• 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 No Quid-Pro-Quos Exchanged for U.N. Vote

(Secretary of State interviewed on CNN November 10) (5230)
There were no concessions or quid pro quos offered to fellow U.N.
Security Council members in exchange for their affirmative votes to
pass resolution 1441 on November 8, Colin Powell says.
Interviewed November 10 on CNN's Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer, the
secretary of state explained that the united States began "with a very
hard position initially, a tough negotiating position ... that, if we
had asked everyone to vote for we would not have gotten any votes for
it other than our own. Then we listened to other nations. There are 15
nations on the Security Council. They are all sovereign, they all have
principles, and they all have their own redlines. We listened to them
and we tried to accommodate them in every way that we could in order
to get consensus. But we did it in a way that did not violate any of
our principles or any of our redlines, and we succeeded.
The resulting U.N. resolution, Powell said, was "exactly what the
president said he wanted on the 12th of September when he spoke before
the U.N. -- an indictment of Saddam Hussein, a tough inspection
regime, and consequences if he violated this inspection regime."
Moreover, Powell said, those U.S. aims were achieved "in a way that
brought our friends back on board -- brought the Syrians on board. We
gave nothing away with respect to principles or under-the-table deals.
It was good, tough negotiating among nations that have respect for one
another."
A second important result of the U.S.-led effort in the Security
Council was that "it pulled the United Nations back together. The
Security Council has been in disarray, the U.N. has been in disarray,
over this issue for years. Now the Security Council and the U.N. are
back together with a single, strong, powerful message to Iraq: You
cannot violate the will of the international community by keeping
these kinds of weapons in your inventory. They must be removed; you
must be disarmed," Powell said.
As for the possibility that Saddam Hussein will refuse to cooperate
with the United Nations, Powell was blunt: "[H]e knows if he violates
this resolution military force is coming in to take him and his regime
out."
Concerning the timelines established in the resolution and whether
they would cause further delay in accomplishing Iraq's disarmament,
Powell said, "We are not going to wait until February to see whether
Iraq is cooperating or not. If Iraq is not cooperating, Dr. Blix and
Mr. ElBaradei will discover that rather quickly. The United States and
the United Nations will be able to make a judgment as to cooperation
very quickly, not sometime in February."
Powell also discussed U.S. policy regarding North Korea, Israel,
Afghanistan and the al-Qaeda terrorists.
The transcript of Powell's remarks follows:
(begin transcript)
U.S. Department of State
Secretary Colin L. Powell
Washington, D.C.
November 10, 2002
Interview on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer
MR. BLITZER: Secretary Powell, welcome back to Late Edition. Thanks
for coming in. Congratulations on the big win at the U.N. Security
Council. But the key question is this: Will Saddam Hussein comply?
SECRETARY POWELL: We don't know. He has not complied in the past, and
that is why we put in this resolution that this is a last chance. If
he does not comply this time, that lack of compliance goes right to
the Security Council for it to convene immediately and consider what
should be done, and serious consequences are held out within this
current resolution.
I can assure you that if he doesn't comply this time we are going to
ask the U.N. to give authorization for all necessary means. If the
U.N. is not willing to do that, the United States with like-minded
nations will go and disarm him forcefully. The president has made this
clear.
MR. BLITZER: So you will go to war against Iraq, Saddam Hussein's
regime, if he doesn't comply?
SECRETARY POWELL: The president has made it clear that he believes it
is the obligation of the international community, in the face of new
noncompliance, to take whatever action is necessary to remove those
weapons of mass destruction. If the U.N. does not act, then the
president is prepared to act. He has made it clear for months.
MR. BLITZER: You wouldn't be surprised if Saddam Hussein were
skeptical, because these threats have been made before. Even the
president, the other day, in his news conference acknowledged it.
Listen to what the president said:
"This would be the 17th time that we expect Saddam to disarm. This
time we mean it. See, that's the difference, I guess. This time it's
for real."
Seventeen times these threats have been made. Why should he believe
you this time?
SECRETARY POWELL: Because the 17th resolution is a lot different from
all the previous ones. This time a mechanism has been put into this
resolution so that if he does not cooperate with the inspectors --
they can't get their job done -- they are told to report back to the
Security Council, not play "rope-a-dope" [note: a boxing term in which
one pugilist tries to absorb punches in hopes of wearying and
outlasting the opponent] in the desert with them. They are to report
back to the Security Council and tell the Council 'we are not getting
the job done,' 'they're not cooperating with us,' or 'we've found
these violations and it is a problem for us.' The resolution says the
Security Council will convene immediately at that moment to consider
what should be done about this.
So there can be no mistake about it this time, and I don't think he is
making any mistakes about it. He is facing a 15-0 vote in the Security
Council. He did not have that the last couple of times around.
The Arab League is meeting today with Iraq in Cairo and I hope that
they will see the wisdom of encouraging the Iraqis not to misjudge the
intent and determination of the international community and especially
of the United States.
MR. BLITZER: Let's be precise on what the resolution says, and I'll
put it up on the screen:
"Failure by Iraq at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the
implementation of this resolution shall constitute a further material
breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for
assessment."
But there is ambiguity between the U.S. stance, the French, the
Russians, the Chinese, what happens next.
SECRETARY POWELL: No, there is no ambiguity. It says clearly that if
there is this violation, that very fact of a violation is a material
breach. It is not a judgment to be made by somebody else -- either by
Dr. Blix or the head of UNMOVIC [United Nations Monitoring,
Verification and Inspection Commission] or by the Security Council. It
is a material breach.
And at that point, it is referred to the Security Council under
Paragraph 12 for the Security Council to make a judgment as to what
should be done. While the Security Council is doing that, the United
States will also be reviewing the nature of this breach and making a
judgment as to whether it should prepare, or begin to prepare, to take
military action either as part of the U.N. effort, if the U.N. decides
to do that, or separately with like-minded nations if that turns out
to be the direction in which we are heading.
MR. BLITZER: When I interviewed the Russian Ambassador to the U.N.,
Sergey Lavrov, on Friday, he said if they come back, the U.N. weapons
inspectors Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei, and they say there have been
some problems, they will look closely to see how serious the
noncompliance is before they decide what to do.
Will the U.S. say there are serious problems and there are some
not-so-serious problems?
SECRETARY POWELL: We will have to wait and see. We believe we ought to
approach this with a zero-tolerance attitude because we have been down
this road with Saddam Hussein before. And so we will have to wait and
see what Dr. Blix or Dr. ElBaradei would say and then the assessment
is made within the Security Council.
We are part of the Security Council. We will be part of that
assessment. You can be sure we will be pressing the Security Council
at that point to show very little tolerance or understanding for any
of the kinds of excuses that Saddam Hussein might put forward.
MR. BLITZER: But just to be precise, the U.S. position is a second
resolution, a formal resolution, authorizing the use of force is not
necessary?
SECRETARY POWELL: We understand that a second resolution would bring
the whole Council to all necessary means. But if the Council is unable
to agree on a second resolution, the United States believes, because
of past material breaches, current material breaches and new material
breaches, there is more than enough authority for it to act with
like-minded nations, if not with the entire Council supporting an all
necessary means new resolution.
MR. BLITZER: I want to put up on the screen the timetable that this
resolution spells out. Iraq must agree to comply by November 15th. You
anticipate that will happen?
SECRETARY POWELL:  We will see.
MR. BLITZER:  You have some doubt that that might not happen?
SECRETARY POWELL: I do not have any doubts and I do not have any
forecasts, and I do not know whether they will or they will not. We
will see what they do next Friday. I do not want to start handicapping
the Iraqi regime.
MR. BLITZER: By December 8th, they must declare all their programs of
weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological, nuclear. Full
inspections have to begin no later than December 23rd, although Dr.
Blix seems to think they could begin even earlier than that. But by
February 21st of next year, the inspectors have to report back to the
Security Council, at the latest.
Now, you're a general. That timetable seems to coincide with the
weather factors as far as a military invasion is concerned --
February, March, April, it starts getting very hot in that part of the
world. Is there a link there between the weather and this timetable?
SECRETARY POWELL: No, we did not create this timetable. It is a
timetable that was provided by Dr. Blix. But you know battles have
been fought in the heat of the day before, and it gets cool at night
when the American army is particularly effective. So I would not
believe that there are some redlines out there that give us a timeline
beyond which Iraq will not be suffering any consequences.
But the more important point here is not when the inspectors report
back, but what level of cooperation are they receiving from Iraq. We
are not going to wait until February to see whether Iraq is
cooperating or not. If Iraq is not cooperating, Dr. Blix and Mr.
ElBaradei will discover that rather quickly. The United States and the
United Nations will be able to make a judgment as to cooperation very
quickly, not sometime in February.
MR. BLITZER: And the Iraqis should be under no illusions the U.S.
military, the Pentagon, a place you once worked at, they're moving
forward with war plans?
SECRETARY POWELL: It would be imprudent of the Pentagon not to be
developing contingency plans. They are always developing contingency
plans. I am sure they will put a plan together that will accomplish
any military objective that the president has assigned to them.
MR. BLITZER: Now, you know that for months now there have been all
sorts of reports in the news media, splits within the Bush
Administration, about the usefulness of going back to the UN, the
usefulness of resuming inspections. I want you to listen to what the
Vice President, Dick Cheney, your boss, your former boss and your
current boss, said on August 26th regarding a return of inspectors:
"A person would be right to question any suggestion that we should
just get inspectors back into Iraq and then our worries will be over.
Saddam has perfected the game of cheat-and-retreat and is very skilled
in the art of denial and deception. A return of inspectors would
provide no assurance whatsoever of his compliance with U.N.
resolutions."
Does that reflect what you believe?  
SECRETARY POWELL: He is absolutely right. I agree with him. The return
of the inspectors, in and of themselves, will not lead to disarmament
in the face of an uncooperative attitude on the part of the Iraqis.
What makes it different this time is that if they display that
uncooperative attitude, if they are cheating and deceiving and doing
all those things to prevent the inspectors from doing their job, and
then they are going to face the most serious consequences. The
president has made clear what those consequences are.
What Vice President Cheney was saying was you just cannot think:
'inspectors are there, the problem is over, everything is dealt with'
-- not at all. We have to see cooperation from the Iraqi regime. There
has to be an inspection regime that can get the job done. They can
only get their job done if there is openness and a cooperative
attitude on the part of the Iraqi regime that we have not seen before.
If we do not see it this time, then we go right back to the U.N. for
consideration of the application of serious consequences.
MR. BLITZER: And so you're saying flatly this is Saddam Hussein's last
change -- no ifs, ands or buts?
SECRETARY POWELL:  Read the resolution.  It says that.  
MR. BLITZER: I want to give you a chance to respond to those who have
suggested that you may be the odd man in the administration, that you
have some critics within the administration. The New York Times wrote
in an editorial at the end of July, "The sharks circling around Mr.
Powell include Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld and his Deputy Paul Wolfowitz, and the White House Political
Director Karl Rove. Mr. Rove is especially eager to bend policy to
placate the Republican right."
Go ahead and respond to that.  
SECRETARY POWELL: I do not have to respond to that. This goes on all
the time. I have seen it in every administration I have ever been a
part of.
We have our discussions; we debate issues -- all for the purpose of
serving the President. The only one in the pool that I worry about is
the president and I know that I am doing what he wanted done.
MR. BLITZER: Were there any concessions, quid pro quos, offered to
Russia, France, China, Syria, in exchange for their affirmative vote?
SECRETARY POWELL: No. What we did was go in with a very hard position
initially, a tough negotiating position, with a negotiating position
that, if we had asked everyone to vote for we would not have gotten
any votes for it other than our own. Then we listened to other
nations. There are 15 nations on the Security Council. They are all
sovereign, they all have principles, and they all have their own
redlines. We listened to them and we tried to accommodate them in
every way that we could in order to get consensus. But we did it in a
way that did not violate any of our principles or any of our redlines,
and we succeeded.
We got a resolution that got exactly what the president said he wanted
on the 12th of September when he spoke before the U.N. -- an
indictment of Saddam Hussein, a tough inspection regime, and
consequences if he violated this inspection regime. We got that in
this resolution but we did it in a way that brought our friends back
on board -- brought the Syrians on board. We gave nothing away with
respect to principles or under-the-table deals. It was good, tough
negotiating among nations that have respect for one another.
The other thing it did, it pulled the United Nations back together.
The Security Council has been in disarray, the U.N. has been in
disarray, over this issue for years. Now the Security Council and the
U.N. are back together with a single, strong, powerful message to
Iraq: You cannot violate the will of the international community by
keeping these kinds of weapons in your inventory. They must be
removed; you must be disarmed.
MR. BLITZER: So you can flatly say that as far as the Russians, for
example, are concerned, no promises as far as a U.S. stance on the
issue of Chechnya, for example?
SECRETARY POWELL: No, we made no such deals. We talk about all of
these other issues -- Chechnya or anything else -- on their own merits
and there were no deals cut for this resolution.
MR. BLITZER: And no deals with the French as far as future oil sales
involving Iraq are concerned?
SECRETARY POWELL: No. Wolf, I was the chief negotiator on this along
with my colleagues in New York, Ambassadors Negroponte and Cunningham,
both of whom and their teams, did an outstanding job. The whole team
within Washington: Secretary Rumsfeld, Vice President Cheney, Dr. Rice
especially -- our whole team worked together and no deals like that
were cut.
MR. BLITZER: The president was very precise in his language used in
the Rose Garden on Friday. You were standing right next to him. At one
point, he referred to Iraq as an 'outlaw regime.' Outlaw regime. There
is nothing in this U.N. Security Council resolution that speaks about
regime change, as you know.
What exactly is the Bush Administration policy as far as the need to
get rid of Saddam Hussein's regime?
SECRETARY POWELL: We think that the people of Iraq would be better
off, the region would be better off and the world would be better off,
if Saddam Hussein was no longer in power. That has never been the
position of the United Nations through all of these previous
resolutions. So working within the United Nations we did not expect to
come up with a policy of regime change.
Regime change is a United States policy that was put in place back in
the Clinton Administration in 1998 because Iraq was violating all of
these resolutions with respect to disarmament -- and other
resolutions. It was thought the only way you could get disarmament was
through regime change.
We inherited that policy. We thought it was a good policy and it
remains our policy to this day. We will see whether, in the area of
disarmament with this resolution we find a regime that is changing
itself, that has decided to cooperate with the international
community.
But beyond that do we still think the world would be better off and
the Iraqi people would be better off -- would live a better life -- if
they had a different leadership? Yes we still do and will continue to
feel so.
MR. BLITZER: So what incentive does Saddam Hussein personally have to
cooperate if the United States says, you know what, we're going to get
rid of you if you cooperate or if you don't cooperate?
SECRETARY POWELL: Right now he knows that if he does not cooperate
with respect to this U.N. resolution which deals fundamentally with
disarmament -- although it does in its perambulatory paragraphs talk
about his other violations of resolutions - he knows if he violates
this resolution military force is coming in to take him and his regime
out.
MR. BLITZER:  Has Saddam Hussein committed war crimes?
SECRETARY POWELL: I think he has, yes. I mean, when you gas your own
people, when you use these kinds of weapons of mass destruction, I
think a case can be made. We are always assembling information that
might be suitable and useful for such a case.
MR. BLITZER: So if you do capture him alive, do you think he would go
before a war crimes tribunal?
SECRETARY POWELL: I don't know the answer to that right now. We are
assembling information but I think he certainly has demonstrated
criminal activities. He has invaded neighbors that were doing nothing
to him -- his invasion of Kuwait. He has done a lot of things that I
think he should be held accountable to, and for.
MR. BLITZER: And the president spoke a little bit about this as far as
his generals are concerned the other day, issuing a warning to them
specifically not to use weapons of mass destruction if Saddam Hussein
were to order them to do so. Listen to what the president said:
"The generals in Iraq must understand clearly there will be
consequences for their behavior. Should they choose, if force is
necessary, to behave in a way that endangers the lives of their own
citizens, as well as citizens in the neighborhood, there will be a
consequence. They will be held to account."
As you know --
SECRETARY POWELL:  He did not say weapons of mass destruction.
MR. BLITZER: Well, what exactly -- because, as you know, this program
is seen around the world, including in Iraq, so go ahead and explain
precisely what the president said.
SECRETARY POWELL: What he was saying directly to the generals in
Saddam Hussein's army is that should it come to conflict, and we hope
it can be solved peacefully -- he also says that all the time, but if
it comes to conflict you can be sure that one: you will lose, and two:
you will be held to account for your actions.
MR. BLITZER:  All right.  So go ahead.  What does that mean?
SECRETARY POWELL: It means you will be held to account for your
actions. You can either have the option of deciding that you are
serving somebody who is not going to be in power in a few days and
perhaps lay down your arms quickly -- and we saw some of this during
the course of the Gulf War 12 years ago. To resist what I am convinced
will be inevitable would be foolish on their parts.
MR. BLITZER: We have to take a short break. When we return, more of my
conversation with Secretary of State Colin Powell. I'll ask him about
the war on terror and whether the United States should continue to
targets terrorists for assassination. Stay with us.
(Commercial break.)
MR. BLITZER: What is the difference between Iraq and its suspected
nuclear program, and North Korea and its suspect nuclear program?
Because the U.S. clearly has a different strategy in dealing with
Iraq, on the one hand, North Korea on the other.
SECRETARY POWELL: Both programs are dangerous. Both programs should be
stopped. We have a variety of tools to deal with issues like this,
problems like this. We are applying one set of tools to Iraq -- a
nation that has been given multiple opportunities to stop this and has
demonstrated they will use this kind of technology against their
neighbors and against their own people.
In North Korea, this situation has just emerged over the last several
months, when our intelligence pointed us in this direction. We are
working with our friends and allies to continue a strategy that says
let us put maximum pressure on the North Korean regime right now from
all its neighbors as well as the United States. We have been very
successful in bringing the Japanese, the Chinese; I would say the
Russians, and the South Koreans together on this strategy.
So the North Koreans now know that as long as they are participating
in this kind of activity -- enriching uranium -- they are not going to
be able to solve their economic problems or problems of poverty.
MR. BLITZER: But you're not threatening military force against North
Korea?
SECRETARY POWELL: We are not threatening military force because we do
not need to threaten military force right now. The president has made
this clear. When he was in Korea earlier this year he made it clear
that the United States does not intend to invade North Korea. That has
not changed. We wish North Korea would withdraw some of its forces,
most of its forces frankly, from the DMZ [de-militarized zone]. There
is no danger to North Korea from the South. The United States is not
going to invade. South Korea is not going to invade. South Korea is a
prosperous place. North Korea is a destitute place. This is the time
for North Korea to start to make better choices with respect to its
future.
MR. BLITZER: If you could explain this, I would be happy. What exactly
does the U.S. want Israel to do in the event that Scuds once again
were launched against Israeli targets?
SECRETARY POWELL: Israel has to be concerned about its own
self-defense and no American president would say to an Israeli prime
minister that you do not have the option of deciding how to defend
yourself.
But in the instance of such an attack we would hope that the Israeli
prime minister would consider all the consequences of such an action.
There are different kinds of attacks that might come -- might be
directed toward Israel in such a set of circumstances. I am sure there
would be consultations between us and the Prime Minister of Israel at
that time.
MR. BLITZER: The fact that there's a new Israeli government now -- the
Labor Party out, Shimon Peres out, Benjamin Ben Eliezer, the defense
minister, out; Benjamin Netanyahu back in as the foreign minister --
what does that mean as far as U.S. strategy towards Iraq, towards the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict is concerned?
SECRETARY POWELL: I do not think it changes things fundamentally.
There will be elections coming up in the very near future. We will
probably see a Likud primary election before this month is out, I
would speculate, and then a general election. So I do not think it
fundamentally changes things.
We will continue to move forward with our Iraq strategy and we are
doing everything we can to obtain some progress on the Middle East
peace work that we are doing. We are working on a road map that both
sides hopefully will agree to in due course as to how we can move
forward.
But in the presence of continuing terrorism and violence and the lack
of full transformation on the part of the Palestinian Authority, it
has been difficult to get some traction. I'm afraid that the current
election situation in Israel will probably slow things down as well.
MR. BLITZER: You heard Netanyahu say this week that the roadmap is not
on the agenda at the moment.
SECRETARY POWELL: Well that is not the view that I have received from
the prime minister.
MR. BLITZER: So you're saying you get a different view from the
foreign minister, a different view from the prime minister?
SECRETARY POWELL: Well one has to wait until the head of a government
speaks and the head of the state of Israel is working with us on the
roadmap.
MR. BLITZER: The U.S. took an action this past week in firing Predator
missiles at these al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen, including a U.S.
citizen. What's the difference between that targeted killing and the
targeted killings the Israelis engage in -- which the State Department
has criticized?
SECRETARY POWELL: We believe that there are significant differences.
This was a case of clearly somebody engaged in a direct conflict with
the United States. We believe that there are other ways to deal with
the problems of the Middle East - other ways that are not enhanced.
The likelihood of these other ways working is not enhanced by those
kinds of targeted assassinations. So we believe there are differences
and distinctions between the two situations.
MR. BLITZER: Is the U.S. going to continue this policy as part of the
war on terror to go after these targets outside of Afghanistan?
SECRETARY POWELL: I would not comment on what targets we might or
might not go after anywhere in the world.
MR. BLITZER: But what you're saying is the Israelis should stop doing
what they did, but the U.S., theoretically, can continue to do --
SECRETARY POWELL: Our policy with respect to the Middle East and
targeted assassinations has not changed and we will do what we have to
do to defend ourselves with respect to terrorist activities.
MR. BLITZER: On the war on terror, General Richard Myers, the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs, was quoted in The Washington Post as saying at a
closed-door meeting at the Brookings Institution the other night, he
said, "I think, in a sense, we've lost a little momentum there. To be
frank, they've made lots of adaptations to our tactics and we've got
to continue to think and try to outthink them, and to be faster at
it," suggesting that the U.S. may not necessarily be doing all that
well in the war against al-Qaeda.
SECRETARY POWELL: No. I do not think that is what General Myers
intended to say at all. I do not think that is what he did say. What
he said was that the nature of the environment on that field of battle
-- if you can still call it that -- has changed. You do not have large
Taliban or al-Qaeda formations to go after. So U.S. and coalition
forces in Afghanistan are now shifting their activities -- starting to
do more civic action, more reconstruction kinds of efforts to help the
people, help create a broader security environment.
But I can assure you if al-Qaeda surfaces -- or if they get a hit or
they locate an al-Qaeda cell or individuals -- they will go after them
with all of the power at their disposal. It is also a measure of
success in that these people have been driven into caves. They have
been driven over the border into remote provinces of Pakistan. So it
reflects some success so that you do not have the same kind of target
environment we had several months ago.
MR. BLITZER: And finally, before I let you go, Ron Noble, the American
who heads Interpol, says he believes Osama bin Laden is alive.
SECRETARY POWELL: I have no idea whether he is alive or dead and I do
not like to speculate on whether he is or he is not because I do not
know.
MR. BLITZER: Mr. Secretary, thanks for joining us. Congratulations on
the wedding of your daughter, your youngest daughter.
SECRETARY POWELL:  Thank you very much.  
MR. BLITZER: You were making phone calls as you were ready to walk
down the aisle.
SECRETARY POWELL: It was a close-run thing, but I was there proudly to
walk my daughter down the aisle -- without the cell phone going off in
my pocket.
MR. BLITZER: Your family -- your wife and daughters -- must have
enormous patience.
SECRETARY POWELL:  And my son.
(Laughter.)
MR. BLITZER:  Thanks. 
SECRETARY POWELL:  Thank you, Wolf.
(End transcript)
(Distributed by the office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)