• Military

• WMD Menu                           

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

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

11 February 2003

Powell: If Force Is Used, It Will Be "In the Most Measured Way"

(Says Iraq's 12 year "game" with international community must come to
an end) (3700)
If the United States and other members of the international community
feel that Iraq can only be disarmed through the use of force,
Secretary of State Colin Powell said it would be done "in the most
measured way ... not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but
for the purpose of dealing with a regime that simply is
irresponsible."
Powell, speaking in a February 10 interview with the Egyptian
newspaper Al-Ahram, said the United States was not accusing Iraq of
having weapons of mass destruction without evidence.
Iraq "admitted years ago, that they had anthrax, that they were
working on nuclear weapons, but they admitted it only after they were
caught -- not voluntarily," he said.
Increasing the number of U.N. weapons inspectors, he said, "is not the
answer in the absence of Iraqi cooperation and compliance" with U.N.
requirements that it disarm.
"We have watched this game for 12 years. And the region would be
better off if this game comes to an end one way or another," said
Powell. "If Iraq truly wanted peace and did not want to see war in the
region, they would be saying, 'Here are all the documents, here are
all the facilities, you don't need a U-2 [surveillance plane], here it
is, we'll show it to you. You don't have to take a picture from the
sky. You can come take a picture right up close.'"
If Saddam Hussein steps down from power, and a new leadership emerges
in Iraq that would willingly work with the international community to
voluntarily disarm, "then that would be a significant, significant
step," said Powell.
The secretary was asked about a U.S. response to a possible Iraqi
attack on its forces with chemical or biological weapons. Although he
would not comment on what the Bush Administration would do, he said
the United States has "no intention of doing anything that would hurt
the people of Iraq, but we will do what is necessary to defend
ourselves. But I hope before everybody asks what the United States
would do, somebody would say, 'My God, they did have them. They were
lying.'"
Powell also said that if armed conflict was used, in its aftermath,
"the United States and its coalition partners would do everything we
could to help the Iraqi people, to give them a better life."
He mentioned various projects that could be undertaken to improve the
infrastructure and the lives of Iraqis with the country's $20 billion
a year in oil revenues, "to do all the things that are possible in
Iraq if Iraq was not spending this money on weapons of mass
destruction," such as improved health care, education, and improved
social institutions. "[A]nd then we want to go," said Powell,
indicating that the United States would not seek military bases or
facilities in the country.
Following is a transcript of Secretary Powell's interview with
Al-Ahram:
(begin transcript)
INTERVIEW OF
SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN L. POWELL
BY AL-AHRAM
February 10, 2003
Washington, D.C.
(2:15 p.m. EST)
QUESTION: -- they stated that their opposition to war at this
particular time. Why isn't the United States putting these views into
consideration?
SECRETARY POWELL: We are taking all views into consideration. Nobody
wants war. The United States does not want war. Egypt does not want
war. The solution to the possibility of war is very straightforward.
Iraq should disarm.
The international community came together in New York last November
8th at the Security Council and passed a strong resolution, 1441; and
in that resolution everybody acknowledged that Iraq had been guilty of
hiding its weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq was being given one
more chance to come into compliance and to get rid of these weapons of
mass destruction, that the inspectors would help Iraq, but that if
Iraq, once again, failed to answer the international community, then
Iraq must face serious consequences.
We cannot have an international system that functions when you have a
nation such as this that continues to develop weapons that he has used
against his own people and against his neighbors. He has invaded his
neighbors.
The United States did not invade Iran, Iraq did. The United States did
not invade Kuwait, Iraq did. Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran
and chemical weapons their own people and fired missiles at neighbors
during the Gulf War. So the problem is not with the United States, the
problem is with Iraq. We would be pleased at a peaceful solution, but
the President is determined, and I think the international community
is determined, that Iraq must be disarmed of its weapons of mass
destruction. And if it is not done peacefully, the President believes
strongly, and I think many other nations believe strongly, that a
coalition would then have to use force to disarm Iraq.
There are many nations that believe as we do: the United Kingdom,
Spain, Italy, the Group of Eight that put out the statement last week,
and then the Vilnius Ten that put out a statement last week. And we
hope that people will understand that if force is used, it will be
done in the most measured way, and it'll be done not for the purpose
of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of dealing with a
regime that simply is irresponsible.
And in the aftermath of such a conflict the United States and its
coalition partners would do everything we could to help the Iraqi
people, to give them a better life, to help them use the $20 billion a
year that they get from oil revenue to build hospitals, to build
schools, to build roads, to improve agriculture, to take care of
poverty, to do all the things that are possible in Iraq if Iraq was
not spending this money on weapons of mass destruction.
QUESTION: What about the stiff opposition of Moscow, of France and
Germany just yesterday and today? And they are really, quite very
tough in their position.
SECRETARY POWELL: Russia -- they are. They have a strong view. Russia
and France voted for Resolution 1441, which calls for serious
consequences if Iraq did not comply. Iraq has not complied.
Russia, France and Germany, which is a member of the Security Council,
and many others believe that there should be more time given and that
there should be more inspectors added. We are sensitive to those
concerns, and we listen to them. They are our friends, they are our
allies.
But it is not how many more inspectors should be put in, it is will
Iraq comply? And if Iraq complies then you don't need more inspectors.
There are more than enough inspectors. But if Iraq does not comply, if
it is not cooperating, if it is not turning over documents, if it is
not letting people speak freely about what they know, if they are not
bringing in the missiles we know they have, if they are not telling us
what they did with the anthrax and the botulinum toxin, then more
inspectors does not solve that problem. The problem is Iraq is not
complying and not cooperating. And more inspectors, in and of itself,
is not the answer in the absence of Iraqi cooperation and compliance.
QUESTION: But the Blix and Baradei yesterday, I mean, declared that
the Iraqis were very positive and they understand and even today they
declared that they permit the U-2 on (inaudible).
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, there's a statement today that said they would
start letting the U-2s fly, but the U-2s are not the answer if they
are still going to try to hide everything on the ground from the U-2s.
The U-2s might be able to assist in the disarmament, but the U-2s, in
and of itself, are not the answer, nor are more inspectors.
We're pleased if they are letting the U-2s fly, but what happens is,
every time the inspectors go and visit, Iraq gives a little bit more
-- a few more documents. Okay, why didn't they give them the U-2 on
Saturday or Sunday? No, they wait until Monday, and maybe it can start
Wednesday. So the Iraqis are playing a game that we are all familiar
with.
We have watched this game for 12 years. And the region would be better
off if this game comes to an end one way or another. If Iraq truly
wanted peace and did not want to see war in the region, they would be
saying, "Here are all the documents, here are all the facilities, you
don't need a U-2, here it is, we'll show it to you. You don't have to
take a picture from the sky. You can come take a picture right up
close."
We would not be playing this game of detective. We would be playing a
game of "You wanted to know? Here it is. Come look." And they still
are hiding. They still are deceiving. They still are not showing their
willingness to comply.
QUESTION: Would you be ready to receive an Arab delegation to seek a
last-minute compromise that could avoid a war?
SECRETARY POWELL:  Us receive a delegation?
QUESTION: We're hoping a voluntary resignation of President Saddam and
major changes in the system.
SECRETARY POWELL: I think the Arab nations have been playing a very
important role by supporting the position that said Saddam Hussein
must disarm. President Mubarak, especially, has been playing a very,
very active and important role in suggesting to the Iraqis that they
comply and avoid a conflict, and in his position of leadership within
the Arab world, making that case to other Arab leaders.
If the Arab leaders wanted, as a group, to approach Saddam Hussein,
certainly that is their prerogative and we would welcome such an
approach, but it has to be an approach that says to Saddam Hussein,
"You must comply." And of course, I would always be willing to receive
any delegation from the Arab world or from any --
QUESTION:  --would Saddam's resignation be enough?
SECRETARY POWELL: Excuse me. Or from any representative of the
Egyptian Government if that's the question. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Would Saddam's resignation be enough or what else would you
demand?
SECRETARY POWELL: What we need to see is a regime that is changed or a
changed regime that is gone. And it isn't just one person.
We need to see a change. The United States has no desire in the event
of conflict of going in and pulling Iraq apart or breaking all of its
institutions. Those institutions are needed to take care of the
people, to run the systems. It is the regime that's at the top that is
causing all of this trouble in the region and for the Iraqi people and
for the world. And if that regime down to some level, I don't know how
many, were gone and responsible leaders stood up and said to the
world, "Look, they are gone. We are now here. We are in control of
this country. We invite the UN to come in. We invite others to come
in, a coalition to come in to work with us on finding where all of
these weapons all, and we will tell you everything we know. We will
give you all the documents, you can interview all the scientists.
Here's what we know about what happened to the anthrax. Here's what
happened to the VX." We should not take lightly the dangerous nature
of these weapons.
And it is not the United States accusing without evidence. Iraq
admitted, they admitted years ago, that they had anthrax, that they
were working on nuclear weapons, but they admitted it only after they
were caught -- not voluntarily. And so we have got to see a change in
attitude where they are now voluntarily telling us everything they
have done.
And if a new leadership would do that and would work with the
international coalition to come in and help them, peacefully, then
that would be a significant, significant step.
QUESTION: Why did the United States refuse to even consider the, the
reported proposal from Russia and the France to deploy UN peacekeeper
--
SECRETARY POWELL: Because the proposal, one, there is no proposal yet.
The only thing we know about is additional monitors and some technical
material.
QUESTION:  No one's proposing 12,000 UN soldiers?
SECRETARY POWELL: No. Nobody's proposed that. Nobody has proposed
that. Have you -- where did you see that proposal? In a paper? In a
German newspaper called Der Spiegel.
QUESTION:  Yes.
SECRETARY POWELL: But it was immediately discounted by both the French
and the Germans. I know of no proposal for peacekeepers or blue
helmets except in this newspaper article.
QUESTION: There are seven, seven conditions what made the (inaudible)
radio of any country.
SECRETARY POWELL: What President Chirac said today in his press
conference with President Putin was more monitors and technical means,
which is pretty much what Foreign Minister deVillepin was talking
about at the UN last week.
So if they were just talking about an additional number of inspectors
and maybe some additional technical means, that is interesting. The
United States proposed that when we first passed 1441. Let's have
three times as many inspectors. If he's going to cooperate, let's do
it fast.
But now it is not for the purpose of helping them, it is for the
purpose of slowing down the momentum to deal with this matter once and
for all. So the issue is not more inspectors or more technical
capability. The issue is Iraq compliance and Iraq cooperation and Iraq
coming forward in the way I described a moment ago.
QUESTION: Can you -- one question for the Mid-East. Within the present
conditions, do you still believe that we can meet the deadline set in
President Bush vision to establish a Palestinian state by 2005?
SECRETARY POWELL: It remains our goal. It is a -- an ambitious goal
and it'll be a difficult goal to achieve, but the President remains
firmly committed to the vision that he laid out in his speech of 24
June last year, which also captured the vision of the Arab League,
which was fueled by the vision of Crown Prince Abdallah. And so that
still remains our position. We have been working with our Arab friends
and we've been working with the EU and with the UN and with the
Russian Federation through the Quartet to develop a roadmap.
Now that the Israeli elections are over and a government is being
formed, and we'll see what happens in Iraq one way or the other, I
have been in constant conversation with the President about this, and
he remains as committed as ever to his vision to find a way forward in
the Middle East along the lines of his speech of last year.
QUESTION: The Russians reported yesterday that the views of Sharon and
President Bush are identical. Did the views of Mr. Sharon change or
what happened?
SECRETARY POWELL: I, Mr. Bush's views are well known. He gave a
powerful speech on the 24th of June. It captured the needs of both
sides, the need for the end of terror and violence on the one side --
the needs on the other side for a Palestinian state and for the end of
settlement activity. And it will be difficult to get there. These are
not issues that are easy to solve. But the President remains committed
to the vision of his 24 June speech, and he will listen to leaders
from both sides. He is very mindful of the views of President Mubarak
and King Abdallah, and Crown Prince Abdallah and all of the leaders of
the Arab world, as well as listening to Palestinian aspirations and
the wishes of the Palestinian people and listening to the desires of
Prime Minister Sharon.
You cannot leave any party out and just say, I take that party's
position and I ignore the other party's position. The President
remains committed to this 24 June mission.
QUESTION: Last question. How would you consider Arab public opinion
fears that Iraq will be the first in the U.S. hate list of Arab and
Muslim nations?
SECRETARY POWELL: The U.S. has no hate list. The U.S. does not look
for countries to hate. The U.S. looks for friends and partners and
most of the nations in the Arab world are our friends and partners.
Most Muslim nations in the world are our friends and partners.
And I must say that if you'll look at our history, our record of the
last 12 years, when Kuwait, a Muslim nation, was invaded by a
neighbor, Iraq, who came and restored Kuwait to its legitimate
government? Did we make Kuwait the 51st state of the United States or
did we restore Kuwait to its legitimate leadership?
We did what we always do. We gave it back to its people. We are a
partner of Kuwait. Do you we have troops there, yes. For our purpose?
No. For security in the region.
When Kosovo was in danger, the Muslim population of Kosovo, who led
the coalition that went and fought for those Muslims? And Kosovo is
now moving forward. It still has a difficult road ahead. And in
Afghanistan, when Afghanistan became the center of terrorism with the
Taliban supporting al-Qaida, and something had to be done about it
after 9/11, the United States did that working with the Muslim nation,
Pakistan, as our partner and friend.
And we went and we removed the Taliban regime and we're now searching
out the remaining elements of al-Qaida. And what are U.S. troops doing
in Afghanistan now? Going after terrorists and helping rebuild a
country. Our Congress is putting billions of dollars in to help the
Muslim population of Afghanistan. We have helped President Karzai go
back into a position of authority. We have helped with the creation of
institutions in Afghanistan.
Are we new imperialists who want to run Afghanistan? No. We want to
help the Afghans determine their own future and help them. We're
rebuilding schools, we've created conditions so that a million Muslims
have been able to return to their homes in Afghanistan. So this
suggestion that the United States has nations on its hate list is just
ludicrous.
We want friends and partners around the world, and we have shown
ourselves over the years to be a friend and partner, solid friend and
partner, of every nation that wishes to be a friend and partner with
us in the region.
QUESTION: So once you achieve your goals in Iraq and post-Saddam era
you leave or are you going to ask for bases or facilities?
SECRETARY POWELL: Of course we leave. We want to do what is necessary
if conflict comes, and we hope conflict won't come. We still hope for
peace -- a peaceful resolution. But if conflict comes and we have to
go into Iraq, it is our goal, our simple goal, to find a solution
quickly to put in place a government in Iraq to help Iraqis put in
place a government in Iraq that would be responsible to the needs of
all the people of Iraq that will keep the country together and will
dedicate itself to the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, to
proper standards of human rights, and we will help fix all of the
systems that are now broke with respect to healthcare, with respect to
education, with respect to institutions that rest on, you know,
responsible leaders, and then we want to go.
We have lots of demands on the United States.
QUESTION:  What do you ask from Egypt?
SECRETARY POWELL: Egypt, we ask, as always, from Egypt for their
support and their friendship. President Mubarak is a strong leader. He
is a leader that we -- he's a leader whose wisdom we value and then we
stay in close touch with President Mubarak.
President Mubarak is also a leader of his own nation and has to be
responsive to the needs of his own nation and to the will of his
people.
These are difficult times and we will find ways through these
difficult times. It is also a time where there is a need for all of us
to be respectful of each other, to be respectful of each others'
religions. This is the time when we see hatred coming forth, those of
us in positions of leadership should speak against that hatred,
whether it's hatred manifested by anti-Semitism, or hatred manifested
by anti-Muslim comments or activities.
We can leave this room right now and I can take you to, within five
minutes, I can take you to a mosque, a temple, a synagogue, a Catholic
Church, Orthodox Church. You know we know what diversity is. We know
what the strength of all the religions of the world are when they
harness together in peace in the manner in which we've done here in
the United States.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, are you going to respond in kind if Iraq uses
weapons of mass destruction? What is your doctrine?
SECRETARY POWELL: We never discuss that. Why aren't you worried about
Iraq using weapons of mass destruction rather than, "Would you respond
if Iraq uses weapons of mass destruction?" Will you scream bloody
murder if Iraq uses these terrible weapons that Iraq says it does not
have. How could they use them if they don't have them?
Now, if they use them, the United States, we have no, no intention of
doing anything that would hurt the people of Iraq, but we will do what
is necessary to defend ourselves. But I hope before everybody asks
what the United States would do, somebody would say, "My God, they did
have them. They were lying."
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)