Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

DATE=1/21/03

TYPE=INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

TITLE=HOPKINSON-IRAQ

NUMBER=3-497

BYLINE=PAT BODNAR

DATELINE=WASHINGTON

INTERNET=

///// AVAILABLE IN DALET UNDER SOD/ENGLISH NEWS NOW INTERVIEWS IN THE FOLDER FOR TODAY OR YESTERDAY /////

INTRO: U-N arms inspectors in Iraq searched more sites for suspected banned weapons, following Baghdad's new pledge to fully cooperate with the inspection process. On Monday, Iraq signed a 10-point plan with visiting chief U-N weapons inspector Hans Blix and the head of the I-A-E-A, Mohamed ElBaradei, to boost its cooperation and comply with U-N disarmament resolutions. That agreement followed the discovery of more than a dozen empty chemical weapons warheads.items that were not included in a lengthy weapons report to the Security Council.

William Hopkinson is an expert on international security and a fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London. He tells VOA's Pat Bodnar that the significance of the empty chemical weapons warheads is not yet clear.

MR. HOPKINSON: It depends what else they find, whether these are accidentally overlooked things or whether they are part of a new purchase then later, were they deliberately concealed, mis-described in the records. And I think there is a lot of information that we don't have yet to judge. My own judgment is that Saddam Hussein is cheating, will continue to cheat so long as he is able to, and has certainly been continuing programs to work up the ability to create chemical weapons. But, that said, the significance of these four, plus the earlier 11, on their own is not that great. It is, though, like forensic evidence, one is adding small pieces to a picture, and there is more to come out yet.

MS. BODNAR: U-S senior officials and weapons inspectors are now saying to Baghdad, clearly sending a message, that time is running out.

MR. HOPKINSON: Well, I think it means that Saddam will not be allowed to prevaricate through the whole of the coming year, until the U-S elections are in sight or anything of that sort, but in a fairly definable period a judgment will have to be made as to whether he is complying with the U.N. demands or whether force is going to have to be used to make certain he does disarm.

MS. BODNAR: What do you make of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's and now British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw's comments about the possibility of letting Saddam Hussein go into exile to avoid war?

MR. HOPKINSON: In one sense, it is just the ratcheting up of pressure, just like the military buildup and so on. There is the hard pressure. Then you say, well, you can actually escape. We are not going to have your head, come what may. And it is quite significant, I think, that it comes from Rumsfeld, who has been the man keenest perhaps on regime change. Saddam, of course, first, he wants to hang on to power in any case. Secondly, he may reflect on Milosevic or, more pertinently, Pinochet. Pinochet left with an amnesty and it still didn't stop people starting legal actions against him later on.

My own judgment is that, obviously, to avoid a great war, with possibly tens or even hundreds of thousands of casualties if there were urban fighting in the suburbs of Baghdad, it would be a very good bargain to strike. But I see it at the moment part of the psychological pressure to see if war can be avoided.

MS. BODNAR: The U-N weapons inspectors meanwhile present their findings to the U-N Security Council in a week's time. Any smoking gun anticipated?

MR. HOPKINSON: I do not think they have found anything which could be a smoking gun. We touched on before, on the 11 chemical weapons empty. It may be that some of the papers seized from private houses and so on will demonstrate programs. I think there undoubtedly have been intentions to carry on with programs. Whether that amounts to a smoking gun, because scientific research is quite difficult to pin down to offensive matters except in the nuclear field; I mean work on chemical weapons or on biological weapons, if they are defensive or offensive, is quite hard to distinguish.

So, I think there may be some, but it is unlikely that the Security Council will be presented with hard evidence of a weaponized biological device or something of that sort.

OUTRO: William Hopkinson is an expert on international security and a fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London.

NEB/PB/RAE