• Military

• WMD Menu                           

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

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

13 January 2003

Haass Says Saddam Must Prove Compliance with International Obligations

(Sees Morocco is a positive example of democratization) (3400)
Ambassador Richard Haass, Director of the Office of Policy Planning
Staff at the State Department, said on January 10 that Saddam Hussein
must come into compliance with Iraq's international obligations and
give up any weapons of mass destruction. Haass was speaking to the
media in Rabat, Morocco, at the end of a trip to India and the United
Arab Emirates.
"It is Saddam Hussein who must prove to the international community
that he is in compliance with his obligations. It is not up to the
inspectors to prove that he is not in compliance," Haass said.
"To sum it up, the burden is on Saddam to demonstrate that he is in
compliance, and he has yet to meet this burden," Haass said.
Responding to questions from the press, Haass said war with Iraq is
not inevitable, and that the U.S. would prefer to bring Iraq into
compliance diplomatically and peacefully. But he added that if force
were eventually used, the U.S. goal afterwards "would be to help the
Iraqis rebuild their country."
In response to a question about new U.S. regulations on visitors from
the Arab world, Haass said the U.S. is trying to find a balance
between openness and security.
"The last thing in the world we want to do is discourage people from
Morocco, from the Arab world, from continuing to visit the United
States. At the same time, what we are trying to do is strike a
balance, between retaining our openness and our welcome, while at the
same time providing the necessary security," Haass said.
"We will find a way to balance security considerations with the need
to remain what I think is arguably the most open country in the
world," he added.
Turning to democratization, Haass pointed to Morocco as "a positive
example for the Arab world, indeed for the entire Islamic world."
The United States could not and should not impose democracy from
outside, Haass said.
"But we are prepared to encourage this process of reform and we are
prepared to assist it using such tools or instruments as economic
assistance, free trade agreements, support for elections, and the
development of civil society," he said.
Following is the text of Haass' remarks in Rabat on January 10, 2003.
(begin transcript)
Press Conference by Ambassador Richard Haass
Director, Office of Policy Planning Staff
Rabat, Morocco,
January 10, 2003
Begin Transcript:
Ambassador Haass: It is good to be back in Morocco. Normally when you
come to some place and you say you have brought the rain, it is a
criticism but here, I understand, it is a compliment. I have come here
after a trip to India as well as to the United Arab Emirates, and I
think the best way to characterize my visit here is as one of regular
consultation with an important country and a close friend.
While here I had a chance to meet with several people in your
government, with the Minister of Communications, the Minister of Human
Rights, Minister Delegate for Economic Affairs, leading officials at
your Foreign Ministry, as well as with academics and members of the
new parliament. We had the opportunity to discuss in considerable
depth the changes and reforms that have been initiated under the
leadership of His Majesty, as well as the Prime Minister. We also,
naturally, had a chance to discuss the Free Trade Agreement, and as
you know, the negotiations begin shortly in Washington. As you might
expect, we spent quite a bit of time as well discussing regional
developments and, in particular, the challenge posed by the situation
in Iraq as well as the Palestinian situation.
Let me just end by saying again how good it is to be back here. The
United States sees Morocco as a positive example for the Arab world,
indeed for the entire Islamic world, a positive example of a country
undergoing a process of gradual democratization and economic reform. I
return to Washington optimistic about the prospects for the Free Trade
negotiations. I return to Washington with a better appreciation of the
thinking here about the challenge of reform, and also about the
questions of both Iraq and the Palestinians.
And lastly, I come away with a renewed sense of just what a good
friend Morocco has been, something that we have seen underscored yet
again in the reaction of the people of this country and its government
to the challenges since 9/11. With that, let me end these opening
comments. I want to thank the Ambassador for making this conference
possible this morning, and for all she does to advance our bilateral
relationship. Thank you all for having the interest and taking the
time to come here.
Question: Aren't you concerned that the war in Iraq will destabilize
the Arab world?
Ambassador Haass: The short answer to that question is no. But let me
give a somewhat longer answer to do the question justice. The first
thing to say is that war in Iraq is not inevitable. The only thing
that is inevitable is that the government of Saddam Hussein must come
into compliance with its international obligations and give up any
weapons of mass destruction. It is our preference that this be done
diplomatically and peacefully but it is essential that it be done. If
it does turn out that this must be done with the use of force I
believe that the case will be strong enough and persuasive enough that
we will not have the sort of widespread instability in the Arab world
that you suggest. I would just add one last point that it is important
to remember that the principal victims of Saddam Hussein have been
Arabs. No people have suffered more than the people of Iraq and of
Kuwait.
Question: After weeks of inspections, you have not been able to find
any weapons of mass destruction. How can you explain that?
Ambassador Haass: It is true that the inspections, after several
weeks, if I may paraphrase either Mr. Blix or Mr. ElBaradei, have not
uncovered what in their words was a smoking gun. Let's put that in
perspective. The inspectors have had only several weeks whereas Saddam
Hussein had more than four years to hide weapons of mass destruction.
Second, the inspections process will continue. It is important to see
it as a process; it is anything but complete. Also, at the end of the
day, it is Saddam Hussein who must prove to the international
community that he is in compliance with his obligations. It is not up
to the inspectors to prove that he is not in compliance. One of the
things that Saddam Hussein has failed to do is to clear up the
discrepancy or the difference between what we know he has imported,
what we know in the past he possessed, and what he has now declared to
the international community that he now possesses. To sum it up, the
burden is on Saddam to demonstrate that he is in compliance, and he
has yet to meet this burden.
Question: It is clear that America wants to remove Saddam because
despite ongoing UN inspections, the U.S. is mounting a massive
military deployment. Is the U.S. planning a military attack followed
by an occupation as all indications seem to point?
Ambassador Haass: Let me answer your question as best I can. It is our
belief that the people of Iraq and indeed the people of the region and
the world would be better off if Iraq had a very different kind of
leadership. That said, our focus at this point is on bringing Iraq
into compliance with its international obligations. Again, we would
prefer to do this diplomatically and peacefully, but essentially the
choice will be that of the government of Saddam Hussein. Obviously, we
must take prudent military preparations, but again I want to emphasize
that no decision has been made to use force. And, lastly, if force
were to be used, our goal afterwards would be to help the Iraqis
rebuild their country and make it a normal country as quickly as
possible. Let me just say one more thing about that. Iraq is a truly
blessed country. Let me explain that. It has the world's second
largest oil reserves. It has significant supplies of water. It has
very fertile soil. And it has an extremely talented and educated
people. Iraq should be, in many ways, one of the most successful
countries in this part of the world, or in any part of the world. The
tragedy for Iraq is that amongst all these blessings it has had one
major curse, and again it is the leadership of this country that has
prevented Iraq and the Iraqi people from enjoying the normal,
prosperous, peaceful life that they deserve. So, if things evolve so
that force is used the purpose is not to occupy Iraq or to do anything
than to help the Iraqi people reclaim their country and turn Iraq into
the sort of country that it has the potential to be.
Question: I have to follow up if you don't mind because the answer is
not very convincing. Since when has the USG ever truly cared about the
welfare of the Iraqi people?
Ambassador Haass: The United States and the American people have never
had a problem with the Iraqi people. Our differences have been simply
with the Iraqi government. Also, even when we have had economic
sanctions we have done our best to make sure that the Iraqi people
could receive enough food and medicine. If there has been any
suffering, if there have been shortages of supplies, the
responsibility falls on the cynical manipulations carried out by this
regime. I have an awful lot of personal experience. Ambassador
Tutwiler and I were intimately involved with U.S. policy in the
aftermath of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait. I will resist
the temptation to go into a great deal of history. I would simply say
that the sanctions that were put in place after the Gulf War of
1990-91, that those sanctions always allowed Iraq to import any food
or medicine it wanted and the sanctions permitted Iraq to export as
much oil as it needed in order to raise funds for such purposes. I am
not sitting here denying that the Iraqi people have suffered, I am
simply saying that the responsibility for the suffering does not
belong to the sanctions or to the international community.
Question: Why is the USG position so ambiguous when most international
observers believe the U.S. is planning a military attack on Iraq?
Ambassador Haass: You may know things that I don't. I grant that. I
only advise the Secretary of State and the President. And it is my
honest conclusion and message this morning that, to the best of my
knowledge, no decision has been taken to go to war. And this should be
understandable to anyone because war is always an expensive and
dangerous business. No one who is a responsible leader would ever go
to war carelessly or lightly. But, as I said at the beginning, we have
determined, and the President has determined, that Iraq must come into
compliance with its obligations, not to the United States, but its
obligations to the entire international community and the United
States has gone to great lengths to give Iraq a chance to do this
peacefully. After all we spent two months this autumn working with the
United Nations Security Council to bring about what ultimately became
Resolution 1441. Now, I can't tell you what is going to happen. I am
in charge of policy planning not policy predicting. But again, if I
have a simple message to communicate, it is that we have committed
ourselves to bringing about certain results, but we have not made any
decisions about how we bring about those results.
Question: What does the U.S. expect from Arab regimes as far as the
Iraqi issue is concerned? My second question is does the U.S.
administration have a plan to democratize Arab regimes?
Ambassador Haass: Let me try to answer both questions. It is premature
for us to speak about specific expectations, to use your word, from
Arab regimes. But, I would simply say that, as the situation evolves,
we would obviously want to discuss how we might respond. And, I can
imagine that we would ask different Arab governments to participate or
assist the international efforts in different ways. And this would
depend on such factors as geography, capabilities and political
matters. And I can also imagine that some governments might
participate simply diplomatically, others economically, others
militarily. And, if we do end up with a situation where force is used,
I can imagine some governments might participate during the use of
force, others might help in the rebuilding of Iraq. To use a
restaurant analogy, this is very much an a la carte approach, not a
set menu approach.
Let me turn to the second question. That is the question of
democratization which is something that I care a lot about. As some of
you may know, this is a subject I gave a speech about several weeks
ago and subsequently my boss, the Secretary of State, Mr. Powell, also
spoke out publicly. The United States does not have a plan for
democratization, but we do have our views.
It is our view that the countries in this part of the world need to
undertake political and economic reform. There is also an argument for
such things as educational reform. Now, we understand that in every
country, it will be different. And what works in Morocco does not
necessarily, and would not be the exact formula, that would be
appropriate for Egypt or Saudi Arabia. We also understand that this is
something that the United States could not and should not try to
impose from the outside. But we are prepared to encourage this process
of reform and we are prepared to assist it using such tools or
instruments as economic assistance, free trade agreements, support for
elections, and the development of civil society. And we know this is
something that will not and cannot be accomplished overnight.
We are encouraged by what is being accomplished and undertaken in
Morocco, and we look forward to assisting not simply the government
here but civil society.
Question: I would like to ask regarding your military intervention in
Iraq. You mentioned that the results of the first Gulf War were not
fully successful since Saddam was not removed, and he was allowed to
stay. You talked of two possibilities following the first Gulf War.
One was a civil war, and the other was what you called "Saddamism" or
having Saddam replaced by a similar regime. How do these two scenarios
after the first Gulf War compare with what we have now. In other
words, what are you expecting to happen after a second Gulf war?
Ambassador Haass: The goal of the Gulf War of 1991 was the liberation
of Kuwait, and that goal was achieved. After that objective was
achieved, the international community put into place, through UNSC
Resolution 687, a series of sanctions designed to make sure that Iraq
does not again threaten either its own people, or the region. One can
argue now whether these sanctions succeeded in part or failed in part,
but the bottom line is that more than a decade later we still face a
significant threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Our goal now is to bring
about 100% Iraqi compliance with its international obligations. In
principle, it is possible for the current regime to fulfill this
requirement. But if the current regime is unwilling to do this, then
the international community will bring about a different Iraqi
government that is prepared to fulfill its international obligations.
Question: How can you explain how, a year ago the priority of the
United States was to find Usama Ben Laden and the campaign against
terrorism, now it is Iraq?
Ambassador Haass: The fact is that the global war on terrorism is
proceeding. There has actually been extraordinary progress in
implementing the specific terms of the U.N. Security Council
Resolution 1373. One can measure the progress by the number of
individuals arrested, or the amount of financial assets seized, or the
steps taken by individual governments, to make it more difficult for
terrorists to be successful. The bottom line is 16 months after
September 11 the world has become a more difficult place for
terrorists to carry out successful terrorist attacks. The degree of
international cooperation, as well as national efforts, that simply
didn't exist before. I want to be clear here. I am not suggesting that
we have defeated the challenge, and I am not suggesting that the
terrorists won't succeed again in the future. Unfortunately, groups
such as Al Qaeda are committed and resourceful, and open societies,
such as the United States, will always be vulnerable. The bottom line
is that the global war against terrorism remains our highest priority.
One should not assume that simply because one hears somewhat less
about it that in any way it is diminished.
Question: Is UBL still alive?  
Ambassador Haass: Again, I don't myself have any specific information
that he is either dead or alive, but I am working under the assumption
that he may well be alive, and certainly that the threat posed by Al
Queda continues to exist.
Question: Two short questions. The first one, don't you think that
North Korea is a bigger threat to the United States than Iraq
especially since you haven't been able to document that it has WMD?
Second, don't you think that America is making a lot of enemies in the
Arab world by imposing new regulations on incoming visitors from the
Arab world such as fingerprinting, and also through it harassment of
the Arab and Muslim communities in the United States of America?
Ambassador Haass: You raise two important subjects. I will try to be
both brief yet do justice to what you ask. North Korea is a
significant threat, not simply to the United States but to the entire
world. What I think you are seeing is the emergence of a broad and
deep international consensus that North Korea must reverse the steps
it has taken in the area of developing nuclear weapons. This problem
with North Korea, this most recent chapter of this problem with North
Korea has emerged over the past few months, unlike the challenge posed
by Iraq and Saddam Hussein which is now going on for more than a
decade. Again, I am guardedly hopeful that the international community
will be able to come to a satisfactory resolution of the North Korean
problem, working this out diplomatically. No one for a second is
underestimating the significance of the challenge posed by North
Korea.
But I think it is important to remember that no two situations are
exactly alike, so we should not expect either the American or the
international response to be identical.
On the second question you raised, let me just say I have been over
the last few months to many countries in the Arab and Islamic world,
and I have heard many questions and complaints about visa issues. The
last thing in the world we want to do is discourage people from
Morocco, from the Arab world, from continuing to visit the United
States. At the same time, what we are trying to do is find a balance,
to strike a balance, between retaining our openness and our welcome,
while at the same time providing the necessary security. I think you
have to be a little bit understanding and give us some time to get
this balance right. I think a lot of progress has already been made,
even if the procedures are more demanding. Hopefully the number of
visas that will ultimately be extended will be at least as many as was
the case in the past. But again, we will find a way to balance
security considerations with the need to remain what I think is
arguably the most open country in the world. Thank you.
End Transcript
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)