• Military

• WMD Menu                           

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

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

23 January 2003

Powell Confident of Strong "Coalition of the Willing" Against Iraq

(Powell press conference with U.K. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw) (4240)
In a press conference with U.K. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw in
Washington January 23, Secretary of State Colin Powell reaffirmed U.S.
determination to see Iraq disarmed, saying that "if the UN should fail
to act - and I hope that is not the case - then the United States
reserves the right to do what it thinks is appropriate to defend its
interests, the interests of its friends, and to protect the world."
"And I am quite confident if it comes to that, we'll be joined by many
nations," Powell continued. "Many nations have already expressed a
willingness to serve in a coalition of the willing."
Powell said the United States is looking forward to the report to the
UN Security Council January 27 by the UN inspectors. "We will listen
carefully to the inspectors' reports on Monday and then be in
consultation with our friends and allies around the world, and
participate in the discussions within the Security Council. And then
decisions will be forthcoming from those consultations and that
discussion," he said.
"But let's not lose sight of the fact that the issue is the
disarmament of Iraq, not how much more time the inspectors need, but
how much more time should we give Iraq when they have not used the
time they have already been given to do what is required of them, and
that is to disarm."
Straw in his opening comments focused on the requirements of UNSC
Resolution 1441. "One of the things that's happened because of Iraq's
continuing record of deceit and delay over many years," he said, "is
that the onus of proof has shifted from the international community to
Iraq. And the resolution itself makes that very clear."
He also pointed out that the UN inspectors forced out of Iraq by
Saddam Hussein in 1999 considered numerous chemicals, chemical warfare
agents, special munitions for delivery of chemical and biological
agents, and mustard gas shells to be unaccounted for. "Any of those
sets of munitions could cause lethal damage across the region and
could be used in terrorism across the world," Straw said.
While acknowledging that "there are different ideas right now as to
how to proceed," Powell said the United States believes that the best
way is to "keep showing determination, political determination, and
military determination with our deployments, deployments
which...support diplomacy."
Asked about recent statements by Germany and France, Straw replied:
"We've known since the summer that Germany was not going to be willing
to take part under any circumstances in military action, and that, of
course, is a decision for them. But I don't know any representative
within the European Union who does not accept the overwhelming need to
take positive and effective action about Iraq."
Noting that the UN Security Council voted unanimously for Resolution
1441, Powell said: "For the international community now to say, 'Never
mind. I'll walk away from this problem,' or ignore it, or allow it to
be strung out indefinitely with no end, I think would be a defeat for
the international community and a serious defeat for the United
Nations process."
Straw said the U.K. position is "exactly the same as that of the
United States Government, which is that we wish to maintain that faith
in the United Nations but there has to be a reciprocal responsibility
shown by the United Nations."
Resolution 1441 "is clear, and everybody signed up to it, to include
the Germans by extension at the NATO Summit," Powell said.
Asked whether, if Iraq fails to comply, another UN resolution would be
necessary to authorize force, Powell replied: "That's an open question
right now. I think we have always held the position that there is
probably sufficient authority in earlier resolutions, or in 1441. But
we know that many of our colleagues in the Security Council would
prefer to see a second resolution if it comes to the use of military
force."
Following is the State Department transcript of the press conference:
(begin transcript)
U.S. Department of State
Office of the Spokesman
January 23, 2003
Press Availability
SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN L. POWELL
AND BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY JACK STRAW
January 23, 2003
Benjamin Franklin Room
State Department
Washington, D.C.
(11:20 a.m. EST)
SECRETARY POWELL: -- many conversations on the issues of the day. We
will be having more conversations after this press conference, but we
have spent some time talking about the situation in North Korea as
well as the situation with respect to Iraq.
We are looking forward to the report of the chief inspectors on Monday
to the Security Council with respect to Iraq's compliance with the
requirements of UN Resolution 1441. As the President has repeatedly
said, he is hopeful for a peaceful solution, but we must not mistake
the will of the international community to see this matter is
resolved.
Resolution 1441, which was voted unanimously by the Security Council
15-0 does not deal with inspectors as much as it deals with Iraq. It
gives Iraq one last opportunity to come into compliance with its
obligations under the various previous UN resolutions, and it also
makes clear that if Iraq does not act in a responsible manner and
disarm itself with the inspectors assisting in that process, then it
is the responsibility of the Security Council, the same 15 members,
with new membership now, of course, since it changed over at the
beginning of the year, to consider what should be done about this.
And so this is a process that is unfolding, and we will listen
carefully to the inspectors' reports on Monday and then be in
consultation with our friends and allies around the world, and
participate in the discussions within the Security Council. And then
decisions will be forthcoming from those consultations and that
discussion.
But let's not lose sight of the fact that the issue is the disarmament
of Iraq, not how much more time the inspectors need, but how much more
time should we give Iraq when they have not used the time they have
already been given to do what is required of them, and that is to
disarm.
There are questions that must be asked. Why are they trying to deceive
the inspectors? Why are they not allowing reconnaissance to take
place? Why are they hiding documents in the homes of individuals? Why
are we just starting to discover things that should have been
declared? Why was the declaration so false?
All of these are relevant questions that we will put to the two
inspection chiefs and put to our Council colleagues as the debate
continues next week and until we determine what the appropriate
actions should be. And this will be a judgment that the Security
Council will have to make, and of course each member of the Security
Council, including the United States, reserves the right to act in a
way that's consistent with its international obligations as well as
its own national interests.
We hope it can be resolved peacefully, but, once again, we must
understand that it may require the use of force. It is the deployments
that we have made and the United Kingdom has made in recent weeks that
we think have put pressure on Iraq to get even this passive
cooperation, but flawed and incomplete and inadequate cooperation that
has been received so far. And we'll continue to our discussions about
this and other issues after this press conference, but I would invite
my colleague to say a few words.
FOREIGN SECRETARY STRAW: Thank you very much, and it's a great
pleasure for me to be with my good friend and colleague, Secretary
Powell, here this morning. Secretary Powell has described the issues
we've been discussing. I just wanted to say this about Iraq. As
Secretary Powell has said, we negotiated 1441 it was a US/UK draft.
There was a high degree of skepticism in some quarters when we started
negotiating it that there would ever be any level of consensus; still
less unanimity in the international community.
But as we negotiated it, because people saw the strength of the case
against Iraq, they came together to pass 1441. And again, as Secretary
Powell has just said, 1441 imposes obligations on Iraq. One of the
things that's happened because of Iraq's continuing record of deceit
and delay over many years is that the onus of proof has shifted from
the international community to Iraq. And the resolution itself makes
that very clear.
People sometimes say, "Why Iraq? What are the inspectors going to
find?" And some suggest this is some kind of hype game of
hide-and-seek that only if the inspectors find something dramatic is
there proof that Iraq has "failed to comply." It's not like that. What
the last lot of inspectors, UNSCOM, said to the United Nations in
February, 1999, just after they had been forced out by Saddam Hussein,
was that amongst other things unaccounted for were 3,000 tons of
precursor chemicals; 360 tons of bulk chemical warfare agents,
including one and a half tons of the deadly VX nerve agent; 30,000
special munitions for delivery of chemical and biological agents; and
550 mustard gas shells. Any of those sets of munitions could cause
lethal damage across the region and could be used in terrorism across
the world.
Saddam Hussein has not yet explained where these are. He has, yes,
ensured that traffic inspectors allow UN inspectors' vehicles through
"on red." But that is not compliance. And time is running out for him
to comply fully with the terms of 1441.
As I've said, we don't see January the 27th as a deadline, and it was
never set down as a deadline when we were negotiating 1441. But it is
an important moment at which the United Nations needs to signal the
determination which it set out very clearly on the 8th of November
about the necessity of resolving this issue.
Thank you very much.
QUESTION: Secretary Straw, can I ask you, sir, about your government's
position? How long might Britain be willing to string along with the
Security Council considering, as you have noticed, French, German, et
cetera, opinion, or abandon that approach and stand with the United
States and a handful of other allies that want to do something about
this without further delay?
FOREIGN SECRETARY STRAW: Well, I'm afraid I don't see the dichotomy in
that way. I was in the United Nations General Assembly when the
President of the United States made that wonderful speech on September
the 12th setting out his faith in the United Nations. And that faith
was, as it turned out, well-placed on November the 8th when 1441 was
passed.
That sets out obligations on Iraq and responsibilities for the United
Nations. And our position, I think, is exactly the same as that of the
United States Government, which is that we wish to maintain that faith
in the United Nations but there has to be a reciprocal responsibility
shown by the United Nations. And both Prime Minister Blair and I and
the British Government have always said that, given that we can't
predict the final outcome of discussions inside the UN, we have to
reserve the position as to what decisions we will take if there is no
clear resolution within the UN.
SECRETARY POWELL:  In the back.
QUESTION: The kind of disagreements between Paris and Berlin, on the
one hand, and Washington on the other, to what extent do you think
that affects Britain's position in Europe, whether negatively or
positively?
FOREIGN SECRETARY STRAW: Well, look, you can always write these things
up in that way. What I know about 1441 was that it was supported
actively by France. They voted for it. They were involved in its
negotiation. And I also know, because I was in the room when it
happened, that Germany fully supported the terms of 1441, including
explicitly its final paragraph saying that Iraq would have to accept
serious consequences from a failure to comply at the Prague NATO
summit in November. And that was a position of the German Government
as well.
We've known since the summer that Germany was not going to be willing
to take part under any circumstances in military action, and that, of
course, is a decision for them. But I don't know any representative
within the European Union who does not accept the overwhelming need to
take positive and effective action about Iraq.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, both Secretaries, please. If I could ask you,
why do you think it has been so difficult to persuade principally the
French and others that the onus, the burden of proof, should be on
Iraq, not on this coalition to produce a smoking gun? And what do you
think, down the road, the impact would be on the United Nations if the
coalition of the willing were to proceed without the backing of the
United Nations?
SECRETARY POWELL: I think France and Germany do understand that the
obligation is on Iraq and if there is any confusion about that, I'm
sure we will clear it up in the days ahead in our conversations with
them. There are different ideas right now as to how to proceed. And
the United States believes that the best way to proceed is to keep
showing determination, political determination, and military
determination with our deployments, deployments, which as Secretary
Rumsfeld said the other day, support diplomacy.
And now let's wait and see what the inspectors say on Monday with
respect to the degree of cooperation they have received or not
received, what they believe the situation is, and then we'll have a
debate.
And so, I do not rule out that a solution would be found either, for a
peaceful way to do it, or the use of military force that would draw
the strong support of the Council. This is a beginning debate, not the
end of the debate. And even though there are sharp differences now, as
reported in the press, and clearly there are sharp differences, there
were sharp differences when we also started with 1441 at the
beginning. But 1441 is clear, and everybody signed up to it, to
include the Germans by extension at the NATO Summit, as Secretary
Straw said. And that was clear.
They are in material breach now. They have been in the past. They have
a chance to fix the situation by disarming themselves. It's very clear
what they had to do. The inspectors were a means to help them disarm.
And if they did not disarm, if they did not meet the terms of 1441,
then they were subject to serious consequences. And that was the final
part of 1441, which was signed up on by the French as well as 14 other
nations at the time.
FOREIGN MINISTER STRAW: All countries come at these important issues
from slightly different perspectives. And it's no different today than
it was, in a sense, has been. But as Secretary Powell has said, 1441
was a unanimous decision. My own view is that one of the reasons why
it took such time and attention to negotiate was because everybody in
the room knew that what they were signing up to in that resolution was
the consequences of the resolution, as well.
Indeed, the consequences could not have been more clearly spelled out.
In the last paragraph, paragraph 13, where it says "if Iraq fails to
comply, serious consequences will follow." And everybody knew, too,
that serious consequences means only one thing: force. President
Chirac is on record, himself, as accepting that force may have to be
used in order to enforce the will of the United Nations.
So yes, as the Secretary said, there are varying reports of different
opinions at the moment, but everybody has agreed of the seriousness of
the deceit and delay of Saddam Hussein and the threat that he poses
and of the need for it to be dealt with.
SECRETARY POWELL: Let me add, yes -- I want to talk to the second
point. The United Nations came together and responded to the challenge
that President Bush laid down on the 12th of September. And that
resulted in 1441, 15-0. The international community spoke clearly in
that resolution. For the international community now to say,
"Nevermind. I'll walk away from this problem," or ignore it, or allow
it to be strung out indefinitely with no end, I think would be a
defeat for the international community and a serious defeat for the
United Nations process.
FOREIGN MINISTER STRAW: Perhaps I could just add that -- because I
often read stuff about exceptionalism and isolationism here. I was in
the General Assembly on the 12th of September when the President made
his speech. And he opened the speech, in a sense, by renewing his
commitment to the United Nations by announcing that the United States
would be rejoining UNESCO. And you could hear and feel the sense
around the room that he was a President really committed to this
route. And by your deeds shall you judge them. This administration has
shown real commitment to the United Nations, but as ever, commitments
have to be reciprocal.
SECRETARY POWELL:  Jonathan.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, you have spoken about your optimism about
getting the agreement of the Security Council for the next steps
forward. Does that mean you want another resolution if the use of
force should become necessary?
SECRETARY POWELL: I think that's an open question right now. I think
we have always held the position that there is probably sufficient
authority in earlier resolutions, or in 1441. But we know that many of
our colleagues in the Security Council would prefer to see a second
resolution if it comes to the use of military force.
What will happen next week is the inspectors will report and there
will be debate that day, there will be debate again on the 29th. I'm
sure all of the heads of state and government will be talking to one
another, and then a judgment will be made as to how to proceed from
that point on. But I would not rule anything in or anything out at
this point. We will see how it unfolds.
QUESTION: What do you both believe are the risks of going into war
against Iraq without the full approval of the UN?
FOREIGN SECRETARY STRAW: Look, we've currently got the full approval
of the United Nations. We've made it clear in the United Kingdom
Government that we would much prefer a second resolution. But for
reasons that are well rehearsed and understood, we've had to reserve
the position if achieving a second resolution is not possible.
There are consequences for the whole of the international community if
we cannot follow through the resolve that was shown on the 8th of
November. That's what's at stake here. What's at stake is the
authority of the whole of the UN. Because it was the UN which backed
the military action to stop the gratuitous invasion of Kuwait by Iraq,
the UN which put in the weapons inspectors, the UN which had very
patiently to put up with four years of monumental lying and deceit
from Saddam Hussein, saying they had nothing at all, we only
discovered things when we had defectors, the UN which had to suffer
the humiliation of having those inspectors effectively kicked out, and
then four years of limbo. So it is the authority of the UN, of the
international order, that is at stake, which is why we have to follow
this through.
And to repeat a point made by Secretary Powell, we in the United
Kingdom Government are in exactly the same position as the United
States Government, and I think the whole rest of the world. We want to
see this resolved peacefully, but we also know, to quote Kofi Annan,
that sometimes -- and this, by God, is one occasion -- you have to
back effective diplomacy with a credible threat of force.
QUESTION: You have spoken a lot about the endgame here at the UN and
your optimism that it will succeed. But I'm just wondering how -- I'm
having problems with the microphone. I can't help but wonder as you're
standing here, both of you, underneath a portrait of someone who paid
a great deal of attention to what some might call "Old Europe,"
whether you, as you say, who are going to weigh very carefully what
the inspectors say on Monday, are willing to give the same opportunity
and listen to the concerns so loudly expressed over the last couple of
days by the French and the Germans.
SECRETARY POWELL: Of course, I am. We're all part of an alliance, the
NATO alliance. We're all part of the Euroatlantic Partnership. You see
two nations represented before you that are democracies with public
opinions and with sovereign points of view. And I enter into all of
these issues with a desire to hear from the others and recognizing
that they have points of view and they have principles they believe
in. And that's the greatness of our alliance, this great democratic
alliance, where we listen to others and we find a way forward.
And I think we have demonstrated since the President's speech on the
12th of September that there is a way forward. It's a way forward if
we remain united, if we don't take our eye off the ball, and if we
recognize the problem is not what the inspectors can find or not find,
the problem is not the United States, the problem is not the United
Kingdom; the problem is Saddam Hussein and his willingness to disarm
and the obligation he has to disarm, in the eyes of the world and in
front of the international community.
And let us not have any illusions about why this is important. As you
heard the Secretary say earlier: He has materials. He has weapons. He
has the intention to create more weapons of mass destruction. This
isn't just for bragging purposes. He has used this kind of weaponry in
the past against his own people, against his neighbors. He has invaded
his neighbors. And this is a serious challenge for the region, for the
world. And that's what the United Nations is all about, and this is a
challenge that must be met.
Last one.
QUESTION: Do you take it as a given that the British will be there if
the President goes the military route, goes to war? Or as you watch
obvious divides in Europe now and opposition to this war, do you
countenance the idea seriously that the administration goes it alone?
SECRETARY POWELL: Oh, I don't think we'll have to worry about going it
alone. I think that the case is clear. I think that as we move
forward, if it can't be solved peacefully, and if the UN should fail
to act -- and I hope that is not the case -- then the United States
reserves the right to do what it thinks is appropriate to defend its
interests, the interests of its friends and to protect the world. And
I am quite confident if it comes to that, we'll be joined by many
nations. Many nations have already expressed a willingness to serve in
a coalition of the willing. And I would let the representative of Her
Majesty's Government speak for the United Kingdom, but I am sure it
will be a strong coalition. And we have had examples of this in the
not too distant past where the international community wasn't able to
act through the Security Council, but nevertheless action was taken by
a coalition of the willing.
FOREIGN SECRETARY STRAW: Look, no decisions have been made about
military action, certainly in the United Kingdom and, I believe, in
the United States. Yes, we're having to increase the credible threat
of force to maintain its credibility, and that is why we in the United
Kingdom are now committing up to 30,000 UK forces alongside the larger
number of US forces in the region. And they are there to be used if
necessary and if we make the decisions.
But I'll repeat again that we're doing this, first of all, to enforce
the law of the United Nations in whatever circumstances it is done.
That's why it's being done. Secondly, we would much prefer a second
resolution, but that requires cooperation from our colleagues and
partners inside the United Nations. But there is still a way in which
this can be resolved peacefully. To pick up the point the Secretary
said right at the opening, this is not about inspectors, it's not
about the US or the UK or France or Germany; it's about Saddam Hussein
and the Iraqi regime and the fact that it has been violating
international law; holding stocks of poisons, of viruses, of deadly
diseases; trying to rebuild its nuclear capacity to make nuclear
weapons in complete defiance of international law. That's the issue
and that's why this matter has to be resolved.
Thank you.
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)