• Military

• WMD Menu                           

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

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

23 February 2003

Powell: Time Is Running Out for Iraq to Disarm Voluntarily

(Secretary of state Holds press conference in Tokyo February 23)
(4640)
Secretary of State Colin Powell held a press conference on February 23
at the U.S. Embassy Auditorium in Tokyo. The transcript of his remarks
follows:
(begin transcript)
U.S. Department of State
Press Conference from U.S. Embassy, Tokyo
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
U.S. Embassy Auditorium, Tokyo, Japan
February 23, 2003
SECRETARY POWELL: Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen, and welcome.
It's a great pleasure to be back in Tokyo. In the course of my brief
visit, I've had excellent conversations already with Prime Minister
Koizumi and Foreign Minister Kawaguchi, and I look forward to my
conversations later this morning with Minister Ishiba of the JDA
[Japanese Defense Agency] as well as conversations I will be having
with coalition party leaders in a little while.
Our relationship with Japan is among our most important and certainly
one of the most robust we have in the world. The United States-Japan
alliance remains fundamental to peace and prosperity, not just here in
the Asia-Pacific region, but in our judgment across the globe. Our
alliance has demonstrated enormous strength and flexibility since the
attacks of September 11th. We greatly appreciate Japan's resolute
participation in the global counter-terrorism campaign. Japan has done
a great deal. For example, Japan has frozen the assets in Japan of
about 350 terrorists and terrorist organizations. Japan has increased
attention to border and maritime security, and it has acceded to all
of the United Nations anti-terrorist conventions. This is an example
of the commitment that the Japanese government, the Japanese people
have made to our global war against terrorism.
I want to particularly recognize Japan's ongoing support to Operation
Enduring Freedom, which is our military operation in Afghanistan. I
also want to take note of the key contributions that Japan has made to
humanitarian reconstruction and refugee relief efforts in Afghanistan.
The Conference on Afghan Reconstruction just concluded here yesterday
in Tokyo has been yet another outstanding example of Japan's
contribution to the international effort in Afghanistan. For our part,
as part of yesterday's conference, we reaffirmed our intention to
provide $10 million for this part of the international effort. This is
on top of many, many hundreds of millions of dollars that the United
States has contributed to the Afghan effort over the last year and a
half. Japan is working with us on other programs in Afghanistan, such
as clearing up financial arrears and rebuilding the
Kabul-to-Kandahar-to-Herat ring road that will bring this country
together -- politically and economically. This is a very important
road and I once again thank the Japanese government for its
contribution to the construction of this road -- the rebuilding of
this road.
In my conversations with the Prime Minister and with the Foreign
Minister, as you might expect, we spent a considerable amount of time
discussing the situation in Iraq and the challenge that will be facing
the United Nations in the days ahead. I indicated to the Prime
Minister that the United States, working with the United Kingdom and
other nations, would be tabling a resolution sometime early next week
that will ask the United Nations to take note of the fact -- as the
Security Council to take note of the fact -- that Iraq still is not
complying -- that Iraq is not taking advantage of the one last chance
given to it by U.N. Resolution 1441. The resolution that will be
tabled will be a simple resolution, directly to the point, and once it
has been tabled there will be a period of consultation among Security
Council members -- among international leaders around the world --
before a judgment is made with respect to bringing that resolution to
a vote or whatever other action the Security Council might consider.
The bottom line, however, is that time is running out for Iraq. We
cannot sit by and idly let Iraq continue to thwart the will of the
international community. The issue is not more inspectors. The issue
is not more time for inspections. The issue is disarmament. The issue
is Iraq complying with the will of the international community and
participating in its disarmament and allowing the inspectors, or those
who are there to monitor their activities, get on with their work --
give them everything they need to do their work. Iraq still has not
identified the errors in their declarations and how to fix those
errors in their declaration. They keep saying: "Just read the
declaration again." We've read it again; it still fails. It is an
inaccurate declaration that does not comply with the requirements of
1441.
Iraq's still not accounted for the terrible materials that we know
they have: anthrax, botulinum toxin, the missiles that they have, the
other weapons that we know they have, the programs that they have had
underway over the years. It is these programs that Iraq must come
forward and let the monitors and the inspectors know the disposition
of or what happened to them. It's not a matter of the inspectors
wandering all over Iraq looking for these materials, looking for these
programs. So we face the same problem that we faced at the beginning
when we first put 1441 forward, and that is Iraq is still not
complying and time is drawing to a close when the international
community -- the Security Council -- must show its relevance by
insisting that Iraq disarm or that Iraq be disarmed by a coalition of
forces that will go in and do it.
We also spent time last night with the Prime Minister and the Foreign
Minister talking about North Korea. In the spirit of our strong
alliance and close coordination efforts, we discussed the threat posed
by North Korea's nuclear weapons programs. North Korea's lifting of
the freeze on its plutonium production facilities at Yongbyon and its
pursuit of the uranium enrichment program for nuclear weapons violate
its promises to the countries of the region -- its promises to the
world that we would have a nuclear weapons-free Korean Peninsula. We
agreed that the North must verifiably and irreversibly dismantle its
nuclear weapons program. Unless North Korea ends its program, it
cannot expect the benefits of relationships with the outside world.
The outside world stands ready, willing and able to assist North Korea
with the problems that it faces internally -- economic problems and
simple problems of not having the ability to feed its people. We stand
ready to help, but that help can only come when North Korea has
abandoned its programs to achieve a nuclear weapons capability --
something that the international community thought it had done years
ago. We had provided assurances -- assurances from the United States,
assurances from others in the region and in the international
community -- that no one was thinking of invading or attacking North
Korea. But nonetheless, North Korea continued to pursue nuclear
weapons programs and that is a concern to all of us. Japan has
underscored this message in its contacts with North Korea, and we
appreciate the leadership role that Japan is playing.
I reaffirmed to the Prime Minister and to the Foreign Minister my
government's willingness to engage in discussions with North Korea
over how it can address the international community's concerns about
its nuclear weapons program. The United States and Japan agreed that
these concerns and these conversations and discussions must be
addressed in a multilateral context for the simple reason it is not
just a U.S.-North Korean problem, it's a problem that affects the
entire region. It's a problem that effects the entire world, as
evidenced by the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency
referred the matter by a vote of 33-0-2: thirty-three for, nobody
against, and two abstentions. And their board of governors referred
the matter to the United Nations Security Council a few days ago.
We also discussed our shared concerns about North Korea's missile
programs -- missile programs which would give North Korea the means to
deliver weapons, both conventional and other weapons, beyond its
borders, which of course is a matter of particular concern to our
Japanese friends.
In my conversations with the Prime Minister and with Minister
Kawaguchi, we also touched on the serious problem of abductions. The
abduction issue in Japan is a very, very sensitive one and a serious
one; and I conveyed to the Foreign Minister, particularly, my concern
over this issue -- my sympathy -- for the families of those who have
not returned and my concern over the families that remain separated as
a result of this issue these so many, many years. We support Japanese
government efforts to find answers to the outstanding abduction
questions that remain.
The United States and Japan are working together on a host of other
issues of importance to the world community. The United States and
Japan stand side-by-side in the fight against infectious diseases such
as tuberculosis and, of course, HIV/AIDS and malaria and similar
diseases. We are partners in an important and ambitious water
initiative in Africa to bring clean water to the people in Africa,
something that so many of us take for granted.
So that Japan can continue to fulfill its potential as a key alliance
and global partner, I expressed my strong support for Prime Minister
Koizumi's economic reform agenda. We want Japan to succeed in
returning its economy to a strong and sustainable growth path. Reform
is the only way to realize long-term economic recovery in Japan.
Indeed, a vibrant Japan and a strong partnership between Japan and the
United States will, in my judgment, remain crucial to stability and
prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region and across the globe.
I'd like to thank my Japanese hosts for visiting with me on this
weekend and I look forward now to your questions. And let me begin
with George Gedda.
QUESTION: George Gedda of AP. In light of the U.S.-Japan defense
treaty, is the United States contemplating doing anything additional
to help Japan defend itself in light of the new security situation
involving North Korea?
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, as you know, we have a series of dialogues
that take place on a regular basis with Japan. 2+2, the two defense
ministers and two foreign ministers, met not too long ago, and later
this morning, I'll be meeting with the director of the Japanese
Defense Agency to see if there is anything else that needs to be done.
At the moment, I don't view the threat situation as having changed
greatly, and I don't know that there are any new elements to our
security relationship that should be put in place in right now. But I
would look forward to the discussion I'm having with the JDA a little
bit later on this morning. In the back, Sir, yes Sir.
QUESTION: I'm Sato Suzuki with TV Asahi of Japan. Mr. Secretary, the
people in Japan have been watching the Iraqi situation with great
seriousness. Despite our government's basic support for the U.S.
position on Iraq, the evidence that you presented to the Security
Council has failed to convince the majority of the Japanese people
that you need to go to war now. So do you have anything new, anything
different, that you can present to the Japanese people, and could you
please try again here today and explain to us why a war is necessary
right now?
SECRETARY POWELL: To go to the last part of the question: A war is not
necessary. It is Saddam Hussein who is putting in place conditions
that will perhaps result in war. It is Saddam Hussein who has
accumulated these horrible weapons. The presentation that I gave to
the Security Council on the 5th of February was a summary of evidence
that we have and it was a summary, really, of evidence that has been
known for a long period of time. I tried to put it all together in a
way that people could see it. But it is not just an idle accusation or
a lack of evidence; the evidence is there. If the evidence was not
there in the beginning, Resolution 1441 wouldn't have passed in the
first place. If you read the resolution, the resolution begins saying
that Iraq is in material breach of its obligations -- remains in
material breach -- and for years it has been denying the truth. We
know that they have been experimenting with weapons of mass
destruction of a nuclear kind. We had to catch them in lies to prove
that they had certain chemical facilities and chemical materials
available. We had to catch them in a lie to show back in the
mid-nineties that they had biological materials -- they were working
with anthrax and botulinum toxin. All of these have a singular
purpose, and that is to destroy large numbers of human beings. So this
evidence is not new evidence. What more evidence does one need? We
know they have this material. This issue before us is they have not
accounted for the material -- they won't tell us what has happened to
it. We have evidence that, and I tried to put forward some of that
evidence on the 5th of February, that this material remains within
Iraq -- and we must assume it is there until they can demonstrate to
us that it's not there.
If they were serious about disarmament -- and this is right to the
Japanese people -- if Iraq was serious about disarmament, if they were
not trying to deceive us as they have for the past 12 years, they
would be doing everything in their power to bring forth all the
documentation, all the information, let us interview anybody that we
wanted to interview, and interview them anywhere that we wanted to
interview them to make sure they were not being intimidated. If Iraq
was serious, they would be showing us where all the missiles are and
not wondering whether the inspectors would find something or not find
something. If Iraq was serious, this matter could be over in a short
period of time. We would see full cooperation. If I was in the
position of Saddam Hussein and I was trying to persuade the United
Nations that I had no weapons of mass destruction, you would not have
to ask me to bring forward scientists and engineers. I would bring
them all forward; I'd line them all up in front of UNMOVIC
headquarters and say: "Here they are. Take them anywhere you want. Ask
them any questions you want. We will have nobody minding them. We will
have no tape recorders so that we could get retribution later. Go take
them and find out all you want. What documents do you need? We will
bring back documents from all the places we've sent them in the homes
of scientists."
We would not see this continued pattern of deception, which has not
changed in 12 years. And it's time for us to stop saying, "Well, gosh,
give us new evidence." The evidence is there. The evidence is clear.
The evidence has been there for these past dozen years, and especially
we have evidence up to 1998 when they threw out the inspectors. And
so, it is not enough any longer to say, "We don't want to take action
because we don't see enough evidence or more evidence." It is time to
take action. The evidence has been clear. They are guilty; 1441 says
they are guilty, and 1441 said if they don't fix this, if they don't
comply now, if they don't cooperate now, then serious consequences
must flow. We are reaching that point, where serious consequences must
flow.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, from CBS News. You know, just following up
that question for a moment, after 9/11, the whole world turned to us
and said, "We're Americans like you," including the French. Last
weekend we saw the largest series of antiwar, anti-American protests
-- in London certainly in its entire history. This follows what you
have talked about at the Security Council; it follows what's happened
with the inspectors; it follows what's happening in Iraq. There seems
to be a disconnect, I guess, between what America believes it should
do, and what the rest of the world is perceiving. And I wonder why
that is and if it isn't just a touch frustrating for you, since you're
the man who is presenting and preparing this policy, and you've stood
in front of the Security Council and tried to convince the world.
SECRETARY POWELL: Yeah, I would prefer it if there were rallies saying
that Iraq must disarm, but I have also seen previous situations in my
professional career where on the eve of potential conflict there was a
strong outpouring of support against that conflict. Nobody wants to
see conflict. And when conflict is potentially in the near future,
there will always be an outpouring that says, "Isn't there some other
way?" I wish there were some other way. I have worked hard throughout
my career to find ways other than conflict to solve problems, but
sometimes you can't avoid it, and you must continue to do what you
believe is the correct thing to do and the correct policy, even in the
presence of demonstrations. People are free to demonstrate, and they
don't see the danger the way we see the danger. We've studied this
information for years. We've studied the evidence for years, and we
continue to see Iraqi deception, Iraqi diversion of inspectors, Iraqi
efforts to hide, Iraqi efforts to confuse. And all that does is
persuade us that they continue to have these weapons and they are
trying to hang onto them, and they have lost none of their intention
to develop these kinds of weapons. And even though it might not be in
all places the most popular thing to do, there are a number of world
leaders who have stood up -- such as Prime Minster Blair, such as Mr.
Aznar of Spain, Mr. Berlusconi of Italy -- a number of leaders who
have stood up in many, many nations of Europe. Yes, there is public
resistance in Europe and elsewhere. It's a difficult call for many
people, but these leaders are standing up because they know they don't
want to wonder a couple of years from now, when Iraq suddenly pops out
and demonstrates in a way that can convince everybody that they had
these weapons. They don't want to be in the position, and President
Bush has made this clear -- he doesn't want to be in the position of
saying, "Why didn't we do something about this when we had mobilized
the whole world?"
I also need to point out that 15 members of the Security Council
sitting in session on the 8th of November, knowing what they were
doing, said that Iraq is guilty, Iraq has to come into compliance, and
if it doesn't, Iraq must face serious consequences. And that was not
an idle statement on their part. We debated that statement for seven
weeks, in the knowledge that the day might come when we have to make a
judgment that Iraq has not complied, is not cooperating, and it is
time for serious consequences.
QUESTION: I'm Ogata from Kyodo News Washington. I think you'll put the
resolution on the table Monday or Tuesday, but how long can you wait
for the vote? Can you wait for a matter of weeks, or it's a matter of
days? That's the first question. And what kind of support are you
looking for from the Japanese government? Are you asking Mr. Koizumi
to support or push or put pressure on the (inaudible) countries?
That's the second part of the question, thank you.
SECRETARY POWELL: On the second part of your question, the Prime
Minister and I discussed this last night, as I did also with the
Foreign Minister, and we hope that the Prime Minister and the Foreign
Minister, because they have been supporting our efforts, will continue
to support those efforts. And as part of that support, in their
conversations -- normal diplomatic and head-of-government/state
conversations -- they will continue to support our efforts. And I hope
that once they see the resolution, they would find it the appropriate
thing to do to show support for that and to contact members who might
be voting one way or another and express their support. That's part of
diplomatic effort. There will be other nations, I'm sure, that will be
calling around with a different message. And so, yes, we are into a
period of intense diplomacy beginning after the tabling of the
resolution next week, and we would hope that those who support our
efforts would use their good offices to show that support. It isn't
going to be a long period of time from the tabling of the resolution
until a judgment is made as to whether the resolution is ready to be
voted on or not. And I don't want to speculate as to how long that
period of time might be, but one can see that Dr. Blix will be
reporting to the Council on the 7th of March, and I would assume that
once he has made that report, everybody will have one last opportunity
to make a judgment. And shortly after that judgment will have to be
made as to what the Security Council should do.
QUESTION: Welcome back to Japan, Mr. Secretary. My name is Takahata
from Mainichi Shimbun, Japanese newspaper. My question is on another
of your allies, next on the itinerary, South Korea. We are very glad
that the Japan-U.S. alliance is very firm and helping each other, but
recently various things are reported on South Korea, especially the
younger generation tend to think that their long-term future, both in
terms of history and culture, belongs to the continental Asia,
centering around China, rather than the Pacific Ocean powers like the
U.S. and Japan. Those are, I think, lying beneath the recent very
unfortunate things, and also reported gap between the U.S. and South
Korea, on how to cope with North Korea, and so on. So I would like to
ask your diplomatic strategy on how to deal with South Korean allies
in coping with North Korea. Thank you.
SECRETARY POWELL: One of the reasons for my trip to Asia at this time
is to be at the inauguration of the new president, President Roh, and
I think my presence is an indication of the importance that we put on
our relationship with South Korea. And I will convey to President Roh
and to the people of South Korea during my brief stay there how
committed we are to South Korea. The United States has been a strong
friend and ally of South Korea for the past 50-odd years, and we will
continue to be so. We believe that the United States must continue to
play an important role in the Pacific region, and especially in East
Asia. We will maintain our presence on the Korean Peninsula for as
long as that presence serves a need, not only for our efforts on the
Korean Peninsula, but for regional stability.
There is nothing inconsistent with South Korea seeing the United
States and Japan as good, strong, important friends, and also reaching
out and having a strong, important relationship with China. We have
and important and strong relationship with China; why shouldn't South
Korea? I don't find these elements inconsistent with each other.
I know that there are some South Koreans who perhaps don't remember
the history of the 50-year relationship, and I think that we need to
do a better job of describing to them how this 50-year alliance has so
benefited South Korea. It is with this security alliance between the
United States and South Korea, and the United States and Japan, and
Japan and South Korea, that has created conditions for solid economic
growth -- has brought South Korea clearly into the camp of democracy
-- and so they have benefited greatly from this alliance, and they
will continue to benefit greatly from it in the month ahead.
There are always stresses and challenges in a relationship, and that
is certainly the case with South Korea, but I think the relationship
still remains strong. We will cooperate and coordinate with our South
Korean friends on all of the issues moving forward, whether those
issues have to do with North Korea or taking a look at how our forces
are deployed within South Korea. We will do nothing that is not in the
closest coordination with our South Korean friends, and I understand
there is a major rally planned in South Korea later this week, and
surprisingly it's a pro-U.S. rally, not an anti-U.S. rally.
MODERATOR: We have time for one more, why don't we go down here?
QUESTION: Nicholas Kralev, Washington Times. Mr. Secretary, can you
share some more details about your conversations in regards to your
ideas about multilateral talks with North Korea, and especially, did
you share any ideas with the Japanese government, and did they have
any for you?
SECRETARY POWELL: We still believe strongly that the solution to the
problem with the North Koreans or the DPRK has to be in a multilateral
forum. Japan understands and shares that view. We had put down one
idea of five-plus-five. Our Japanese friends have some variations on
that idea, and we're in discussions with them, but we believe strongly
that we have to get it started in a multilateral forum. It is not just
a U.S.-DPRK problem. That's the way the DPRK, the North Koreans, would
like to pose it and present it. That's what happened last time when we
thought the problem was solved last time. But what we can't lose sight
of is that everyone thought that between the South and North
non-nuclear agreement of 1992, followed by the various agreements that
North Korea entered into the United States, or statements that were
made, assurances that were given -- everyone had thought that put the
nuclear genie back into the bottle at Yongbyon. And everybody looked
at Yongbyon and said, "Great, the nuclear genie is bottled up, but not
removed -- still there." And then we discovered that during most of
this period, since the agreed framework was signed in 1994, North
Korea had been developing another technology to develop nuclear
weapons. This should be of great concern to all of us as we think
about entering into a discussion. As we enter into a discussion, it
should be multilateral, so that we can find a way to put in place
assurances for all of the parties -- North Korea and all of the
parties of the region, and other interested parties in the world --
that as we solve the problem this time, we find a solution that will
remove the nuclear potential on the peninsula and at the same time,
provide assistance to the North Korean people to the real problems
they are facing -- problems of starvation, problems of an economy that
doesn't work. You can't eat plutonium. You can't eat enriched uranium.
And as long as you pursue those technologies, those who can help you
grow the things that you can eat, and develop an economy that will
assist your people, can't help you. And so we'll have to find a way
forward, and the way forward has to include all the countries in the
region and all the countries that have an interest. The United States
recognizes its obligation within that context, and is prepared to
discharge its obligations.
Thank you.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)