|
  |
|
 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Powell: Iraq 'just trying to rope-a-dope this along'
Editor's Note: CNN Access is a regular feature on CNN.com providing interviews with newsmakers from around the world.
(CNN) -- Shortly after hearing the United Nations chief weapons inspectors give their latest report to the Security Council, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell sat down with CNN correspondent Andrea Koppel to discuss what he had heard and the United States' latest thinking on the Iraq crisis. KOPPEL: Considering what you heard both in the public session that we were all listening to and then behind closed doors, under the present circumstances, would you recommend to President Bush to go for a second resolution? POWELL: Well, I've got to get back to Washington and talk to my colleagues in the administration and speak to the president. So I think I'll withhold my recommendation to the president and give it to him. But it was a very good debate, both in the open session and in the private session. And it comes down to the following issue, when you shred out all of the different points of view: Robust inspection has to be something that goes hand-in-hand with cooperation and compliance on the part of the Iraqi regime. No matter how robust the inspection regimen, you make the inspection regimen, if Iraq is not cooperating, if Iraq is not complying with the resolution, you're not going to get to the right answer, which is the disarmament of Iraq. And that's the point I tried to make. Let's not lose sight of the issue. The issue is disarmament and compliance and cooperation, not the inspection regime. And what I heard today from the inspectors and what I heard from the Iraqi permanent representative was that they have done some things with respect to process. Suddenly, [Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein issues a decree today, suddenly the legislature finally takes action, a new law. But these are just process items. We still don't have a substantive change in thinking on the part of the Iraqi regime. They haven't made a strategic decision yet to cooperate. And so robust inspections or more inspectors or more technical features to the inspection won't compensate, in my judgment, for a lack of cooperation and a failure of Iraq to understand they must comply. KOPPEL: U.S. officials have been sitting down with their British counterparts this week, trying to figure out what kind of language could be in a second U.N. resolution. Why is this? We know why it's important to the U.K. Why would this be important to the U.S.? POWELL: We believe that a second resolution, if we go for one, and if one is passed, would once again express the intent of the Security Council that Iraq come into compliance. And if it hasn't come into compliance at this point, then serious consequences should follow. That was the whole logic behind [Security Council Resolution] 1441. So to be consistent with 1441, to go for such a resolution, what the president [has] made clear all along, [is] that in the absence of a second resolution, if Iraq still is not disarmed, then the United States is willing to lead a coalition of nations that will be willing to join the United States in the disarmament. And obviously, a second resolution would provide political support to all the many heads of state and government, all those countries who think as we do, that Iraq must be disarmed one way or the other. KOPPEL: We heard all of the statements made by the foreign ministers in public, the French, the Germans, the Russians, the Chinese, all in opposition to moving ahead with this second resolution or war. Did they match those words privately, or did you hear something different? POWELL: We had a number of conversations over a brief lunch period. And in the private session we had with all of the same ministers, lots of questions were directed to Dr. [Hans] Blix [of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission] and to Dr. [Mohamed] ElBaradei [of the International Atomic Energy Agency], and we had a good, healthy discussion that expanded on the morning discussion. I also heard Bulgaria, Spain and the United Kingdom speak strongly in support of the need for Iraq to comply. And so even though there are a lot of different opinions expressed, and they were strong opinions, it comes down to what judgment do you make with respect to Iraq's understanding of the nature of 1441? Are they complying? Are they disarming? And I think in my judgment, anyway, the answer to that question still remains 'no.' They don't understand. They are not taking it seriously. We see a lot of process. We see people showing up for interviews who have tape recorders. Guess where a copy of that tape is going? Do you think anybody is going to honestly answer questions with a tape recorder that they have to come out of that building and give the tape to who? Their minder. And so we still need a lot more work to be done. And frankly, one of the major items of the discussion of the private session was interviews. We need to do a better job of getting people into an environment where they can speak honestly and truthfully without minders, without tape recorders, without bugged rooms. Both of the inspectors focused on this in our private session. KOPPEL: You said we need a lot more work to be done. I mean that really is the point that the French, the Chinese and the others are saying with inspections. You don't mean in that regard. POWELL: We need a lot more work to be done with the inspectors doing their work. We didn't say stop the inspections. What we said is, no matter what you do with the inspections, in the absence of compliance, we need a lot more work to be done with respect to compliance. Iraq needs to do a lot more work to convince us that it's complying. It has not provided any real evidence that it is complying with the demand of the United Nations. KOPPEL: Not that long ago, you were saying inspections will not work. Are you saying that maybe they will? POWELL: No. I'm saying the only thing that counts is compliance. If Iraq starts to comply and cooperate and starts turning over all documents, not forming commissions to go look for documents, I mean, just consider... KOPPEL: How much more time, Mr. Secretary? POWELL: Just consider what the Iraqi permanent representative said after we all have said the declaration they submitted in December was inadequate, it was not full, it was not complete. And I hit it again today, I hit it last week. What was his answer today? "Read it again. It's all in there." It isn't all in there. The chief inspectors know that. We all know it. And so this is further evidence of Iraq just trying to rope-a-dope this along, to keep it going until people lose interest and walk away. KOPPEL: So how much more time -- the president has said weeks. Are we still talking weeks or days? POWELL: We're talking weeks. KOPPEL: The French and others have made clear that they think the inspections should go on longer. Why do you think they're pushing that line? POWELL: Well, I don't know. You'll have to ask them. My own judgment is that there are some members of the council who don't want to face up to the obligations that we undertook when that resolution was passed. And that was in the presence of a bad declaration, which we have, in the presence of noncompliance, which we have, lack of cooperation, which we have, we are obliged to look at serious consequences. Serious consequences could mean the use of armed force. One member of the council has made it clear that war is not a last resort. War is no resort, according to Germany. Germany has said so. And so there are some nations that will try to do everything to avoid the consequences required of the council to impose its will upon Iraq. And that might mean the use of armed force. KOPPEL: One of the things the French and others who are opposed to war [have said] is that they are concerned about ... what will happen the day after, the months after, the years after. How can the U.S. be sure that the region will not suffer the consequences of a post-Saddam Iraq? POWELL: The United States has one terrific record over the last almost 100 years of leaving places better off after we have conducted a military operation. It can make that case with respect to just the last 10 or 12 years to Kuwait, Kosovo and to Afghanistan. People are worried about consequences, and I understand that anxiety. But there are also going to be positive consequences. This regime, if we have to go in and use military force, will no longer be there threatening the world. Those weapons of mass destruction will be gone. The neighbors will not have to worry about the same war, nor will the rest of the world. And then we can readjust our military footprint, which is a source of some concern in the region. And I think one of the consequences of a military operation, if it comes to that -- and we're trying to avoid it -- was that the people of Iraq will start to benefit from the oil of Iraq. The wealth of the nation will go to benefit the people of the nation and not to weapons of mass destruction, not to threatening your neighbors. That's one of the consequences that could also come out of such a conflict, if it comes to a conflict. KOPPEL: When you say adjust the footprint, you mean withdrawing troops, withdrawing American troops from Saudi Arabia, from Kuwait ... POWELL: A lot of our presence in the region -- we didn't have a large presence in the region before the Gulf War. One of the reasons that our presence increased significantly after the Gulf War was because of Iraq. And so, in the absence of that kind of regime that we've seen for all these years in Iraq, a new regime that is responsible to its people has been put in place by its people, and is reflective of its people, and is living in peace with its neighbors, and is trying to build up schools and hospitals and not chemical and biological weapons. You change the entire situation in the region for the better. And obviously, the kind of presence that we have there now would be changed accordingly. KOPPEL: One presence that would be there, some of your colleagues on the Hill this week said, ... would be an American general who would likely be in place there for about two years. Why ... POWELL: Nobody said that. What we said was that, obviously, if you have a military operation and the military operation is successful, the commander of that operation would initially be in charge. And that ... KOPPEL: But we don't know for how long? POWELL: We don't know for how long, but it would be for the shortest possible period of time until it can be transitioned over to a civilian administrator, and then any international body that has a role to play. And rapidly transition into the hands of the Iraqi people as fast as we can make that happen. We have no desire to have an American general running a country, running especially a Muslim country. The two-year comment came in response to a question to one of my associates in the State Department about, how long does a [transition] program usually last. And the answer was, a program like that usually takes two years ... And that got mixed up with another comment about generals into we plan to have a general there for two years. We never said any such thing. KOPPEL: Before we end, I just have to ask you, from what you've heard so far today, is it your sense, as a former military man, that war with Iraq is more inevitable than it was going into today's session? POWELL: I wouldn't say that. I would say there's still a chance for peace, but we will not realize that peace if we ever back off on the pressure, if we ever make it look like we do not have the will to take this to conflict if necessary to disarm Iraq. But the question of war and peace is up to the Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime. The council has spoken. The council spoke clearly in 1441. We had a good, spirited debate today after hearing from the two chief inspectors. The burden now is on Saddam Hussein with respect to the question of whether there will be war or peace.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
