• Military

• WMD Menu                           

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

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

11 December 2002

Transcript: War With Iraq Can Be Avoided If Saddam Cooperates, Says Powell

(The Secretary of State discusses Iraq in an interview with France 2)
(3640)
The United States will determine if Iraq is fully cooperating with the
U.N. inspection team once the assessment of Iraq's arms declaration
has been completed, said Secretary of State Colin Powell.
In an interview with Thierry Thuillier of France 2 television on
December 5, Powell said that, as required, U.N. inspectors will report
to the Security Council and then an assessment and judgment of their
findings by the Council and the United States will follow.
Powell noted that President Bush believes the situation with Iraq can
be solved peacefully, and a war with Iraq can be avoided if Saddam
Hussein fully cooperates with the demands of the international
community to disarm Iraq. Otherwise, a regime change will be
necessary, said Powell.
"So we will see whether or not he cooperates with the demands of the
United Nations. If he cooperates, then war can be avoided. If he
doesn't cooperate, then I believe it is an obligation of the
international community to see that its will is imposed on Saddam
Hussein by removing the regime and removing the weapons of mass
destruction," he said.
According to Powell, regime change in Iraq is still official U.S.
policy, but said it is important to note that the purpose of a regime
change is to get rid of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. He said
that if the Iraqi regime cooperates and disarms, then "they are, in
effect, changing their approach; it is a changed regime, and therefore
we do not require a military change of regime."
Asked if the United States would be prepared to go to war alone
against Iraq, Powell responded, "We won't be alone." He explained that
although many countries prefer to undertake military action against
Iraq "within the context of a Security Council resolution," they have
said that they are prepared to act with the United States.
"Iraq has to be disarmed. The international community can do it under
the auspices of the Security Council. But if the United Nations
chooses not to act in the face of continued Iraqi noncooperation, then
the President is prepared to go with likeminded nations," he said.
If a war cannot be avoided, and the regime must be changed, Powell
said the United States and the international community would seek to
"do it quickly and create inside of Iraq, as quickly as possible, a
government that is responsive to the needs of its people, and
representative of its people, and that will live in peace with its
neighbors."
Following is the transcript of the December 5 France 2 interview with
Powell:
(begin transcript)
Secretary Colin L. Powell 
Washington, DC 
December 5, 2002
(3:30 p.m. EST)
MR. THUILLIER: First, of course, I want to ask some questions about
the Iraqi situation, as usual. In spite of UN inspectors, in Europe we
feel that your rights or you know end of the story. War is coming
soon?
SECRETARY POWELL: No, I don't think war is necessarily coming soon.
But whether war comes or not, it's up to Saddam Hussein. President
Bush has made it clear that the international community expects Saddam
Hussein to disarm. He took the case to the international community,
the United Nations, on the 12th of September. The inspectors are now
doing their work. The declaration has just come in, about to come in,
about to be examined.
And if Saddam Hussein is cooperating with the United Nations,
cooperating with the will of the international community, and is
divulging everything that he has done and what he is doing now, then
war can be avoided. President Bush has always said that he would
prefer to solve this peacefully.
But we also know that the threat of war, the threat of force, is the
only thing that has forced Saddam Hussein to come this far. Now we
will see whether he is cooperating or not.
would be MR. THUILLIER: But if Saddam Hussein denies to have
possession of mass destruction weapons, why don't you believe Saddam
Hussein?
SECRETARY POWELL: Why should we believe him? He's been lying for 12
years. Would you believe him?
MR. THUILLIER: He's a liar?
SECRETARY POWELL: He's a liar. We'll see now whether he decides that
the cost of lying is too great. The cost of lying now might result in
his regime being destroyed by the armed forces of the international
community. We will see whether he continues to lie or whether he
cooperates with the United Nations and the international community.
This is not the United Nations or the United States on trial or being
accused of anything. It is Saddam Hussein who is being accused by the
international community of having weapons of mass destruction. And
anybody who thinks that he does not have weapons of mass destruction
simply is denying the obvious, denying reality. He has gassed his own
people. He has invaded his neighbors.
We know from previous inspection regimes that he has developed these
kinds of weapons. He had them in his possession. He denied it, but he
was found out. And then he created circumstances which caused the
inspectors to be pulled out four years ago. And now the inspectors are
back, and let's see if he's willing to cooperate and tell the truth.
MR. THUILLIER: Yes, but if UN inspectors don't find anything, what
will happen?
SECRETARY POWELL: We'll find out. We'll have to wait  -- 
MR. THUILLIER: You'll  -- 
SECRETARY POWELL: No, we'll have to wait and see. The UN inspectors
may not find anything because Saddam Hussein is not cooperating and he
is denying them access to places or he is practicing deception to keep
them from finding.
Wouldn't that say to the international community that they must act if
it is clear that Saddam Hussein is not being truthful, once again, in
his declarations or that he is frustrating the ability of the
inspectors to find out the truth? Then, I think the international
community should say, "Enough, enough. This man can't be trusted."
MR. THUILLIER: Yes, but, again, if UN inspectors don't find anything,
what will happen? Because it's a possibility.
SECRETARY POWELL: We will find out. If the UN inspectors do not find
anything after an extensive search and after doing their work as well
as they can, they will report those facts to the Security Council, as
they are required to, and the Security Council will have to make an
assessment and come to a judgment, as will the United States.
MR. THUILLIER: How do you estimate the cooperation of the Iraqi regime
as far as today?
SECRETARY POWELL: So far, I think we should remain skeptical. Since
the UN resolution was passed on the 8th of November, the Iraqis came
back with two letters, which are very unsatisfactory, very accusatory,
not a spirit of cooperation associated with these two letters. And so
I think we should be skeptical.
Now, we are in the process of analyzing the declaration that will be
arriving and we'll see whether or not Iraqi authorities are
cooperating when they put forward this declaration. We have an idea, a
pretty good idea, of what should be in such a declaration and we will
see whether or not they are cooperating and being truthful.
With respect to what the inspectors have been able to do for their
first week of moving around Iraq, Iraq has responded, let them into
places and not delayed the inspectors. But this is just the beginning.
This is just the first five days. We will see whether or not they are
cooperative over time.
MR. THUILLIER: Since several months, we are expecting the evidence
that Iraqi develop weapons of mass destruction, but we see nothing
from America, for example. Why?
SECRETARY POWELL: That's simply not true. You are trying to make the
case for Iraq instead of making the case against Iraq. We have put
forward information. We have put forward papers. We have presented
information to the international community. We have nine -- eight
years worth of inspection reports from UNSCOM, from the IAEA. We have
evidence. We have seen it. We have reports that show Iraq developed
weapons of mass destruction. The United Kingdom has put out a number
of papers that deal with it.
And so the burden is not upon the international community to prove
Iraq has it; let Iraq come forward and prove they don't have it. If
they don't have it, you tell me, then, why they caused the inspectors
to leave in 1998 and why they would not let them back in, if they
don't have them.
Why aren't they forthcoming? Why aren't they saying, "Go anywhere,
anytime." Why did it take the threat of war to get the Iraqi regime to
say "Okay, we'll let the inspectors come back in"? Because suddenly
they had a change of heart? No. Because suddenly they were facing
military force and they realized they had to do something. They have
been denying. They have been deceiving. They have been lying. And
nobody should stand up and justify Iraq's actions. Iraq stands
condemned by its own actions.
MR. THUILLIER: So we can't deal with Saddam Hussein? It's not possible
because he's a liar? The only solution is a war?
SECRETARY POWELL: No, the solution is to see whether or not the threat
of war and the threat of the regime being overthrown is enough to
cause him to cooperate with the international community. We are
skeptical. The President has been skeptical. I am skeptical. My other
colleagues in the American Government are skeptical. I am sure most of
my friends in the international community are skeptical.
So we will see whether or not he cooperates with the demands of the
United Nations. If he cooperates, then war can be avoided. If he
doesn't cooperate, then I believe it is an obligation of the
international community to see that its will is imposed on Saddam
Hussein by removing the regime and removing the weapons of mass
destruction.
And if removing the regime is the only way to do it, then that will be
necessary. We cannot allow a regime such as Saddam Hussein's to
essentially look the United Nations in its face, this one nation, look
in the face of the United Nations and say, "I ignore you. I don't care
what you think. I don't care what the international community thinks.
I want to keep developing nuclear weapons. I want to retain chemical
weapons. I want to have biological weapons. I want to continue to be
able to threaten the nations in my neighborhood. I may wish to invade
again, like I have done before."
I don't think the international community can simply look away and
say, "Oh, gosh, isn't that too bad? Saddam Hussein will not cooperate,
therefore we can ignore the demands we have placed upon him."
MR. THUILLIER: Is there an evidence of a link between al-Qaida and
Iraq? Because we don't see any evidence for the moment. We have just
pieces, but not real evidence.
SECRETARY POWELL: We have no evidence, conclusive evidence, that Iraq
and al-Qaida worked together with respect to 9/11, what happened on
that tragic day here in the United States. We do know, however, that
over the years there have been contacts between the Iraqi regime and
al-Qaida elements. We also know that there are members of al-Qaida who
are in Iraq, in different places in Iraq.
So there are some connections and we will continue to examine those
connections. And as time goes by and more information comes out, more
evidence presents itself, we'll continue to make our assessment. And
as we find out information, we'll make it known to the world. But
there have been contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida over the years.
MR. THUILLIER: If you launch a war against Iraq, is America can go
alone, if it's necessary?
SECRETARY POWELL: The President has made it clear that he believes
this matter has to be resolved; Iraq has to be disarmed. The
international community can do it under the auspices of the Security
Council. But if the United Nations chooses not to act in the face of
continued Iraqi noncooperation, then the President is prepared to go
with likeminded nations. We won't be alone. There are many nations who
have already spoken up and said we understand the seriousness of this
matter, and if it is necessary to undertake military action, we would
prefer to do it within the context of a Security Council resolution,
but if that is not the case, we are prepared to go with you.
MR. THUILLIER: I want to be sure to understand. What is main goal if
there is a war? What is the main goal? To disarm Saddam Hussein? To
rebirth the regime? To build a democracy?
SECRETARY POWELL: Should there be a conflict -- and, once again, the
President hopes there will not be a conflict -- but should there be a
conflict, it will be to remove this regime because the regime can't be
dealt with. And we would be removing the regime for the purpose of
getting rid of the weapons of mass destruction.
But having removed the regime, the United States and other likeminded
nations, or the United Nations, the international community, would
pick up an obligation to help the Iraqi people put in place a
government that is representative of all the Iraqi people, that is not
a dictatorship, that is not developing weapons of mass destruction,
that will use the wealth of this nation, the tremendous wealth of this
nation in the form of oil, for the purpose of helping the people,
educating the people, providing health care for the people, building
the infrastructure of the country, and not developing weapons. That
would be an obligation that we would pick up. We would try to help
Iraq get onto a path that would lead to a peaceful Iraq, living in
peace with its neighbors, a representative form of government, and is
no longer a threat to anybody in the world.
MR. THUILLIER: And rebuild the regime, if it's necessary?
SECRETARY POWELL: What?
MR. THUILLIER: To change the regime if it's necessary?
SECRETARY POWELL: Yes, yes. It has always been our policy. It's still
our policy to change the regime. But it's important to remember why
that is our policy. Regime change as a US policy was decided upon in
1998 by President Clinton. And the reason President Clinton, supported
by the American Congress, did it, was because Iraq would not get rid
of its weapons of mass destruction.
So, as a result, it seemed to us the only way to get Iraq to do that,
was to change the regime. But if Iraq now, in light of the pressure
being brought to bear on it, decides to cooperate and get rid of its
weapons of mass destruction, they are, in effect, changing their
approach; it is a changed regime, and therefore we do not require a
military change of regime.
MR. THUILLIER: Are you ready to change the Middle East map? Don't you
think it's very dangerous with the war in Iraq?
SECRETARY POWELL: Certainly, it comes with certain risks and dangers.
But we believe the danger of a Saddam Hussein developing weapons that
can kill thousands upon thousands of people and who has a record of
using weapons such as this nature, is also a very dangerous thing to
leave in place. And we understand the risks in other parts of the
region if a conflict takes place --
MR. THUILLIER: At embassies, in countries, for instance?
SECRETARY POWELL: Yes, yes, there will be problems. But there is also
the prospect that with a changed regime in Baghdad, maybe things will
change for the better in the Middle East. Maybe Israel will not feel
as threatened. Maybe other nations in the region will not feel
threatened any longer. And so there is a possibility that there are
opportunities in such a conflict, as well as risks in such a conflict.
But at the end of the day, if a conflict does become necessary, war
does become necessary, and a coalition goes in, I think the strategy
we would do it quickly and create inside of Iraq, as quickly as
possible, a government that is responsive to the needs of its people,
and representative of its people, and that will live in peace with its
neighbors. It seems to me this would be a stabilizing element in the
region, not a destabilizing element.
MR. THUILLIER: Is it true that you are ready to help Turkey going
Europe?
SECRETARY POWELL: Yes, I  -- 
MR. THUILLIER: Very soon.
SECRETARY POWELL: Yes, I very much hope that the European Union --
they're meeting in Copenhagen on the 12th of December -- will see fit
to give Turkey a date to begin discussions.
MR. THUILLIER: And if it's not the case?
SECRETARY POWELL: If it's not the case, then that's up to the European
Union to decide, but --
MR. THUILLIER: It's not American business.
SECRETARY POWELL: But you asked me. And I have an interest. We have an
interest. We're very close to the European Union and our friends
within the European Union. I'm in constant discussion with all of the
ministers of the European Union about this matter. America is not some
distant, faraway place any more. We are part of the NATO Alliance, but
we also have a very close relationship with the European Union. There
will be a US-EU meeting here in about 10 days time.
And so we have more than a passing interest. These are friends of
ours. And I believe that a historic opportunity is in front of the
world now with respect to Turkey, because I think if Turkey does get
something they can count on, which reflects some of the reforms that
Turkey has made recently -- Turkey has done a lot in recent months to
satisfy the requirements of membership, or at least consideration for
membership.
And the other element that we should not overlook is the possibility
of a solution to the crisis in Cyprus that has gone on for so many
years. Kofi Annan, the Secretary General, has put down a plan, and
asked the two sides to respond to this plan. And what a great end of
year present it would be for the world, to see a solution in Cyprus,
and an opportunity for Turkey to be embraced by the European Union in
due course.
MR. THUILLIER: Do you know that in France modern people say that maybe
we have to be frightened by America, by the superpower? Do you
understand that, this feeling?
SECRETARY POWELL: I hear it, but, you know, I believe it is mostly
just commentary. How could, how could France every feel itself
threatened in some way by American power? American power has served
what purpose in Europe in the last 50 years? The last 100 years? What
was American power used for? We were a power in 1918 when we did what?
We came and fought alongside the French, and we brought an end to
World War I. We were a power at the beginning of World War II, when we
entered World War II two years after the war had broken out in Europe
and France had been overrun.
What did we use that power for? Did we use it to subject a single
nation, a single person, in all of Europe? What did we use that power
for? We used it to free Europe. We used it to free our French friends,
our French friends who have been our friends since our own revolution.
So France has no -- should have no concern, nor any Frenchman should
have any concern about American power. We have been friends for so
many years.
The outgoing French Ambassador, my very good friend Francois Bujon,
said, you know, France will always be a bad weather friend of the
United States. It's a wonderful line. What it means is, we argue.
Sometimes the relationship is prickly. France is a proud nation with
its own interests. The purpose of French diplomacy is to represent
French interests. My responsibility as Secretary of State is to
represent American interests.
But more often than not, our interests coincide. So even when we are
having our little debates, and sometimes we have a little fight, it's
within a family. It's within a family that has been these two strong
partners, France and the United States, and many other members of this
Euro-Atlantic family. We have been through a lot together, and we will
go through a lot more in the future. But we will always go through it
as friends.
The United States does not wish to use its power to impose its will on
anybody. We look for partners. We look for friends. We will represent
our interests. We will stick by our principles. We want to be part of
a multilateral community when it is appropriate to do so.
When we have things we feel strongly about, then we represent our own
interests even if we can't join a consensus. France demonstrated this
some years ago when it left the NATO Alliance, if you'll recall, and
asked everybody to leave Paris. That was an expression of French
interests at that time.
But these problems come, these problems go. The relationship between
France and the United States is strong, will remain strong. I think it
was particularly well demonstrated in the discussions on UN Resolution
1441. Dominique de Villepin and I, we talked every day, many times --
always serious, sometimes funny, always in the spirit of friendship,
accommodating each other's concerns and positions -- and we came up
with an outstanding result.
MR. THUILLIER: Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
SECRETARY POWELL: Thank you.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)