or face the consequences.
MS. KIRK: Were there any kind of back room deals brokered with the
Syrians -- what they get in exchange for this vote?
SECRETARY POWELL: No, there were [no] back-room deals. We were in
contact with the Syrians. I sent a message to the Syrian foreign
minister the evening before the vote. A number of my colleagues, other
foreign ministers from other nations, were calling the Syrians to
persuade them that they should join the consensus. Secretary General
Kofi Annan called them.
They realized it was in their interest, and, frankly, in the interest
of peace. If you are looking for peace in that region and if you are
trying to avoid a conflict, this is the time for all of us to join
together and say to Saddam Hussein this is your last chance.
MS. KIRK: But the question that I have, this resolution lays out such
a strict timetable and the wording of the resolution does seem to say
that while the U.S. did get the strict unconditional access that it
wants, the language in the resolution, there's not that automatic
trigger of war that the U.S. had initially hoped to bring to the
table. That was done to appease the French and the Russians.
Will there be time, if Iraq doesn't comply within this really tight
time frame, in order for the U.S. to go to the U.N. and say he's not
complying, we're moving ahead with action, without the rest of the
world coming back and saying, no, there really hasn't been enough of
an effort to let him comply?
SECRETARY POWELL: The resolution is worded very carefully in this
regard. It says that if there is a lack of cooperation, a violation,
if he's not cooperating and it's reported to the Security Council
either by the inspectors, or any member nation can say to the Security
Council, look, they're not complying, the obligation on the Security
Council is to convene immediately and to consider this immediately.
And I think in that process of immediate consideration, the United
States will participate in that debate and that dialogue to see
whether the U.N. wants to put down another resolution that says use
all available means. But, at the same time, we will start to make our
own judgment as to whether or not it's become time for the United
States to act in a way with other nations that is separate from U.N.
action.
We hope it doesn't come to that. But if it comes to that, hopefully
the U.N. will come together and act, if military force is required.
But if the U.N. is unwilling or unable to act, then the United States
is prepared to act. And the president has made this clear.
The other thing that has come out of this week's work, with the eight
weeks worth of work, I should say, almost eight weeks worth of work,
is it showed the vitality of the United Nations. If the United States
hadn't acted in this way, if the Security Council hadn't done what it
did on Friday, I think it would have put the whole U.N. and Security
Council process at risk. This really was a major achievement, not for
the United States but for the United Nations.
MS. KIRK: All right, hold that thought. We're going to come back with
a little bit more discussion with Secretary of State Colin Powell on
the U.N. resolution and the possibility of war with Iraq coming up.
(Commercial break.)
MS. KIRK: Welcome back. We're continuing our discussion now in Iraq
with Secretary of State Colin Powell. And, Mr. Secretary, could Saddam
stay in power?
SECRETARY POWELL: It remains to be seen. I don't know. Frankly, we
think the world would be better off, the Iraqi people would be better
off, if he were not in power. Not only is he developing weapons of
mass destruction, he supports terrorist activity, he represses his own
people, and so the world would be better off if he were not in power.
But, right now, the focus of this resolution and our immediate efforts
are on disarmament, and that's what we're working on. We'll see
whether or not we're going to have a changed regime, or regime change
becomes necessary.
MS. KIRK: There was a lot of talk about regime change initially when
this debate started. You're quoted as telling al-Jazeera if the Iraqi
regime gets rid of its weapons of mass destruction and cooperates,
there is that chance Saddam would stay in power.
Isn't this a change in what President Bush stated earlier?
SECRETARY POWELL: If you go back to the origin of regime change, it
comes from President Clinton's Administration. And regime change was
settled on as a national policy because he wasn't getting rid of his
weapons of mass destruction in 1998. He had thrown the inspectors out,
or caused them to be removed, and so it seemed the only way to get at
the weapons of mass destruction and deal with other problems was to
change the regime. That was the Clinton position. It was the position
of the Congress. A law was passed to that effect.
And then we came in, looked at it, and believed that was an
appropriate policy. Now, if there's another way to disarm him, it
doesn't mean we suddenly like him. We still wish he would leave the
scene. But it is a different set of circumstances, and it would be a
changed nature of the regime.
MS. KIRK: I want to move in to the military -- the possibility.
Obviously, people are hoping that there isn't a war. But there is a
U.S. plan to send up to 250,000 troops to Iraq. Would we be going into
this with an end game in mind?
SECRETARY POWELL:  You can be sure.  I'm no longer --
MS. KIRK:  That's the "Powell Doctrine."
SECRETARY POWELL: I'm no longer allowed to play with war plans like I
used to in an earlier life. But I am quite confident that my
successors at the Pentagon will put together a plan that will achieve
the goal that the president has set out for them. But I don't go into
details of military plans, notwithstanding what one sees in the press
every day of different variations of ideas and plans.
MS. KIRK: But now I have to ask: Can the U.S. be ready? This is a
tight timetable that the resolution set out, as we've established. Can
the U.S. be ready militarily? I mean, you know this.
SECRETARY POWELL: Yes. No, I mean, it's a tight timetable that's been
set out, but it's not that tight. I mean, there's a 30-day period for
a declaration to come in and then the inspectors will take some time
to go look to see whether or not Iraq is cooperating. The real
challenge --
MS. KIRK:  But then February is the latest date, though?
SECRETARY POWELL: There is no latest date. Really, the Pentagon is
adjusting its planning according to how the inspection regime might
work, and we'll see. We will know early on whether or not Saddam
Hussein intends to cooperate. It isn't whether we find a presidential
palace that is locked and we can't get into. The real issue is going
to be: is there a new attitude of cooperation on the part of the Iraqi
regime. If there is a new attitude, then the inspectors will be able
to do their work. If there is not a new attitude, all the inspections
in the world won't help if they're frustrating and denying and
deceiving, just as they have done in the past.
And at that point, I am quite confident that Dr. Blix will come back
to the United Nations and say 'I can't get the job done.'
MS. KIRK: And you're talking about U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans
Blix.
SECRETARY POWELL:  Yes.
MS. KIRK:  But how will you know if there's a change in attitude?
SECRETARY POWELL: By the manner in which they work with the
inspectors, the access that the inspectors get without harassment,
whether there is harassment, whether efforts to deceive and deny and
keep information away from the inspectors. It will be pretty obvious
whether they are cooperating or not. And for the past 11 years, they
have not cooperated. Everything had to be pried out of them. Well,
we're not going down that road again.
MS. KIRK: Now, you have been -- I have to ask this question, and we're
running short on time. But you have been criticized by some for your
role in the Bush Administration and for your role in playing out how
the resolution was come into being up at the U.N. Some have said that
perhaps you didn't fight or weren't fighting as much as you should
have or did.
Do you think that the passage of the resolution vindicates what you
were really doing behind the scenes that the public didn't know about?
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, I was working hard to get what the president
wanted, and everything I did was with the full knowledge and approval
of the president. He and I stayed very closely in touch on this, and I
briefed all of my colleagues within the administration -- the vice
president and Don Rumsfeld, Condi [Rice] and George Tenet of the CIA.
It was a very tight-knit group that worked this for seven weeks.
Were there disagreements and debates? I don't know of any healthy
process that does not have some discussion and debate. Sure, we had
that. But you can be sure that what we accomplished was what the
president wanted accomplished and met our principles and met all of
the standards we had set for ourselves in this resolution.
As far as criticism, it comes, it goes.  It's a part of this job.
MS. KIRK: And on that note, how much of a role does race play in your
position? You obviously are the highest-ranking African American ever
to serve in the U.S. Government.
SECRETARY POWELL: Race plays, I guess, some role. But I'm fond of
telling people I am the American secretary of state who is black, and
not the black secretary of state. There is not a white secretary of
state somewhere. So I am the secretary of state. I'm black. I'm proud
of it. I have tried to use the positions I've enjoyed in public life
to motivate young people.
But very few people hold back from criticizing me any longer because I
am black, and very few people give me a break any longer because I am
black, and that's the way it ought to be. They're picking on my son
now. He's also in government. That's the way it ought to be.
(Laughter.)
MS. KIRK: And he's stealing a lot of your attention right now with
several issues for the Federal Communications Commission. All right,
Secretary Powell, thank you so much. A pleasure to meet you.
SECRETARY POWELL:  Thank you, Beverly.  Good to see you.
(End transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)