• Military

• WMD Menu                           

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

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

18 March 2003

Powell Hopes Possible War against Iraq Will Be Short with Minimal Harm

(Interview with international wire services March 18) (6670)
Secretary of State Colin Powell says if military action is needed to
deal with Iraq, the United States and its partners will make every
effort to keep the war short and to minimize damage to the
infrastructure and harm to the Iraqi people.
"I can assure that plans have been developed to try to do it as
quickly as possible and with minimum destruction to infrastructure, to
the resources and assets of the Iraqi people and with an emphasis on
protecting the assets of the Iraqi people with high emphasis on
avoiding collateral loss of life and with efforts to warn the
population and to also advise Iraqi military units and military
leaders on how they should respond to the onset of the hostilities,"
Powell said in an interview with several international wire services
in Washington March 18.
Powell said numerous channels have been used to convey President
Bush's message to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein that he leave the
country but Hussein has dismissed that message so far.
The secretary said he sees no need for further debate at the United
Nations regarding Iraq, given the divisions within the Security
Council. He said the council remains "relevant" and will be needed to
help create a better future for Iraq.
"[W]e will need the Security Council in the future as we develop new
resolutions that will deal with the aftermath of a conflict if a
conflict comes. There are a number of resolutions in effect that will
have to be adjusted and we want to make sure that we are acting with
the support of the international community as we help Iraq build a
better life for the nation and for its people," Powell said.
Powell said the possible use of military force against Iraq was not an
example of the security doctrine of preemption.
"In this case, we believe we will be acting with the authority of the
international community as well as our own obligation to defend
ourselves under our Constitution and the President's authority as
Commander in Chief," Powell said. "If that was all we were about, we
wouldn't have gone to the UN in the first place."
Powell said the United States continues to deal with Turkey to try to
work out some sort of cooperative arrangement for possible military
action against Iraq.
"And they [Turkish government] are going to take it back to their
parliament and they are trying to figure out the best way to do that.
It may or may not fit in with our own timing is the issue. And what
exactly they are going to parliament is also an issue we're working on
through them," he said.
Powell said relations between the United States and Russia will
survive their disagreement over Iraq because the two countries share
concerns, such as terrorism, that require cooperation.
Commenting on the widespread opposition to war against Iraq in global
public opinion, Powell said people tend not to like war, but strong
political leadership is needed to make necessary but unpopular
decisions.
"[I]t takes strong leaders who understand the danger and understand
the importance of dealing with an issue like this, even in the
presence of public opposition, it takes those kinds of leaders to come
together and stand tall as they are now standing tall in this
coalition," Powell said.
After the possible conflict with Iraq is finished, Powell said he
anticipates that the international community will contribute to the
rebuilding of Iraq.
Following is a transcript of Secretary Powell's interview by the
international wire services:
(begin transcript)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
March 18, 2003
Interview
Secretary Of State Colin L. Powell By International Wire Services
March 18, 2003
(11:05 a.m. EST)
QUESTION: Sure. I'd love to begin. I'm wondering about, you know, the
offer well, order to get out of the country. Is anybody helping the
U.S. with this? Is there anything active going on? You know, we know
the UAE showed some interest in it. I don't imagine you have any state
secrets you want to give away, but is there an active campaign to
persuade him to leave?
SECRETARY POWELL: There are a number of channels that have been used
to communicate the message previously such as the UAE channel, which
is a rather public one, frankly, and, you know, privately. But there
are other nations that, and leaders we have been in touch with who
have been delivering that message to him. And I've also seen some
public statements from some countries that suggest he should comply
and leave. I think I saw a couple of reports this morning.
But the answer to the question is, yes, we believe a message is being
delivered through a number of channels, but he has essentially
dismissed the message in whatever channel that it has gone in so far
to include the President's channel last night.
QUESTION: There was some talk about Amr Musa going. And then he
canceled his --
SECRETARY POWELL: I heard that, but he  -- 
QUESTION: Was that what he was -- is that -- was that, do you know?
SECRETARY POWELL: He was one of many who was talking about this, but I
can't tell you what he was planning to say when he got there.
QUESTION: So to mind the technical before you go into substantial
stuff, first, when does the war start and how long does it last?
Second, I will go into --
SECRETARY POWELL: Aha.  You want that on the record or in Baghdad?
(Laughter).
QUESTION: Whatever.  Whatever way.  (Laughter.)
SECRETARY POWELL: The ultimatum expires 48 hours after it was issued,
which is tomorrow night and that's really all I think I need to say
about it, I mean, a window, a window opens after that. Because that
window closed, another one opened.
With respect to if there is a conflict, how long it would last; I
learned many, many years ago not to make predictions of that kind. Not
being the learned think-tanker, I don't know. But being somebody with
considerable experience in this matter, I can assure that plans have
been developed to try to do it as quickly as possible and with minimum
destruction to infrastructure, to the resources and assets of the
Iraqi people and with an emphasis on protecting the assets of the
Iraqi people with high emphasis on avoiding collateral loss of life
and with efforts to warn the population and to also advise Iraqi
military units and military leaders on how they should respond to the
onset of the hostilities.
QUESTION: And for the record, you are not going to the Security
Council on Wednesday?
SECRETARY POWELL: I have no plans, no. I have no plans to go to the
Security Council, but I understand there will be a session where Dr.
Blix will present information on the unresolved tasks, and I know
that, at least I've heard this morning, that some ministers are
planning to attend.
QUESTION: Do you have a message for them? Are they wasting their time?
SECRETARY POWELL: I just -- you know, everybody can decide what to
attend, but it seems to me that, you know, it's a meeting that can be
handled more than adequately by my permanent representative, our
permanent representative, which is what he's there for. So I don't
know that this is something that demands the attention of foreign
ministers but I leave that up to each foreign minister to make an
individual judgment on that. I don't think it's of the nature of the
kind we've had over the last month or two where we were desperately
trying to see whether or not Iraq was or was not complying. And we
came to a difference of opinion on that issue.
We believe that the evidence was clear from those meetings that Iraq
was not complying and was in violation, further violation of its
obligations and that 1441 laid out a clear path forward. Some of our
friends wanted to see another resolution and as you know, we did not
go forward with another resolution, but we believe the case was clear.
Some of our colleagues on the Council did not believe the case was
clear and tomorrow's meeting doesn't seem to further that debate one
way or the other any longer, obviously, so I don't see any particular
need for me to go.
QUESTION: Can we go back over  -- 
MR. BOUCHER: I'm sorry.  Let's go proceed on an orderly path.
QUESTION: Are you sending a message to the Security Council by not
going tomorrow? And over the last few months, I mean you have said
repeatedly that it would be irrelevant if it hadn't acted on Iraq and
now that it hasn't, are you prepared to say it's irrelevant?
SECRETARY POWELL: Absolutely not. The Security Council remains
relevant. There's not reason in my judgment to go tomorrow. We'll be
represented. We'll be represented by one of most distinguished
ambassadors and somebody you know I have great confidence in. It's not
a question of the United States boycotting the meeting, it's just that
I don't see a particular need for me to go and I think most members of
the Security Council will be represented at the permanent
representative level, not at the foreign minister level. And so it's a
judgment that, I think, the majority of the members will make that
there's no particular need to go at ministerial level.
I don't recall, frankly, the president of the Council calling for it
to be at ministerial level. This is an individual decision being made
by some Council members that they wish to be represented at that
level.
The Council remains relevant. I think it was irrelevant on this
particular issue. It lost relevancy on this particular issue because
it didn't deal with it forthrightly at the end of the day even though
it had dealt forthrightly with it on the 8th of November when it
passed 1441. But we will need the Security Council in the future as we
develop new resolutions that will deal with the aftermath of a
conflict if a conflict comes.
There are a number of resolutions in effect that will have to be
adjusted and we want to make sure that we are acting with the support
of the international community as we help Iraq build a better life for
the nation and for its people.
1441 was a great achievement of the Council. I don't think you should
underestimate it. It took a lot of hard work and lot of negotiation on
the part of all the foreign ministers and permanent representatives.
And it forms the basis for the action that might be necessary if the
ultimatum is not acted upon by Saddam Hussein and conflict comes.
There are some who disagree with that, but I think that the prevailing
of international law says 1441 and its underlying resolutions 678 and
687 will give the international community whatever authority it needs.
And as we have said repeatedly, you know, the absence of the UN's
willingness to come together again, the United States is prepared to
lead a coalition of the willing. And we have been asking people. We
now have a coalition of the willing that includes some 30 nations who
have publicly said they could be included in such a listing. Richard
can provide the names to you later. And there are 15 other nations,
who, for one reason or another do not wish to be publicly named but
will be supporting the coalition.
QUESTION: What's your reaction to the Palestinian parliament's
decision overnight to approve a prime minister that does (inaudible)
as you understand it suggest the prime minister will actually have
real authority?
SECRETARY POWELL: I was impressed by the action of that body. I think
the vote was 69-1. And they pushed back on some of Chairman Arafat's
desires to have the group and the prime minister presented to him by
making it something of a creature of him rather than the legislative
body, so I was impressed by that. I think it is starting to become
clear that they wish the prime minister to have authority. It seems
that President Arafat will still retain authority over security and
other matters and we will have to see now whether the prime minister
has the kind of authority that we can view as authority to start
moving the Palestinian people into a more positive direction.
This is another positive step. It is not the final step in the
transformation that we had been hoping for with Palestinian Authority
and the Palestinian people. But we respond favorably toward it. As you
know, the President announced last Friday that we would present the
roadmap to the prime minister when he is confirmed. Right now we do
not have, officially, a name of a prime minister presented. What we
have now is the creation of the position and vestige of some
authority.
I expect in the next several days, Chairman, President Arafat will
present a name and ask that individual to form a cabinet under the
authority that the legislature provides. So this is, I think, a
positive step forward.
QUESTION: May I ask you a quick follow-up? Our stories suggest that,
as you said, that Arafat would retain control over the security
apparatus, over peacemaking and the right to dismiss the prime
minister. Are those three things acceptable to you?
SECRETARY POWELL: We would have preferred to see an even greater
authority invested in the prime minister, but it is nevertheless, a
positive. We have been disappointed in President Arafat's leadership
and said so clearly when the President gave his speech last 24th; and
we have not dealt directly with him. And the greatest disappointment
has been the area of security, ending the violence and so there is a
disappointment that that portfolio seems to remain wholly in the hands
of Chairman Arafat, but having said that, we do have a prime minister
on retainer with authorities given to him by the legislature. We'll
see how that authority is used and we'll see how things move along.
QUESTION: Can I just come back? Does that mean that the roadmap has
not yet been presented, correct? And you're waiting for the actual
person?
SECRETARY POWELL: Yeah. The President was clear. I think the word he
used was confirm.
QUESTION: upon confirmation  -- 
QUESTION: Immediately upon confirmation, which sounded like within an
hour after that someone's going to go deliver it to --
SECRETARY POWELL: No, I don't know that it would be that quick, but
clearly that is the action event: the confirmation of a prime
minister, somebody who is now the prime minister of the Palestinian
Authority and carries the authority of the legislature for those parts
of the total portfolio that he now has responsibility for. And that's
what the President said and that's what we intend to do. Obviously, we
have to consult the other members of the Quartet, the Russian
Federation, the EU and the UN and decide how to "release" it. And the
word is "release" to make it a follow-up document.
QUESTION: And you reserve the right not to put it forward if you feel
that the prime minister doesn't have real authority?
SECRETARY POWELL: I think what the President said was pretty clear. I
would just stick with his words. If we found that, you know, others
stick with the President's words and if we found something was amiss
that troubled us, we would discuss it with the members of the Quartet.
QUESTION: Should we expect once tomorrow's ultimatum is over a new
speech by President Bush? And also, if I may ask, do you think if
there's war, again, there's a real threat to the unity of the
coalition, I guess, or (inaudible) not suggested today?
SECRETARY POWELL: On your second question, I've seen that kind of
speculation but I simply don't agree with it because terrorism is a
clear threat to the world. And even in those nations where we have had
serious disagreement on this particular issue, we're still working
well with and cooperating on with respect to terrorism, whether it's
France or the Russian Federation, we're still working on terrorism
because we all are affected by terrorists.
Russia is concerned about what's happening in Chechnya. Russia is
still recovering from the shock of what happened in the theater a few
months ago, and in areas like that, the cooperation will continue and
remain strong.
We continue to work on chasing down financial leads. Pakistan made two
significant arrests in the last couple of weeks of individuals, Mr.
Al-Jazeeri and KSM as he's called, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and so that
cooperation will continue because everybody understands that this
danger is not affected by this particular disagreement.
On the President's speaking again, I'm sure the President will speak
again for the nation when he feels there is a need to tell the nation
about something that is happening. So I would, yeah -- if, if military
operations begin, I'm sure the President will at the appropriate time
speak to the nation.
QUESTION: So I just want to ask you especially about DPRK. Can you
update some information on an acid-missile test they are preparing a
non-acid missile (inaudible) discussed the processing business that
would bring as well and you mentioned repeatedly that you wanted a
multilateral approach, peacefully, diplomatic way of solution. But if
these guys (inaudible) there will be a deadline if they stop being
(inaudible) or repressive. Do you still think they are going to stick
to this multilateral, peaceful, diplomatic approach?
SECRETARY POWELL: We're going to stick with a multilateral arrangement
because we think it's best. The more I hear about this business of the
United States must do it this way or else North Korea will never
respond, the more I believe that that is not the correct way to do it.
This is not just a problem between the United States and North Korea.
This is a problem between North Korea and all the nations in the
region and the international community in the form of the IAEA. And
the Agreed Framework was a bilateral, direct discussion with North
Korea with all kinds of assurances. And the first thing that happened
after those assurances, they began working non-enriched uranium. And
so we believe everybody has a stake in this matter to stick with our
position on beginning in a multilateral form. In a multilateral form,
everybody can talk to everybody else. And it's, you know, Dr.
Kissinger had an excellent piece on this yesterday -- day before
yesterday, I think it was. And I think it's pretty logical, it's
pretty straightforward.
And so far they have not begun the reprocessing facility. I don't know
if they will or if they won't. I think it would make political
dialogue and finding a diplomatic way forward much more difficult if
they've started the reprocessing facility and I don't know what
utility they think they would find in launching missiles toward any of
their neighbors.
It should be clear to the North Koreans right now that while we look
at these provocations with concern, they are not going to provoke us
into a bad policy situation. And the world should be united on this.
It sometimes causes me reflection late at night when I see how we are
often criticized for being -- for not being multilateral, and now we
are trying to be multilateral we get crucified by various commentators
for not being bilateral. And so, but this is the likelihood --
QUESTION: This war against Iraq will be the "Bush Doctrine," the new
preemptive attack, that you will attack --
SECRETARY POWELL: No, no, no. This conflict, if it comes, with Iraq,
will be because Iraq has been developing weapons of mass destruction
and has possessed them for 12 years in violation of its international
obligations. And the President took this problem to the international
community. So we have to do something about it. It's a danger. The
President's overall National Security Strategy remains one of working
with friends and allies and helping with the crises in the world that
include HIV/AIDS, read the whole document. But in that document there
is also a reference to the use of preemptive action. It's higher in
our list of things one can do to defend oneself, but it is not
something that is brand new. We have had preemption as something one
could do all along. In this case, we believe we will be acting with
the authority of the international community as well as our own
obligation to defend ourselves under our Constitution and the
President's authority as Commander in Chief.
And so I would not, I don't want you to go down the path, well, here,
new doctrine started, that one's first, that one's next, and then that
one. If that was all we were about, we wouldn't have gone to the UN in
the first place.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, while the second resolution was being
considered, there were countries that said they could support the U.S.
only if there was a second resolution. It was clear you went back. You
said you have on coalition, 15 silent additions -- are there others
who you have lost because of the French strategy -- because of the
resolution being withdrawn, and are any of them significant? Will
there be a strategic or a tactical shift necessary? Your most
valuable, not necessarily allies, but supporters or collaborators,
whatever?
SECRETARY POWELL: I would have to look, you know, I don't know if I
could answer your question, I would like to --
QUESTION: Well, there's -- Turkey's first in my mind, but  -- 
SECRETARY POWELL: Turkey? The cabinet is meeting right now to see what
support they'll be able to provide for this. And I got to talk again
to the Turkish Foreign Minister, Deputy Prime Minister Mr. Gul. I
don't remember -- let's keep in mind, Turkey took it to their
parliament at a time of very high tension and turmoil with a
government changing. They were going to do that to support us and they
didn't succeed. And they are going to take it back to their parliament
and they are trying to figure out the best way to do that. It may or
may not fit in with our own timing is the issue. And what exactly they
are going to parliament is also an issue we're working on through
them.
Sure, there are countries that we wish would have thought it possible
to support our position and support our efforts but a situation like
this where you have these kinds of disagreements, people make their
choices, we do what we think is necessary or we believe is right and
then we will regroup for the next phase.
Some of the nations who did not support us in the second, I hope they
will find the way clear once we have been successful if war comes to
see if there's a role they can play in the future on that issue,
subsequent phases of this issue or another issue.
QUESTION: You specified Germany, I think at a hearing, and I've asked
Richard and he seems to think France would be part of it, do you think
France will adjust after the war and become part of a reconstruction
effort?
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, let me not speak for France at this point. I'm
not sure what position they will take and I'm not sure exactly what
opportunities --
QUESTION: I don't mean he said that he would, I'm just -- he thought
that having not supported the resolution doesn't exclude supporting
reconstruction.
SECRETARY POWELL: I don't know what's -- I have a hard time answering
that. A lot will depend on how this unfolds. You know, I think the
Iraqi people will see who has been there for them; I mean who brought
about their liberation and who was for them and who was not for them.
And let's not fight and be naïve that might affect things in the
future. But at the same time, I think there's going to be enough work
to do that anybody who wants to contribute in some way will be able
to.
QUESTION: Things with Turkey seem a little bit better than they were
just a week ago in terms of getting a deal in there. At what point is
it too late, though? I mean it looks like we're close to military
action. Once military action begins, is it still possible to
(inaudible), as well?
SECRETARY POWELL: Yeah. We think they'll be -- in the next couple of
days, there are things that Turkey could do in the matter of military
action in their future. And that's what I talked to the Foreign
Minister about yesterday, the things that are foremost in our minds.
And my colleagues at the Defense Department still feel that there are
things Turkey can do some distance in the future. You know, I don't
want to be precise, but we would not shut down in the near future, our
opportunities to get greater cooperation from Turkey.
QUESTION: Is this a priority on airspace right now, just getting the
airspace?
SECRETARY POWELL: Overflights.
QUESTION: What about the APEC? Can they still get the $6 billion? Or
is it going to be less now because --
SECRETARY POWELL: The $6 billion was linked to a specific package and
when that package was not able to move forward, then the $6 billion
essentially was, let me just say put off to the side; taken off the
table is an expression I've used, but it's not fair in the absence of
that original package.
Now we'll wait to see what the Turkish Government is able to do and
what the parliament is able to do and then we can respond to what's on
the table or not.
QUESTION: Assuming that Saddam does not take this opportunity to leave
and assuming that conflict followed and at some point that's over and
you have 220-odd thousand troops sitting in Iraq, assuming all that,
what have you -- have you made any outreach at all or any approach to
Iran to kind of tell them that, "Look, even though these people are
going to be on your doorstep and even though we have deep, deep
concerns about your nuclear program, we're not going to be crossing
the border? We have the next leg of the axis?
SECRETARY POWELL: Yeah, we have ways of communicating with Iran but I
don't want to go into any details on those means or what particular
messages are being conveyed.
QUESTION: So, what? You don't want me to say that there's been an
assurance that whatever this operation, when it's finished in Iraq
it's not going to be continued over?
SECRETARY POWELL: I don't know why the Iranians would feel that, but
we haven't been in, the dialogue that we've been having with them is
not one for assurance or no assurances. It hasn't been -- we haven't
been discussing anything.
QUESTION: Sir, in Russia the people, the government and the people are
very concerned about the coming war that President Putin has called a
mistake. They are also very concerned about our bilateral relations
and the possible fallout of that relations. So what are you willing to
do? What do you expect the Russians to do to keep that relationship on
an even keel?
SECRETARY POWELL: We do have a disagreement on this issue and I know
that President Putin and my colleague Igor Ivanov spoke strongly that
they think that war is a mistake. President Putin and President Bush
spoke this morning and I think they have a clear understanding between
them of their differences.
I think Russian-US bilateral relations will survive this disagreement
and will continue to thrive because there is much that pulls us
together: our common cause against terrorism, our desire to help the
Russian economy, our desire to move forward with the Treaty of Moscow
reductions and I know there has been a delay before the Duma in
ratifying the treaty, but we got it ratified last week. (Inaudible)
95-0 vote. And we hope the Duma will see that it is in the interest of
the Russian Federation and in our bilateral relationship. And we
always have chicken exports that we have to deal with. So there's so
much that pulls us together. And I think we will deal with this
disagreement and move on.
We have had other disagreements with the Russian Federation in the two
years that this administration has been here and we've been able to
find a way to deal with those and move on, whether it's the ABM
Treaty, Missile Defense and how we're cooperating and discussing with
each other ways of cooperating with respect to missile defense. These
disagreements will come along and as long as everybody realized that
we have mutual interests, we can get through them and keep the
relationship growing.
QUESTION: How do you see the Jackson-Vanik situation developing? There
are two competing pieces of legislation in Congress now. I understand
the administration favors one of them, the older one.
SECRETARY POWELL: I know that President Lugar had, excuse me, Senator
Lugar has put forward legislation and I haven't looked at the pieces.
We support the elimination of Jackson-Vanik. The President made that
clear for some time. But there are, you know, there are legislative
difficulties that we and we're going to go after it again this season.
QUESTION: Has Libya given the United States assurances that it will
take responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing? If it were to do so
publicly and to pay compensation, would that be sufficient to get them
off the terrorist list? If not, what else would they need to do?
SECRETARY POWELL: This set of discussions negotiates at a very
delicate moment and I would rather not answer your question at this
time, because I would, some of my people just got back in and I would
like to sit and talk to them for awhile about the offers that are on
the table and how those offers are being -- are received by family
members and there's different sets of issues with respect to air
sanctions, UN sanctions, things of that nature. And exactly what we
are, in the international community, expecting. And so I would, I will
give you an answer, but I need to do a little bit more work with the
guidance so we can generate a decision.
QUESTION: Can I ask you one thing that's related which maybe you can
take on? How concerned are you about WMD development in Libya?
SECRETARY POWELL: We are concerned that Libya continues to pursue
programs that could lead to possession of weapons of mass destruction.
QUESTION: This administration, sir, you have gone the extra mile for
diplomacy, and probably part because of your strongest allies, Great
Britain and Spain ask you to because of the opposition they find in
public opinions against war, would you expect -- well Britain has
compromised 3,000 toward a war, but would expect, for example, from a
country like Spain to go the extra mile militarily or economically?
SECRETARY POWELL: We would hope that Spain would do whatever is
possible both militarily and economically. I think, really, it has
been a display of enormous leadership on the part of Prime Minister
Blair, and I'm sure you watched him in parliament this morning, on
Prime Minister Aznar, Prime Minister Berlusconi -- leaders around the
world; Prime Minister Howard made a powerful statement this morning.
Countries in the former Soviet Union and they have Bulgaria -- I spoke
to my Danish and Dutch colleagues this morning about the support they
are giving this effort and all of them are doing it in the presence of
public opposition, serious public opposition.
People tend not to like war. They tend not to want war. They tend to
express their desire for war to be avoided at all cost. I've seen this
repeatedly in the course of my career when war was at hand and it
takes strong leaders who understand the danger and understand the
importance of dealing with an issue like this, even in the presence of
public opposition, it takes those kinds of leaders to come together
and stand tall as they are now standing tall in this coalition of 30
plus 15 more who we will we know in due course. And I am pleased that
the United States, working with these leaders, have been able to make
a case for these leaders to take to their people. And I hope that they
will all be able to do everything that's possible within their means
to support the coalition militarily, diplomatically, politically and
economically.
QUESTION: Has there been a specific offer from Spain to help with some
-- 
SECRETARY POWELL: I don't want to comment on a specific offer because
of my Pentagon friends deal with it. But I don't have in my mind
exactly what kind of an offer, and I think the Spanish parliament this
very moment, when I talked to Ana Palacios this morning, the Spanish
parliament was dealing with this issue and since I don't know what
they -- exactly was put before them or what they may have decided, I
can't tell.
QUESTION: Do you think the G7 and G8 will be some sort of favorite or
the vehicle to rebuild the Iraqi aftermath? And what do you precisely,
actually ask these governments to donate to the area.
SECRETARY POWELL: I don't know if the G7 or G8 will really be the
right model for it or whether it will be the coalition of the willing
underneath some (inaudible) UN umbrella. Iraq has a source of revenue.
It's a wealthy country as I heard Mr. Blair remind us all this
morning. A couple of decades ago it has the Gross, GDP of Portugal.
Well, this is not a destitute country; it's just a country that has
misused its resources. But there are other nations that are ready to
help. The European Union has expressed an interest in helping; the
United Nations and its subsidiary agencies are willing to help. Japan
has said that it wants to be part of the rebuilding and reconstruction
efforts and they are analyzing how best they can help and that help
will be welcomed, whether it's funneled directly in under
international, some international (inaudible) or whether, ultimately
the G7 and G8 decides to engage itself in the matter.
Right now we're really working with the EEU individual countries such
as Japan, and now it's trying to coordinate more closely with the UN.
MR. BOUCHER: I think that's going to just about do it there.
QUESTION: Are you aware that you have been named in a lawsuit in
Belgium?
SECRETARY POWELL: Yes.
QUESTION: What's the -- what do you make of that?
SECRETARY POWELL: I make it a short NATO meeting going to that.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: Do you think this whole -- would this affect any -- you said
yesterday you were traveling very soon -- not to Belgium, apparently.
SECRETARY POWELL: It's a serious problem. The Belgian legislature
continues to pass laws and modify them over time, which permits these
kinds of suits, and it's the same kind of law that affected Prime
Minister Sharon. I have been named along with President Bush 41, Bud
Cheney and Schwartzkopf. And also, even before anything has happened
they have named 43, President 43 Bush and Don Rumsfeld.
Now I don't know that the suits have been filed so much as lawyers are
preparing cases to file suits and the Belgian legislature is planning
to make it even easier to do this. We have cautioned our Belgian
colleagues that they need to be very careful about this kind of
effort, this kind of legislation because it makes it hard for us to go
places that put you at such easy risk. And I know it's a matter of
concern at NATO Headquarters, now, and international headquarters
sitting there in Belgium where not just U.S. officials but officials
from anywhere, where officials of Mr. Sharon can be subject to this
kind of litigation and if you show up, next thing you know -- Who
knows?
QUESTION: Exactly.  We'll move a foot to move?
SECRETARY POWELL: I've been personally,  -- 
QUESTION: Are you personally comfortable with pursuing a policy that's
being opposed by the people all over the world, by, in some cases,
some extreme cases, attempts to pose (inaudible) with all those --
SECRETARY POWELL: By who?
QUESTION: By the church. By the Pope today. So personally are you
comfortable?
SECRETARY POWELL: Yes. Yes, we've made clear and we had told and I
spoke to His Excellency Archbishop Tauran the Foreign Minister of the
Vatican yesterday that we understand the Pope's concern. We understand
the Holy Father's concern, but sometimes issues come before us that
cannot be avoided, but because we're peace loving and we hope they'll
go away, and we believe firmly this is one such issue.
And I hope the same concern that we expressed to them the actions of
Saddam Hussein. He is the one who has brought this upon the world. Not
the United States. He is the one who has continued to pursue these
weapons. He is the one who last fall, the United Nations challenged to
come into full and immediate compliance and unconditional compliance.
And he's the one that chose not to. And we believe the danger is real.
And if we do not act now to disarm him as we said we would when 1441
was passed, the clear of intent of 1441 was for him to comply --
meaning disarm. If he didn't, it would be serious consequences. We
believe he hasn't. We believe that he tried to deceive us. We believe
that a game is being played with inspectors, and so we believe that we
have met the test with respect to trying to find a peaceful solution
and there are many cases in history where when people were reluctant
to take the necessary military steps, the use of force, it was
regretted later.
QUESTION: In case any of us have to write about the Belgian thing, can
you tell us what you were accused of and if you think it has any
bearing?
SECRETARY POWELL: Oh, it's not -- I guess you read it in the -- there
are Belgian laws that permit this kind of litigation and in my case
and that of General Schwartzkopf and President Bush 41 and Cheney, I
guess, we are accused of -- or at least this lawyer is preparing a
suit, I don't think it's been filed yet -- but he's preparing a suit
accusing us of crimes for the bombing of the bunker.
Remember the bunker that was hit in 1991? That that was a crime. And
in the same report that I have, they are getting ready to accuse
current President Bush and Don Rumsfeld, and I have not yet been
joined in this one, but I'm sure I will, for whatever might happen.
QUESTION: Can you say you think it's without merit?
SECRETARY POWELL: Yes, of course.
QUESTION: Okay.  Thanks.
QUESTION: Have you told the Belgians that there might be a problem
with NATO staying in Brussels?
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, I didn't -- they, I know, I'm just saying that
NATO is concerned about this because it affects the ability of people
to travel into, in Belgium without being subject to this kind of
threat.
Kissinger has faced this, as you know a number of places around the
world. And for a place that is an international center, they should be
a little bit concerned about this.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)