• Military

• WMD Menu                           

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

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

09 February 2003

Waiting to Disarm Iraq Risks Weapons Use, Rumsfeld Says

(Joint press conference with Italian Defense Minister Martino) (2550)
There is a growing sense of urgency with respect to disarming Iraq,
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said in a joint press conference
with Italian Defense Minister Antonio Martino February 7.
"Every week and month that goes by, [Saddam Hussein's] chemical and
biological and nuclear programs are more mature, and the risk of their
use becomes greater, whether by that country or by transfer to a
terrorist network," Rumsfeld warned.
Rumsfeld thanked Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi for his leadership
in the statement issued last week by the governments of Britain, the
Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, and Spain
"expressing their determination that Iraq disarm itself of its weapons
of mass destruction." He also thanked the "Vilnius 10" nations --
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania,
Albania, Croatia and Macedonia -- for a similar declaration.
"Their statements sent a very strong signal, an important signal, that
the world is increasingly united in its purpose and is determined to
see Iraq disarmed," he said.
Rumsfeld reminded his listeners that over the past 12 years the
international community has tried diplomatic, economic, and limited
military efforts to persuade Iraq to declare and eliminate its weapons
of mass destruction -- all without success.
"We're dealing with a country, a regime that has chemical weapons,
biological weapons and a nuclear program, and has used chemical
weapons against its neighbors and its own people. It has invaded a
neighbor, two of its neighbors. It has threatened to undermine several
of its neighboring states and destabilize them," the Defense Secretary
said.
"Even though the use of force is your last choice, the risk of not
acting may be vastly greater than the risk of acting," he said.
Following is a transcript of the joint press conference, as released
by the Department of Defense:
(begin transcript)
United States Department of Defense News Transcript
Presenter: Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
Friday, February 7, 2003
Secretary Rumsfeld Joint Press Conference with Defense Minister
Antonio Martino
(Joint Press Conference with Defense Minister Antonio Martino at
Palazzo Chigi in Rome, Italy)
Martino (as translated from Italian): Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen. I would like to start out by saying that this morning we
had a meeting with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Prime Minister
Berlusconi, and in the course of that meeting, PM Berlusconi
underlined the Italian position just as he had reported this position
to the Chamber of Deputies and to the Italian Senate. Secretary
Rumsfeld and the government of Italy share the same position, and in
discussing the issue of Iraq we've come to the understanding that one
of the main points is supporting the credibility of the United
Nations. If there should be noncompliance with the 17th resolution of
the United Nations Security Council, Resolution 1441, it would be a
terrible, terrible blow to the credibility of the UN.
Unfortunately, we've seen on the basis of the report of the weapons
inspectors and the speech delivered by Secretary of State Powell to
the United Nations, that there has been serious material violation of
the resolution. We are hopeful that it will be possible to have
disarmament in Iraq without any recourse to military intervention. But
we cannot hide the fact, as was stated yesterday by the Prime Minister
to the two Houses of Parliament, that a dictatorship with weapons of
mass destruction is a terrorizing fear and peril for the rest of the
world. After that first meeting this morning, we went on to have a
bilateral meeting, and in fact there we had representatives of two
allied governments, but not only that, but also people who are
personal friends, and we were able in the course of that meeting to
cover a number of important issues.
I would like to thank Secretary Rumsfeld for the words that he
expressed in the course of our meeting, and in fact he underlined the
commitment of the United States armed forces in terms of providing all
the tactical and logistical support necessary to ensure the safety of
the Italian Alpine troops. We also were able to cover other issues,
but I don't think it would be very polite of me to continue with my
remarks. I would like now to leave the floor to Secretary Rumsfeld.
Rumsfeld: Thank you very much, Minister. Good morning. It is always a
pleasure to be able to make even a brief visit to this wonderful city.
Prime Minister Berlusconi has been a most gracious host. We had an
excellent discussion. We appreciate and thank him for his hospitality,
and certainly even more we thank the country of Italy for its strong
friendship and its staunch support in the global war on terrorism. I'm
particularly pleased to be here with my friend the Minister of
Defense, and I thank you also for your hospitality. I also thank the
Prime Minister for his leadership in the statement that was issued
last week by eight governments, the leaders of Britain, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Spain, as well as Italy, expressing their determination that
Iraq disarm itself of its weapons of mass destruction. Their
statements sent a very strong signal, an important signal, that the
world is increasingly united in its purpose and is determined to see
Iraq disarmed. More recently, the so-called Vilnius 10 nations have
followed with an equally strong and important statement to the world.
And as the minister indicated, we had a good discussion on both our
responsibilities in NATO, as well as our bilateral relationships and
we would be happy to respond to questions.
Q: -- Mr. Secretary, you recently made a statement in which you placed
Libya, Cuba and Germany on the same plane, substantially, and this of
course engendered the outrage on the part of the Germans. We are
wondering how you could have made a statement of that kind. In other
words, how could you compare someone like Fidel Castro to Schroeder?
Rumsfeld: Let me respond this way. I did not make such a statement. I
was asked a question as to which countries are supporting the U.S.
effort with respect to Iraq, which countries have offered to assist in
the event there is a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, and which countries are
opposed. I answered the question just as I'm answering your question.
And I said some countries were supporting, some countries that offered
to be helpful later, and some countries had by their own statements
nominated themselves as countries that were opposed. It just happens
that those are some of the countries that are opposed, and each
sovereign country can do whatever they wish. And I can't imagine why
it would cause a stir in any country, because it was each of those
countries that developed their own policy and announced it and, in the
case of Germany, ran on it in a political campaign. And there are
obviously enormous differences between those countries. Enormous
differences, just as there are big differences between countries in
the first group that are supporting it. And for people in any country
to cast it in the way your question was posed would be inaccurate, and
possibly even mischievous.
Q: President Bush said that Saddam Hussein has recently authorized his
field commanders to use chemical weapons. Have you seen any
indications that those field commanders are actually preparing to do
so and if they did, is nuclear retaliation an option that the U.S.
would consider?
Rumsfeld: With respect to the last portion of your question, the U.S.
doesn't discuss that matter. I wouldn't want to elaborate further on
what the President said, with respect to the intelligence that he
cited. But I will say this, Saddam Hussein cannot use chemical or
biological weapons himself, he has to use his chain of command and
military officers. And we are sending very clear messages to the
people around him that they would be well advised not to use those
weapons. And in the event they do, they would wish they hadn't.
Q: Good morning Mr. Secretary.
Rumsfeld: Good morning.
Q: I wonder if you could share with us what sense of urgency you
arrived here with this morning and while you're here in Italy, to whom
that message is directed to today. To what countries might that
message be directed, and also what words you might have in light of
the strong words from President Bush last night to Saddam Hussein.
Rumsfeld: Well, I would respond this way. I think the world feels a
sense of momentum. It's been a long road -- 12 years. We've seen
enormous efforts by the international community of a diplomatic nature
and they have failed. Not only did the diplomatic efforts fail to get
Saddam Hussein to cooperate and disarm himself of the weapons of mass
destruction, but so too the economic sanctions and the so-called Oil
for Food Program has failed to get him to cooperate. So the patience
of the world tried diplomatic, tried economic, and indeed tried
limited military activity in the northern and southern no-fly zones,
and that too has failed to get him to cooperate. And the urgency comes
from the reality that every week and month that goes by, his chemical
and biological and nuclear programs are more mature, and the risk of
their use becomes greater, whether by that country or by transfer to a
terrorist network. So the world faces a serious situation, and it is
the nexus between weapons of mass destruction and terrorist states and
terrorist networks, and that is why the United Nations passed
Resolution 1441 unanimously.
Q: I have a question that is addressed to both ministers, it is up to
you who shall answer the question. I am referring in my question to
the visit of Tarik Aziz to the Holy Father here in Rome on February
the 14th. I would like to know how you view this diplomatic initiative
and if you think it will engender any change.
Martino: It is not up to me to comment on this question, I am not in
charge of foreign policy here in my country and therefore I don't see
that it would be appropriate for me to react to that question. It
would be inappropriate even if I were in charge of foreign policy.
Martino (turning to Secretary Rumsfeld): Do you wish to say anything?
Rumsfeld: No, I thought you handled it perfectly.
Q: If Italy sends forces, military forces to the Gulf, would they be
intended for use in combat role, or would they be strictly for
post-war stability operations, and would you require, before you send
forces for combat use, that there be a second UN Security Council
resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq? Thank you.
Martino: I got three for the price of one. With regards to the
question on Italian participation in a military campaign, this is
something that the government would have to decide together as a
collegiate body, and of course it would be subject to the approval of
the Parliament, so at this point I do not wish to react to something
that may or may not happen in the future.
I'll now answer the second question. I think I possibly forgot the
third, but this is the second answer. Our Prime Minister said
yesterday to the Houses of Parliament that we hope, we would consider
it highly desirable, to have a second resolution of the United
Nations. Of course, it would be better not to need another resolution
at all, and hopefully, it will be possible to have Iraq disarm without
the second resolution. At any rate, should there be another
resolution, then that would increase the number of resolutions that
currently are not being complied with from 16 to 17.
Martino: Shall we do a last one? Rumsfeld: Sure, or do you have to go?
Martino: Another one. The last one.
Q: Thank you. Secretary Rumsfeld, Sara Smith from Channel 4 News in
the U.K.
Rumsfeld: Hello Sara.
Q: The Italian public seems unconvinced for the need for war. You're
heading to Germany next, where there is even more outright opposition.
How can you use this trip to try to persuade the European public of
the need for military action?
Rumsfeld: I think that this is a difficult set of issues and it does
not surprise me that there are a variety of views. We are in a new
security environment in the 21st century, and it's notably different
from that of the previous century, and I think that the debate and
discussion and the consideration that is being given to this new
security circumstance is healthy, and desirable and part of a process
that our world and our people and our democratic systems have to go
through.
The people in this room and the people of our respective countries
grew up in a different period. We grew up in a period when
conventional weapons, we knew, could kill hundreds and even thousands.
The weapons that are available today to terrorist states and terrorist
networks can kill not simply hundreds or thousands but tens of
thousands and hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and
children. And the question our publics in the world is wrestling with
is, "What does that call upon us to do? Does it call upon us to do
something different than we were able to do in the last century?"
To be very specific, had we had information before September 11th that
that attack was about to take place, wouldn't we have had an
obligation to try to stop it, even though the attack hadn't taken
place? Now, instead of an attack where 3,000 people from many
countries of every religion, men, women and children were killed in
the 21st century, imagine an attack with a biological weapon that
kills 30,000 or 300,000 innocent people. Doesn't that call for at
least serious consideration about whether or not the international
community ought to do something about that risk?
In this case, we're dealing with a country, a regime that has chemical
weapons, biological weapons and a nuclear program, and has used
chemical weapons against its neighbors and its own people. It has
invaded a neighbor, two of its neighbors. It has threatened to
undermine several of its neighboring states and destabilize them. And
the question is, what does one do about that? And the answer is try
diplomacy 12 years; try economic sanctions at least 5 years, try
limited military action, try to get their cooperation, and at some
point before that terrible event occurs, even though the use of force
is your last choice, the risk of not acting may be vastly greater than
the risk of acting.
And I'll end where I began. These are tough issues, they're important
issues and they're issues that are not simple, and they cannot be
answered on a bumper sticker. They need to be carefully thought
through by the publics, and in my view that's what's taking place.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)