Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

DATE=3/12/03

TYPE=INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

TITLE=GARY SAMORE, LONDON ANALYST

NUMBER=3-588

BYLINE=VICTOR BEATTIE

DATELINE=WASHINGTON

CONTENT=

/// EDITORS: THIS INTERVIEW IS AVAILABLE IN DALET UNDER SOD/ENGLISH NEWS NOW INTERVIEWS IN THE FOLDER FOR TODAY OR YESTERDAY ///

INTRO: The United States has indicated a willingness to extend by a few days the March 17 deadline proposed in the latest draft U-N resolution on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. However, a White House spokesman dismisses a suggestion to push back the deadline at least a month. Spokesman Ari Fleischer says the United States will call a vote on the issue by the end of the week.

The United States' closest ally, Britain, is spearheading efforts to fashion a revised resolution that would set benchmarks and a slightly revised time-table for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to disarm. But, British officials say they will not let the issue drag on past March.

In London, analyst Gary Samore with the private International Institute for Strategic Studies says a majority "yes" vote for the latest resolution, even if it is vetoed by France and Russia, will give political legitimacy to a military operation to forcibly disarm Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction:

MR. SAMORE: So, for London in particular, for Prime Minister Blair, it is extremely important to try to come up with a compromise second resolution that will at least muster the support of the six swing votes. They need to be able to demonstrate that Saddam Hussein has been given every last opportunity to disarm peacefully. And for them to address domestic opposition to the war, it would be extremely helpful to have a second resolution.

As I say, even if it is vetoed by France and Russia, which seems to me to be very, very likely, if they can demonstrate that a majority of Council members supported the resolution, then it would really help them to deal with domestic opposition.

MR. BEATTIE: Who has the diplomatic upper hand at this point now, do you think, the forces arrayed against war, France and Germany, or the United States, Britain and Spain?

MR. SAMORE: Well, that's a very good question, and I think right now it's teetering on the edge. I think most countries are not persuaded by the U.S. argument that Saddam Hussein represents such an imminent threat and that inspections are not making any progress and so, therefore, war is justified. But at the same time, I think countries are very, very wary of standing up and taking a position contrary to what the U.S. believes is very important and intends to do in any event. And so countries in the middle would prefer not to choose between those two opposites on the Council, and they are looking for some kind of compromise.

The compromise that is being proposed by the six swing members is to extend the deadline beyond the March 17th deadline in the British-American draft and to specify exactly what steps Iraq would have to take in order to avoid war. Whether or not a compromise can be reached I think is still up in the air. Washington and London have rejected the proposal for a 45-day deadline; at the same time the six swing members don't seem comfortable with the deadline of March 17th.

Now, there is obviously something in between a week and 45 days. Whether or not the parties can all come together on something that would be more toward the end of March, early April, remains to be seen. But if there is a compromise, that's where it probably lies.

It seems to me that if a compromise is there, if it's possible for the U.S. and the U.K. to muster nine votes in favor of a resolution, in exchange for extending the deadline more than the U.S. would prefer, I think there are very strong diplomatic and political arguments in favor of accepting that compromise.

In addition, from a purely military standpoint, there may be some advantage in waiting a bit longer in order to give the Turkish Government an opportunity to reverse the earlier vote by Parliament and allow U.S. ground forces to use bases in Turkey to attack Northern Iraq. Everyone expects that the new Turkish Prime Minister will be able to get a positive vote when the measure is put to the Parliament again, but that is likely to be a week or two, or even more, before that would happen. And then of course it would take some time for the U.S. to actually move forces into bases in Northern Turkey.

So, aside from the diplomatic and the political incentive for a short delay, there may even be some military rationale as well. Although, of course, the longer you wait, the more you're getting into hotter weather and I think the more it becomes difficult for the troops, who are sitting around and may be losing some of their fighting edge.

HOST: Gary Samore is the director of Studies at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. Any U-N Security Council resolution needs nine "yes" votes from the 15-member council to pass.

VNN/DAB/MAR