• Military

• WMD Menu                           

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

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

26 February 2003

Transcript: Rumsfeld Says Iraq Is Problem for World Community, Not U.S.

(Issue is not about oil, but about weapons of mass destruction) (4750)
The current issues involving Iraq are between the international
community and the regime of Saddam Hussein, which has failed to comply
with 17 U.N. resolutions to disarm itself of weapons of mass
destruction, says Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
"It is not a U.S.-Iraqi issue," he said. "It is about weapons of mass
destruction. ... And the fact that for many years now the Iraqi regime
led by Saddam Hussein has not been willing to cooperate with the
United Nations resolutions."
If Iraq were to disarm completely, and that could be verified by U.N.
weapons inspectors, then Iraq would have fulfilled the U.N.
resolutions, he said February 25 in an interview with the Qatar-based
al-Jazeera cable television news network.
Rumsfeld said that so far, Iraq has not responded to diplomatic
overtures and economic sanctions, nor to limited military activity in
the Northern and Southern No-Fly Zones.
"They stand in material breach," he said. One choice would be for Iraq
to cooperate fully. "A second choice is to do nothing and lead to a
potential conflict, which is everyone's last choice," he said.
A third choice would be for Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq and allow the
Iraqi people to have a representative government with a leader who
will not pursue weapons of mass destruction programs (WMD), will not
repress his people, and will not threaten his neighbors, Rumsfeld
said.
However, Rumsfeld emphasized that it is the United Nations that has
found Iraq in material breach of its obligations. He said the most
recent U.N. Security Council resolution -- 1441, which was enacted
unanimously -- found Iraq in violation of the previous 16 resolutions
and demanded that Iraq give a full declaration of the status of its
WMD programs. The resolution gave Iraq a "final opportunity" to meet
its obligations or there would be serious consequences, he said.
If the United States does have to act against Iraq, then it will be
with a large coalition of countries, he said, noting the number of
countries currently involved in the global war on terrorism.
Rumsfeld said there have been those in the international community who
have argued for more time for continued weapons inspections by various
U.N. organizations, but "all time does is allow them [Iraq] to
continue developing those weapons, to continue dealing with terrorist
networks and put in jeopardy [their] neighbors and the world."
Rumsfeld also emphasized that the United States is not interested in
controlling Iraqi oil reserves or in occupying the country
indefinitely. "This is not about oil, and anyone who thinks it is, is
badly misunderstanding the situation," he said.
And Rumsfeld said it is not surprising to see people in democratic
countries demonstrating for and against a potential conflict in Iraq;
it's what people in democracies do. "You don't see people
demonstrating against the government in Iraq because they'd be
killed," he said.
Following is the text of Rumsfeld's remarks:
(begin transcript)
NEWS TRANSCRIPT
U.S. Department of Defense
DoD News Briefing
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
February 25, 2003
(Interview with Jamil Azer, Al Jazeera TV)
Al Jazeera: Sir, there are lots of questions which we feel they might
be sort of like critical of the United States but we feel that Al
Jazeera's audience would like to know your views about. It isn't that
we are trying to find fault or anything like that.
Rumsfeld: Fair enough. If I hear a question that has a premise in it
that's inaccurate I'll state that and say that -- good.
Al Jazeera: Mr. Rumsfeld, welcome to al Jazeera.
Rumsfeld: Thank you very much.
Al Jazeera: I would like to put it to you straight away the issue
between you, the Bush Administration, and Iraq is not weapons of mass
destruction. It is for you -- how to get rid of Saddam Hussein and his
regime.
Rumsfeld: Well, wrong. It is about weapons of mass destruction. It is
unquestionably about that. And the fact that for many years now the
Iraqi regime led by Saddam Hussein has not been willing to cooperate
with the United Nations resolutions. And the issue you cast as between
the Bush Administration and the Iraqi government is really not the
right construct. This is a matter that the world community has
addressed. That is why there have been 16, now 17 resolutions by the
United Nations Security Council. The last one was unanimous.
This is not a U.S.-Iraqi issue. This is an issue between the United
Nations and the international community and a government that has
consistently refused to stop its weapons of mass destruction program.
Al Jazeera: Fair enough. If that is the case and let us suppose that
the U.N. inspectors, weapons inspectors would come up and say right,
we declare Iraq free from weapons of mass destruction. Would you be
satisfied and would you let Saddam Hussein alone after that?
Rumsfeld: First of all it's not me. It's the United States of America
and it's the United Nations. The United Nations resolution has found
Iraq to be in material breach of their obligations under those
resolutions. The Iraqi regime has not cooperated with the inspectors
and the idea that the inspectors could come up and say that is just
beyond imagination because the inspectors have said quite the contrary
that in fact they're not cooperating.
If Iraq were to do that obviously then they would have fulfilled the
U.N. resolution.
Al Jazeera: People hear from perhaps you, from President Bush saying
that if Saddam Hussein goes it will be all to the good of the world,
of that region. The implication is that you would like Saddam Hussein
to, would like to get rid of Saddam Hussein and his --
Rumsfeld: Oh, I see your point, sure. There's no question but that you
have Saddam Hussein who's been there and has not responded to
political diplomacy and they've not responded to the economic oil for
food sanctions, they've not responded to the limited military activity
in the Northern and Southern No-Fly Zones. They stand in material
breach. His choice -- choices, plural. One is to cooperate and he
hasn't done it. We wish he would. A second choice is to do nothing and
lead to a potential conflict, which is everyone's last choice. A third
choice is to leave the country and have someone in that country that
the Iraqi people want that will not have weapons of mass destruction,
will not repress the Iraqi people, will not threaten their neighbors.
That clearly would be the first choice, would be for him to just
leave, go to another country, and allow that country to have a
government that's representative of the people of that country and
that is respectful of the various ethnic and religious minorities in
that country and doesn't invade Kuwait and doesn't make weapons of
mass destruction and doesn't traffic with terrorist networks.
Al Jazeera: About trafficking with terrorist networks, I'll come to
that later if I may. But if we look back, we find that three American
administrations -- George Bush, Sr., first Clinton, second Clinton --
when they were asked about the purpose of the sanctions regime against
Iraq, whether it is to get rid of Saddam Hussein and change the regime
in Iraq, they almost swore on the Bible saying that the purpose is not
that, it is only for weapons of mass destruction. Now you say that you
would like to see Saddam Hussein gone.
Rumsfeld: I think the world would like to see him gone. What happened
in the second Clinton administration, I think you're factually a
little off, in the second Clinton administration the Congress passed
legislation that favored regime change in Iraq and the President
signed it. So President Clinton and the United States government in
toto decided that the only way to get Iraq to cooperate would be for
Saddam Hussein to leave and his behavior in the intervening period has
suggested that that was correct, and President Bush has followed on
the policy of President Clinton.
Al Jazeera: What is the legitimacy of the principle of changing a
regime in a country, which is a member of the United Nations? Is that
an acceptable way of dealing with things?
Rumsfeld: The United Nations a few months ago passed a unanimous
resolution, Security Council Resolution 1441, and in it cited the
preceding 16 resolutions that the Iraqi regime has disobeyed. It then
said that Iraq stands, as of that moment, in material breach. It asked
for a declaration of their weapons of mass destruction and said that
if it was not a complete declaration they would stand in further
material breach. They did not submit an appropriate full declaration.
And they then said that if they did not cooperate with the inspectors
they would be in further material breach.
And then it said that in the event that it is determined that they are
in further material breach that they should recognize that this was a,
I believe the quote was a "final opportunity." This is a unanimous
resolution of the United Nations. A final opportunity and that there
would be serious consequences, or words of that type.
Now what does that mean? It means that the United Nations has decided
that if 17 resolutions are ignored by Iraq that the unanimous voice of
the Security Council was that at some point that final opportunity
will have been missed and that serious consequences would result. It
seems to me that the legitimacy is that the risk of allowing that
process to go forward and the development of those weapons and the
ignoring of the United Nations -- 17 resolutions -- puts in jeopardy
the Security Council and the international community.
Al Jazeera: I'm not trying to sort of find excuses or defend the
regime of Saddam Hussein. There are so many regimes in the world that
are hated, disliked, if you like dictatorial and so on. In Africa, in
your back yard in South America and in Asia. Does this mean that in
order to make life better for people you go and get rid of all these
regimes?
Rumsfeld: Well, it was a United Nations resolution. It was a unanimous
resolution of the international community.
Second, if the United States does anything we won't do it alone. It
would be with a large coalition of countries. There are already more
countries involved with the United States in the global war on terror
than there were during the Gulf War. It would be a large number of
nations that would have decided that the threat from that regime is so
great -- Here's a country that invaded a neighbor, Kuwait. It's a
country that's used chemical weapons on its neighbor Iran. It's a
country that's used chemical weapons on its own people. It's a country
that has fired ballistic missiles into three of its neighbors. It is a
country that is repressing its people. It is a country that, as
Secretary Powell indicated, has relationships with terrorist networks
and there's the risk of transferring some of those lethal weapons to
terrorists. So it's a problem not for the United States alone but a
problem for the United Nations and the international community.
Al Jazeera: What do you think is logical to get rid of the weapons of
mass destruction even if you would want to wage war on Iraq
afterwards? Instead of getting exposed to their use, you attack now
while you say those weapons exist in Iraq.
Rumsfeld: Well they do exist. The evidence was laid out for the world
by Secretary Powell. It's a fact. The regime keeps denying that they
exist and keeps denying and deceiving the international community.
Some people have argued that well, the inspectors are in. Why not give
them more time? And of course the inspectors aren't there to find
anything. The inspectors are there to work with, theoretically, a
cooperative country, but the country isn't being cooperative. There's
no way the inspectors can find anything. They could be there for years
and not find anything because it's a country the size of France. It's
an enormous place. The WMD programs have been designed to be conducted
in an inspections environment.
So all time does is allow them to continue developing those weapons,
to continue dealing with terrorist networks and put in jeopardy the
neighbors and the world.
Al Jazeera: Going back to the point about Saddam Hussein being,
peddling with terrorist networks and so on. You haven't produced
convincing or compelling evidence that this was the case, especially
with Osama bin Laden.
Rumsfeld: Secretary Powell did in fact make the assertions and he
presented some evidence. It is possible to present additional
evidence, to be sure. To the extent one does that, you then lose your
means of collection of that intelligence and defeat the efforts you're
trying to make to be able to predict what they might do.
So you're correct, there has been not all the evidence, but some of
the evidence has been presented, but there's some evidence that has
been reserved because it would be so helpful to the Iraqis to know
exactly what we knew.
Al Jazeera: I want to put this to you, even if you want to send me to
Guantanamo, and that is --
Rumsfeld: Not likely.
Al Jazeera: That is that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, either
you created them or you helped them. I mean Osama bin Laden fought the
Soviet occupiers in Afghanistan on your behalf, I suppose. And also
you went and, I mean you offered help to Saddam Hussein in the darkest
hours of his war with Iran. I think you also met him as a
representative of the President, of the American President.
Rumsfeld: Well for you to say that the United States created Osama bin
Laden of course would not be correct. He is what he is. There's no
question but that there was a period when he was opposing the Soviet
invasion of Afghanistan and the United States was also opposing the
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. That does not mean that the United
States -- a lot of countries were opposing the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan. In fact there were very few countries that liked it
besides the Soviet Union. The Afghanistan people didn't like it, we
didn't like it. Most of the countries of the world that don't like to
see a nation get attacked didn't like it. And it happens also that
Osama bin Laden didn't like it. So that commonality of interests led
to that coincidence of being on the same side but it would be a
misunderstanding to say that therefore the United States or the United
Nations or a coalition of countries created him. He is what he is.
He's a terrorist. He's proud of it.
Al Jazeera: This is a question that is in the minds of lots of people
that --
Rumsfeld: Sure.
Al Jazeera: -- he was your admirer, he was fighting your war.
Rumsfeld: It was the Afghan war.
Al Jazeera: -- in proxy against the Soviet occupiers of Afghanistan.
Rumsfeld: It was a war to liberate Afghanistan and to not have the
Soviet Union continue to occupy it. Why was that our war?
We were in there trying to help those people, the Afghan people, be
free of the Soviet Union. That is not our war. That's a war for
liberation.
Now go to the second point of your question. It was about 1982, '83,
'84, in that period, and there was a war between Iraq and Iran. Many
of the countries in the region were concerned that Iraq could lose and
it could cause a problem in the entire region. And the United States
was asked to see what we might do. Insofar as I'm aware, the only
assistance that was given was some intelligence assistance. If there
was more, I'm not familiar with it. But there again, these are
neighboring countries and the United States was asked and assisted
with Iraq defending against -- for themselves against the Iranians in
that war and we provided some intelligence assistance as I understand
it.
The United States also of course led a coalition of the willing to go
in and throw Iraq out of Kuwait and help that country rather than
being subjugated by the Iraqi regime.
Al Jazeera: What sort of role are you expecting from the Gulf States
in this confrontation or looming confrontation?
Rumsfeld: My hope is that force will not be used. If it is to be used
you can be certain that it will be a very large coalition of countries
and a large number of countries in that general region will be
assisting and participating. There are very few countries who live in
that neighborhood of Iraq who admire the regime of Saddam Hussein. He
has very few admirers. They know him as well or better than most of
the people in the world.
Al Jazeera: If you go to Iraq, your forces, how long do you envisage
staying on there?
Rumsfeld: If we went, it would not be with our forces it would be with
a large coalition that would be involved. And in the event that it
happened there would be a still larger coalition of countries from the
region and elsewhere who would be participating in a post-Saddam
Hussein Iraq.
The United States is not interested in the oil in that region from
Iraq. That's just utter nonsense. It is not interested in occupying
any country. We are interested in having our forces go home. But we
recognize that a coalition might be necessary for a short period until
a government of Iraq could be created by the Iraqis. Look at
Afghanistan as a model. We don't want to stay in Afghanistan. What did
we do? We assisted the Afghan people with a security environment so
that they could have a Loya Jurga and create their own government.
That's what they've done. They've created a transitional government.
The United States with obviously the coalition would help with
humanitarian assistance, we would help provide stability, we would
look for the weapons of mass destruction, we would hope to see an
Iraqi government evolve soon that would not have weapons of mass
destruction, that wouldn't try to invade Kuwait, that wouldn't use
chemical weapons on its neighbors or its own people, that would set
itself on a path towards representation for the various minorities and
ethnic and religious elements in the country, and that they'd have a
voice in that government. Our choice would be to stay as long as we
needed to do that, but not one minute longer.
Al Jazeera: If I understand, some people say you are targeting Iraq
because it is the weakest side of the axis of evil, and that you want
to cover your failures in Afghanistan, you still have unfinished job.
Rumsfeld: The failures of Afghanistan. Did you see the people when the
coalition forces and the Northern Alliance and the forces on the
ground liberated Kabul? They were singing; they were flying kites;
they were happy.
Two million refugees have come back into that country. Is that a
failure? People are voting with their feet: individual people. Neither
you or I will ever meet them, but they're making a conscious decision
to go back to Afghanistan because they know of certain knowledge that
it's better there today than it was before. That is not a failure.
That is an enormous success.
There are no longer al-Qaeda training camps in that country. They are
no longer flying airplanes into U.S. buildings from that country, with
people trained from that country. The people have picked a
transitional government. It's their government. There are men and
women going to school. There are people out driving cars. There's
humanitarian assistance being provided. They're training an Afghan
National Army. This is no failure. This is a success.
Al Jazeera: Do you think that Iraqi opposition are going to be a
reliable partner in after, let us say, the Saddam Hussein regime?
Rumsfeld: Oh, I think there are  --
Al Jazeera: They are fractious; it is very well known that they are
not united.
Rumsfeld: That's the way it is with democracies. That's the way it is
with people who are free to say what they think. They have different
views.
What will happen: I would predict that in the event that Saddam
Hussein is not there and a new regime evolved, what will happen is
there will be people from the Iraqi opposition to be sure, there will
be people, Iraqi expatriates, to be sure. There will be more people
from inside Iraq who want to participate in that government and it
will be a mixture. You will find a uniquely Iraqi solution to whatever
that government ought to be and there isn't anybody in the world, in
the United States or any other country, that is smart enough to craft
a model or a template and say that's what it will be, because we don't
know what it will be. It will be something that's uniquely Iraqi, just
as it was in Afghanistan.
Al Jazeera: Lots of people ask why is the United States of America the
only super power in the world targeting Iraq. They say well, Iraq is a
pot of black gold and it is in a strategic position which would
facilitate for you the next stage of your agenda for the region.
Perhaps Iran is on your list of targets. People speculate about other
countries. And also there is the continued Israeli problem.
What is your idea for the region?
Rumsfeld: Well the only idea we have for the region is that it not be
producing weapons of mass destruction and it not be invading
neighbors, and that it be peaceful, and that it be, that the Iraqi
people figure out how they want to run their country free of a
dictator like Saddam Hussein and that he no longer threatens the
neighbors and threatens others.
There is no master plan. We don't run around the world trying to
figure out how other people ought to live. What we want is a peaceful
region.
You used the word black gold. I've seen the same kinds of articles and
suggestions that that's the case.
You know, I've been around economics long enough to know that if
somebody owns oil they're going to want to sell it. If they want to
sell it, it's going to end up in the market. And it doesn't matter if
they sell it to Country A or Country B. If they sell it, it's going to
be in the market and that's going to affect the world price. Money is
fungible and oil is fungible. This is not about oil, and anyone who
thinks it is, is badly misunderstanding the situation.
Al Jazeera: But it depends on who controls the oil.
Rumsfeld: Anyone who controls it wants to sell it. It doesn't matter.
That is not a problem. If you own -- If a bad person owns the oil and
a good person owns the oil -- different oil -- and the bad person
doesn't want to sell it to you but the good person is willing to, it
doesn't matter because then the good person sells it to you. You're
not going to be buying this person's oil but this person's going to be
selling it to somebody else. And the world price will be the same.
Everyone will have the oil they need. They aren't going to horde it,
they're not going to keep it in the ground. They need the money from
the oil. So it's not a problem.
Al Jazeera: Would it worry you if you go by force into Iraq that this
might create the impression that the United States is becoming an
imperial, colonial power?
Rumsfeld: Well I'm sure that some people would say that, but it can't
be true because we're not a colonial power. We've never been a
colonial power. We don't take our force and go around the world and
try to take other people's real estate or other people's resources,
their oil. That's just not what the United States does. We never have
and we never will. That's not how democracies behave. That's how an
empire-building Soviet Union behaved but that's not how the United
States behaves.
What have we done? We've gone into help Bosnia be free. We've helped
Kosovo -- Moslem countries. We've helped Kuwait get free. We helped
free the world from Hitler and from the Japanese imperial aggression
in Asia in World War II. We didn't keep any real estate. We didn't
keep any resources. In fact we gave money. We were the biggest donors
of food aid in Afghanistan before September 11th. Before we were ever
attacked it was the United States -- not a Muslim country, but a
country that cared enough about the people of Afghanistan that we
provided food for them.
Think of the people in Iraq today. If Saddam Hussein were gone the
sanctions would be gone. The sanctions would be gone. The U.N. imposed
economic sanctions and the people there would be better off.
Al Jazeera: Would you still think that the United Nations is a viable
channel to solve this problem at this hour, which seems --
Rumsfeld: We hope so. We certainly hope so. It's important I think not
only for the people of Iraq and ending the weapons of mass
destruction, but I think it's also important for the United Nations.
When Abyssinia was invaded the League of Nations did nothing and the
League of Nations fell because of that. They had resolution after
resolution and they couldn't act. The result was that people lost
confidence in it. People are now saying the people are going to
introduce a second resolution. It's not the second resolution, it's
the 18th resolution. The United Nations is going to have to look
itself in the mirror and say how do we feel about that? What are we
going to do? At what point ought a country like Iraq to begin to
believe that the United Nations resolutions mean something?
Al Jazeera: How do you gauge the efficiency of the United Nations when
you, for instance, face the French position and their possible use of
the veto, also the division within NATO, and with the European Union?
These are your allies.
Rumsfeld: Well the division in NATO was 16 with us and three against.
Is that a division? No. What it is it's the normal thing. Free
sovereign countries come together, look at an issue, and come to
somewhat different views. Sixteen agreed with the United States, 14
from Europe, Canada was one; and three didn't agree. There were eight
countries who signed one letter and ten countries in Europe who signed
another. That's 18 countries in Europe have supported the U.S.
position on Iraq.
I think that, how do I feel about it? One would always like unanimity.
One would always prefer that everyone agreed with everything you said
and everything you did. Life would be easy. It's unrealistic. There's
never been unanimity on tough issues, and these are tough issues.
They're very difficult issues, and I understand that.
Al Jazeera: Does it surprise you that the largest demonstrations
happened in the capitals and the cities of those people who are
supportive of your position now vis-à-vis Iraq?
Rumsfeld: Well, it doesn't really because if you think about it, today
with the Internet people can organize very quickly and get lots of
people to demonstrate, but if you take the population of Western
Europe, of those three countries for example. I think you mentioned
three countries that have the largest. You take their populations and
compare it to the number of people who demonstrated, it's a very small
fraction. Even though it was a large number of people, it's a very
small fraction of the people. In democracies that's what people do.
You don't see people demonstrating in Iraq. You don't see people
demonstrating against the government in Iraq because they'll be
killed.
Al Jazeera: Mr. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Thank you very
much indeed.
Rumsfeld: Thank you, sir.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)