12 November 2002
Boucher Dismisses Iraqi Parliament Action as "Pure Theater"
(Says Iraq has no choice but to comply with U.N.) (1480) State Department spokesman Richard Boucher has dismissed "as pure theater" a vote by the Iraqi National Assembly recommending that Saddam Hussein reject a U.N. Security Council resolution demanding that Iraq submit to U.N. weapons inspections. "We all know who decides. And one man decides everything. So the rest of this is pure theater. It's irrelevant to the outcome," Boucher said, briefing reporters at the State Department in Washington November 12. Boucher said Iraq has no choice but to comply with U.N. weapons inspections because U.N. resolutions become binding the moment they are passed. The spokesman said the Security Council merely has given Saddam Hussein an opportunity to confirm his intention to comply with the resolution. Following is an excerpt from the transcript of Boucher's briefing containing his comments about Iraq: (begin excerpt) QUESTION: Iraq. I'm sure you've seen the decision by the Iraqi parliament to reject inspections. What's your comment on that? And have you heard from your various intermediaries like, for example, the Arab League or the Egyptians or whoever what they expect the Iraqis to decide by Friday? MR. BOUCHER: First of all, I have nothing much to say about the Iraqi National Assembly's discussion of this. We all know what Iraq is like. We all know who decides and one man decides everything. So the rest of this is pure theater. It is irrelevant to the outcome. The second point, I think, to make is that the outcome has already been decided. The United Nations resolutions become binding the moment they are passed, and the requirements on Iraq are already there, the obligations of Iraq are already there, and it merely, in the resolution, allowed a chance for Iraq to confirm its intention to comply. But Iraq has no choice but to comply in these matters. It's not a decision. It's just confirming that they intend to comply. The clock has started ticking on Iraq the moment of the resolution's adoption. They have to declare within 30 days a full and complete declaration of their weapons of mass destructions' programs. Iraq needs to allow inspectors in; inspectors get on the ground within 45 days, probably a lot sooner, as you've heard from Dr. Blix and Dr. El Baradei. And they will report to the Security Council -- the inspectors -- 60 days after that unless there is a further violation, which will be reported immediately. So they will be out there setting up, I think they have said, on November 18th, and there is no real choice here for Iraq. Jon. QUESTION: A couple of questions on Iraq, one just detailed one. That 60-day reporting period, it's not quite clear whether it starts at the end of the 45 days or after the inspectors do their first inspection. Can you clarify that? What are your views on that? MR. BOUCHER: Inspectors should be on the ground in 45 days, more likely sooner, and report to the Security Council 60 days later. QUESTION: That's one little point. It's what I say, it's kind of (inaudible) point. MR. BOUCHER: No, I was going to say this is our write-up of it, which is derived from the resolution. I'll see if we can get you a more precise reading of when 60 days is -- whether it's after the first inspection or whether it's after 45 days. We assume, I think, that the inspectors will go in and they will have to set up offices, get material together, so November 18th is not the date of the first inspection but it could be between then and 45 days. We'll see. QUESTION: Indeed, this came up this morning at The Washington Institute and Kay has said that you can't do much in 60 days. He thought it might take years to find out what's going on. He said the inspectors, he was sure, would be able to find what they're looking for if they had enough time. That sort of would put things in limbo, or are we jumping too far ahead at this point? MR. BOUCHER: You're jumping way too far ahead, Barry. I think we've talked about this a dozen or so times. How long does it take to verify that Iraq has gotten rid of all of its weapons of mass destruction programs? Yes, probably a very long time. But if you read the UN resolution, you see that Iraq is required, first of all, to fully and completely disclose its programs; second of all, to cooperate and give unrestricted access to people, places and palaces; third of all, to comply in every other way with the other resolutions. The Iraqi requirement is to cooperate with the inspectors. This is why the Secretary and others said again and again it's a question of the intention of Iraq to cooperate. Now, that intention, if it's violated, if they fail to comply, if they interfere, if they fail to fully disclose, that will be reported immediately. So Iraq's cooperation needs to be verified on an ongoing basis. Were they to disclose and then ask the inspectors to verify disarmament, that, indeed, could take a long time. Eli. QUESTION: Richard, you've discussed before and the CIA has put out unclassified reports. The US has accumulated quite a bit of information already on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, placements, so forth and so on. If -- and I know you don't like to answer hypotheticals -- but should the Iraqis disclose, as they are required, their itinerary of what they have, and you have information that suggests they're lying, would that be actionable cause to have a UN Security Council meeting? MR. BOUCHER: I think I would have to refer you back to the language of the resolution, which is that failure to disclose the programs shall constitute a further material breach and shall be dealt with according to paragraphs 11 or 12, I think is the way it came out. So it provides that false statements or omissions in the declarations, as well as failure to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of the resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations. As the Secretary has pointed out, it is the fact of those omissions or the fact of that failure to comply that constitutes a further material breach, and the language of the resolution says the inspectors are to report any discrepancies. And we will obviously make our own conclusions based on what we all know that they have to account for. They have to account for what we all know is left over after previous inspections. They have to account for the procurements that they've made. They have to account for the facilities that they've rebuilt. They have to account for programs that we knew were never fully destroyed. So Iraq has a lot to account for. QUESTION: Richard, if I can follow up, though, my question, I guess, is would US information alone be grounds for making the case that they have obstructed the process or, as you say, making a false statements? Or would that have to be something from Blix and his inspection team? MR. BOUCHER: As we have mentioned before, any member of the Council can report anything and bring it to the attention of the Council whenever they want. If you look at the UN resolution, the inspectors, if they find false statements or omissions, they would report the material breach in that form, or others of us if we knew that that had occurred would presumably raise it as well. QUESTION: So the final question is: Will you raise it if you find false statements? MR. BOUCHER: That's a hypothetical. (Laughter.) But the answer is yes, we could, if we decided to. QUESTION: I have two brief ones that I have very slim hopes for an answer on. But what do you make or do you have anything on the report that Iraq is trying to import this nerve gas antidote, if anything? And two, a couple months ago, I think there was discussion about the State Department hosting or organizing some kind of conference about oil in Iraq. And as I remember, it was postponed. And I was just wondering if you could look into what the status of that is. MR. BOUCHER: The status of that is I don't remember anything like that, but let me check on it. On the question of what's called atropine, this is a drug that has wide medical use, including in the treatment of heart conditions and pesticide poisoning. Nonetheless, any Iraqi orders for more atropine than needed to meet normal humanitarian requirements would be of concern since that could indicate preparations to use chemical weapons by preparing to protect their own forces from the consequences of such use. I can't get into the details of what Iraq may have ordered, but obviously any orders would have to be evaluated. (end excerpt) (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 |
|
|
|
