• Military

• WMD Menu                           

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

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

09 March 2003

Powell Says New Iraq Resolution Would Show Unity on Disarmament

(Secretary interviewed on CNN's Late Edition) (2690)
Approval of a new U.N. Security Council resolution on Iraqi
disarmament proposed by the United States, Britain and Spain would
indicate that the international community "is unified behind that
effort," Secretary of State Colin Powell said March 9 on CNN's Late
Edition. A vote is expected in coming days.
He added that if the proposed resolution is not approved, President
Bush "then will have to make a judgment as to whether or not we're
prepared now to lead a coalition of the willing to disarm Saddam
Hussein, to change the regime, because that seems to be the only way
to get him to disarm."
Following is a State Department transcript of the Powell interview:
(begin transcript)
Interview on CNN's Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer
Secretary Colin L. Powell
Washington, DC
March 9, 2003
(Aired 12:00 p.m. EST)
MR. BLITZER: Mr. Secretary, thanks once again for joining us. Critical
moments right now, obviously, in the potential war with Iraq. What's
the rush?
SECRETARY POWELL: I don't think there has been a rush. There has been
12 years of disobedience on the part of Saddam Hussein and Iraq of the
obligations that they have under the various UN resolutions. It has
been almost six months since the President gave his speech, four
months since Resolution 1441 was put down. How much more time should
we wait for the kind of total compliance expected by Resolution 1441?
MR. BLITZER: Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, says give them a
few more months, you've got the country surrounded, they're doing
intrusive inspections, they're destroying missiles. Why not let them
have a few more months?
SECRETARY POWELL: Because Iraq continues to deceive, Iraq continues to
find ways to divert the inspections. They are providing them some
level of passive cooperation and there are obviously some things that
are going on. But what is causing these things to be going on on the
part of the Iraqis? Is it the inspection process or is it just the
presence of military force? And Iraq is trying to do as little as it
can to remove that political pressure and that military pressure so
they can go right back to the old ways.
Look what Saddam Hussein said yesterday. He started placing demands on
the United Nations. He wants the sanctions gone right away. He wants
to be free again to continue with his original intent, and that was to
develop weapons of mass destruction. I haven't seen that strategic
change of direction on the part of Iraq and on the part of Saddam
Hussein.
Dr. Blix, while he did give a report that describes some of the
cooperation that he has experience, and Dr. ElBaradei the same thing,
he also handed out a document close to 200 pages long that lists page
after page of unanswered questions about the most deadly things one
could imagine -- anthrax, botulinum toxin, mustard gas bombs, RPVs
that are being developed that have just now turned up.
MR. BLITZER: So are you saying that if you gave him a few more months,
three, four five months, even while you surrounded Iraq, even while
the inspectors are there, during that period there would be an
imminent potential threat to U.S. interests?
SECRETARY POWELL: I think that there is a threat to U.S. interests,
there's a threat to stability in that part of the world, and with the
post-9/11 nexus between countries such as Iraq that develop weapons of
mass destruction and terrorists who are trying to acquire them, I
think the world just cannot sit back.
And what he's really trying to do is to stretch this out until the
troops can't stay there any longer and they go home, and he has not
fully complied at that point and he is quite sure that the will of the
international community will be broken at that point.
And so the international community came together on the 8th of
November with 1441 and said he's guilty, he's got to now fix this,
he's got to come into full, immediate, unconditional -- not
conditional, not later -- and also active cooperation, not passive
cooperation. We still haven't seen that and we must not be deceived by
these limited steps that he's taking.
MR. BLITZER: Well, Dr. Blix suggested that he has seen some active
cooperation. I want you to listen to what he told the UN Security
Council on Friday. Listen to this:
"The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of
disarmament, indeed, the first since the middle of the 1990s. We are
not watching the breaking of toothpicks. Lethal weapons are being
destroyed."
Almost 50 al-Samoud II missiles, potentially with chemical-biological
warheads. They could kill a lot of U.S. troops.
SECRETARY POWELL: They could kill a lot of people, and I'm glad that
they're being destroyed. I just don't know how many there are and we
don't know where the infrastructure may be to produce more of them.
And so I don't view this as a definitive statement of Iraq's change of
position with respect to giving up its weapons of mass destruction.
And how did it come about that these weapons are being destroyed? Only
grudgingly, only when the UN placed a demand, and only when Saddam
Hussein realized that he had better start destroying these because the
Security Council was liable to be no longer deceived by his efforts
and there was the possibility of a war.
So this is grudging response. This isn't the kind of full, active,
unconditional response that 1441 was looking for.
MR. BLITZER: But France and Germany, Russia, some of your closest
allies, suggest even grudging response is better than war.
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, that is a point of view that they are entitled
to. We believe that we have given him more than enough time, that it's
time for the Council to make a decision, this week, that he has blown
his last chance. We simply have not seen that strategic change of
direction or intent that 1441 and all the previous resolutions called
for.
If he was serious, he wouldn't be placing demands on the UN, as he did
yesterday; he would be saying, here are all the people you want to
interview, here are all the facilities that I have, here are all the
weapons that I have, here are all the documents that I have. They are
master documenters, as Dr. Blix noted on Friday. They have records.
Where are these records? Why aren't they coming forward? Why are they
only now suddenly discovering more R-400 bomb fragments and pieces to
show to the inspectors? They're doing it grudgingly and they're doing
it only to try to keep us from getting to the truth.
MR. BLITZER: Is there something that the U.S. Government knows that
the governments of France and Germany, for example, don't know about
what's going on inside Iraq right now?
SECRETARY POWELL: I can't answer that question because I don't know
how much more we may or may not know, or less than they do. But I do
know that their intelligence services, France and Germany, I am quite
sure that their intelligence services are fully aware of the simple
fact that Iraq continues to have and develop weapons of mass
destruction. What those intelligence services have shared with the
policymakers, I can't answer.
MR. BLITZER: Speaking of intelligence, on the nuclear front, Dr.
Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief nuclear inspector, says that some of the
information you and the British Government were providing is simply
wrong; for example, forged documents suggesting that Niger was
providing some sort of uranium to Iraq. Who forged those documents?
SECRETARY POWELL: I have no idea, and if that issue is resolved, that
issue is resolved. But we don't believe that all issues with respect
to development of a nuclear weapon have been resolved. The issue of
the centrifuges -- and I know that Dr. ElBaradei has said he doesn't
see any evidence that the centrifuges, the aluminum tubes, were being
used for centrifuges -- but we still have an open question with
respect to that and we see more information from a European country
this week that suggests that that is exactly what those tubes were
intended to be used for. Our CIA believes strongly, and I think it's
an open question.
They have deceived the IAEA previously with respect to their nuclear
weapons program and we have seen this week Iran has got a more
aggressive nuclear development program than the IAEA thought it had,
and surprised the IAEA when this information finally came to the
attention of the IAEA and they were able to verify it in Iran. So you
have to be very careful before you close the book on the potential
development of nuclear weapons.
MR. BLITZER: They deceived the IAEA in the '80s when Dr. Blix was in
charge. Are you raising some concerns about how good of an inspector
he might be?
SECRETARY POWELL: No, I'm raising concerns about how good the Iraqis
are at deception, at diverting attention, as being very clever at
breaking the will of the international community, and on using that
desire that all people have for peace. Everybody wants peace.
But sometimes, you know, you simply have to do what is right and,
hopefully, when you have done what is right, if it includes the use of
military force, in the aftermath you can demonstrate to the world that
you had done the right thing and that you have provided a better life
for the people of Iraq, and you have created a new nation that will
live in peace with its neighbors, and we won't have to be worrying
about issues like this because it will be a new leadership in Iraq
that is not committed to the development of weapons of mass
destruction, and you will not have another 12-year sordid story of
deception on the part of an Iraqi regime.
MR. BLITZER: The March 17th proposal, the deadline the British have
put forward, you support that. The French Government says that's not a
good idea. Listen to what Dominique de Villepin, the French Foreign
Minister, says: "We said very clearly, we said it in Paris, with our
Russian friend, that as permanent members we won't accept this new
resolution."
Is there any flexibility in that March 17th date?
SECRETARY POWELL: It is a date that is before the Council now, and we
have sponsored it with the British and the Spanish have also signed
onto it, and there it is in a resolution and we have no plans to
change that date.
MR. BLITZER: Do you have the votes to get it passed?
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, we don't know yet. We are working very hard
over this weekend, as you might imagine, and we will be working very
hard over the next several days to talk to our friends in the Security
Council. And I think we're making some progress with the elected ten
members, but as you know, the French have taken a strong position to
oppose any resolution. Although they haven't used the word "veto,"
they're certainly indicating that.
MR. BLITZER: When will the vote take place?
SECRETARY POWELL: Sometime this week. I can't predict which day. It
won't be tomorrow, but sometime this week I think we'll push it to a
vote. I think everybody needs a little more time to reflect on what
they heard Friday. The modified resolution was introduced on Friday,
so we have to give people time to reflect on that over the weekend and
into the early part of the week.
MR. BLITZER: As you're doing this final diplomacy, though, are you
open to revising somewhat the language in that amended resolution, if
necessary, to pick up the nine affirmative votes and not necessarily
get a veto?
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, we think the language is quite good. But,
obviously, most nations only saw it for the first time on Friday
afternoon, so we're open to hear responses from them, and if they have
ideas that make sense, it's certainly possible to modify the language.
We think the resolution is pretty good as it stands.
MR. BLITZER: And possible to modify the date, as well?
SECRETARY POWELL: I'm not inclined toward a modification of the date,
and nobody has so far suggested that to us. But I can't tell you now
what people might suggest over the next 48 hours.
MR. BLITZER: The whole notion of if you don't get the resolution
passed, what happens then? Will the President still be determined, if
necessary, to go to war?
SECRETARY POWELL: The President has shown a determination to disarm
Iraq and to disarm Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction.
And if we get the vote, fine, then the international community is
unified behind that effort. If we don't get the vote, the President
then will have to make a judgment as to whether or not we're prepared
now to lead a coalition of the willing to disarm Saddam Hussein, to
change the regime, because that seems to be the only way to get him to
disarm.
And I would not prejudge what the President might do, but I think the
President has spoken rather clearly on this point for many, many
months.
MR. BLITZER: Some have suggested he has put himself in a box. Given
U.S. credibility around the world, he can't back down now.
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, the President can -- has all the options
available to him until he picks one of those options, and then we'll
move forward. And I've been in situations like this a number of times
before in my career, where public opinion was against you, where there
were demonstrations against you, but if you did what was right and it
turned out to be the correct thing to do because you have made the
region and the world a safer, better place, then you can be vindicated
in the aftermath. And I think that's the situation we are facing here
now.
MR. BLITZER: We only have a few seconds left. How close is Iran to
building a bomb?
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, this is a good issue. I mean, here we suddenly
discover that Iran is much further along, with a far more robust
nuclear weapons development program than anyone said it had, and now
the IAEA has found that out. We have provided them information. They
have discovered it. And it shows you how a determined nation that has
the intent to develop a nuclear weapon can keep that development
process secret from inspectors and outsiders, if they really are
determined to do it. And we know that Saddam Hussein has not lost his
intent.
MR. BLITZER: Finally, Mr. Secretary, North Korea. They North Koreans
say simply talk to North Korea and you can resolve this nuclear
tension. Why not establish a direct dialogue?
SECRETARY POWELL: I think eventually we will be talking to North
Korea. But we are not going to simply fall into what I believe is a
bad practice of saying the only way you can talk to us is directly,
when it affects other nations in the region. And this time, we need a
solution that all nations are brought into.
We talked directly to North Korea when we signed the Agreed Framework
in 1994, and it turned out that that just became something that was
parked as they went on to develop nuclear weapons through another
technology. This time, we want a better solution. We want a solution
that involves all the countries in the region. And I hope North Korea
understands that it is also in their interest to have all the nations
in the region a part of this dialogue. And within that broader
dialogue, we'll be talking to the North Koreans.
MR. BLITZER: Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for joining us. Good
luck to you.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)