Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Today
U.S. to Push for U.N. Resolution on Iraq
Aired September 18, 2002 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: Up first this hour, a pledge from leaders of Congress to President Bush. Lawmakers won't leave town for the midterm elections without leaving some sort of resolution authorizing some sort of action against Iraq.
CNN's Kelly Wallace joins us live from the White House with more -- Kelly.
KELLY WALLACE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well hello, Kyra. This definitely a big victory for the president, because you you know, Democrats had been saying that perhaps Congress should wait and not vote on a resolution until the U.N. took some action.
But, the sentiment has changed and now the president is expected to get a vote on a resolution very, very soon, basically giving him the authority to use whatever means is necessary to deal with Saddam Hussein.
The bigger significance right now for U.S. officials, just how that vote could impact some skeptical U.S. allies. You had the president meeting with the four congressional leaders this morning, and he was asked about the big challenge facing this administration now, how Saddam Hussein's latest offer to allow weapons inspectors back inside his country, how that could complicate his goal of getting a tough new U.N. Security Council resolution. Well, the president calling Saddam's offer his latest ploy, saying the Iraqi leader simply cannot be trusted.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The fact that time and time again, dozens of times, he has told the world, Oh, I will comply, and he never does. That the nations which long for peace, and care about the validity of the United Nations will join us. So we are going to work hard to continue to make the case. I think reasonable people understand this man is unreasonable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Still, the administration facing a huge diplomatic challenge, because you have countries like France, China, and Russia, all seem to be saying there is not a need now for a tough new resolution, because Saddam Hussein is saying the weapons inspectors can come back in -- Kyra.
PHILLIPS: All right. Well, there has to be something going on behind the scenes, Kelly, there at the U.N. WALLACE: A lot going on behind closed doors, Kyra. Secretary of State Colin Powell continuing to go work with other U.S. allies. President Bush is likely to work the phones himself, perhaps reaching out to countries such as Russia, France, and China. Also, the administration trying to use, really, the bully pulpit to make the case. You have defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the Hill, you have top officials saying Saddam Hussein can't be trusted, the White House releasing a document yesterday outlining all the times Saddam Hussein has backed away from his pledge to allow unconditional access to his sites in Iraq, so the administration trying to get the message out that Saddam Hussein needs to know the U.S. and the world community are serious this time around -- Kyra.
PHILLIPS: Well, have U.S. officials told you what the next move is, if indeed this is unsuccessful, Kelly?
WALLACE: There are saying it is premature to speculate, Kyra. They are still holding out hope, and still very confident that ultimately, the U.N. will pass a new resolution which would spell out the consequences Saddam Hussein could face if he did not comply with all the U.N. resolutions.
They also say the president has said he holds onto all options if the U.N. does not take action, and of course, we know, that could include military force -- Kyra.
PHILLIPS: Kelly Wallace at the White House, thank you.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is making the case against Iraq today to the House Armed Service Committee. As you may have seen live here on CNN, Rumsfeld was reminded this morning that public testimony can be very different from closed-door briefings.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We will see to it that our guests are escorted...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Inspections, not war. Inspections, not war. Inspections, not war. Inspections, not war. Inspections, not war. Inspections, not war...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIPS: CNN's Kate Snow joins us now, on a raucous (ph) day on the Hill -- now, Kate, I have to say they were quite humorous with regard to responding to these protesters.
KATE SNOW, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, yes, Secretary Rumsfeld had a quick comeback. He said, at least in this country, in the United States, there is freedom of speech. Not so, he said, in the country of Iraq.
But in all seriousness, the secretary here, clearly, Kyra, to make a case, to lay out the case for the administration, the case being that Saddam Hussein is a real and potent threat and an immediate threat. He has said again and again that if the United States doesn't act now, he fears that we could lose tens of thousands, in his words, tens of thousands of American lives.
Rumsfeld went point by point earlier in his testimony through some of the criticisms, some of the critics who questioned the need to use military force against Iraq. One of the questions that keeps being raised here on Capitol Hill and elsewhere is whether it would impact the war on terror to start fighting a war in Iraq, would it take away from the effort to fight terrorism globally. Mr. Rumsfeld saying no, this is part of the war on terrorism, Iraq is part of that threat.
Also, he was asked -- he raised the question that critics have raised, would Iraq have weapons of mass destruction at this point, or might it be five to seven years before they have nuclear capabilities.
Mr. Rumsfeld saying the evidence is that it could be sooner than that, it could be six months to a year, maybe 18 months before Saddam Hussein could have a nuclear weapon, and he raised the threat of biological weapons, saying that that was the most immediate concern to the administration.
Mr. Rumsfeld generally saying that the administration believes it is better to take action now than to wait until it is too late.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: If the worst were to happen, not one of us here today would be able to honestly say that it was a surprise, because it will not be a surprise. We have connected the dots, as much as is humanly possible, before the fact. Only by waiting until after the event could we have proof positive, and by then, needless to say, it will be too late.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SNOW: Now Secretary Rumsfeld is encouraging the Congress to act quickly, joining in with what President Bush presented earlier today, meeting with the four leaders of the Congress. Kyra -- he is encouraging Congress not only to take up a resolution in support of the president soon, but he specifically said that Congress should do it before the United Nations Security Council acts. So pushing for very quick action from the U.S. Congress -- Kyra.
PHILLIPS: All right. So it is talk of quick action, and so much talk about an attack on Iraq. What about the conversation about post- Saddam world? That is -- that will make such a big effect on the economy and the resources.
SNOW: He was asked about that right in the beginning of the question and answer period, Kyra, by Ike Skelton, who is the ranking Democrat on that Armed Services Committee. He was asked, What are you going to guarantee as far as what would follow Saddam Hussein, if the regime were changed?
The secretary saying, Look, if the president decides that action is necessary, there would be a multilateral, multi-country effort made, a coalition, he said, to create a post-Saddam country in Iraq. He said that that -- the country of Iraq would not be broken up, that there is consensus on that, but it would have to be a situation where there are no longer weapons of mass destruction, a country that is respectful, he said, of ethnic diversity and fully, with Iraq's own participation, in creating whatever kind of government that might be.
That was his answer to Mr. Skelton. Some may say that that is not good enough, not enough of an answer, but that is what Mr. Rumsfeld is saying, that while they are considering military action, if it gets to that point, they certainly would have some sort of transition plan that they would try to impose on Iraq -- Kyra.
PHILLIPS: From the Hill, Kate Snow. Thanks Kate.
Israel, meanwhile, is standing firmly behind U.S. insistence that Iraq comply with years of U.N. demands or face the consequences. The Iraqi delegation was suspiciously absent when Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres addressed the U.N. General Assembly this morning.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHIMON PERES, FOREIGN MINISTER, ISRAEL: A front from bin Laden to Saddam Hussein is a menace to us all. It won't enable peace, nor permit freedom, neither to all people nor to their own people. In countries that harbor terror, women are discriminated against, men are oppressed, civil and human rights are violated, poverty cannot escape its own poorness.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
The U.S., meantime, is more determined than ever to have the United Nations Security Council come down hard on Iraq, but a new resolution is proving to be a tough sell.
Let's get more now from Senior U.N. Correspondent Richard Roth -- Richard, let's lay out, actually, both of these resolutions.
RICHARD ROTH, CNN SENIOR U.N. CORRESPONDENT: Yes, but is important to know, what we are going to show you are two key old resolutions that are still on the books.
It is -- just as it is going to be difficult to get these new resolution -- or resolutions passed, it wasn't easy to get the other ones adopted by the Security Council.
So, as they say in the trade here at the U.N., let's go to the resolutions.
A key resolution, if you want to play the lottery around here, everybody talks about Resolution 1284, which is the most resent resolution which is -- recalls all of the previous ones, and one key thing, which is what is on the minds at the U.S. and everyone else directed at the Iraqi government, this one says it "decides in particular that Iraq shall allow UNMOVIC," that is the U.N. weapons agency for inspection, tells those teams and Iraq, "immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all areas, facilities, equipment, records, and means of transport as they wish to inspect."
The U.S. would look at this language, should the inspectors get back in, and say, if there are obstructions or blockages, that this would warrant use of military force.
Let's take a look now at another resolution that is really recalled here often. It is the famous 678, with a key line which the U.S. says gives it the right to use force. It authorizes U.N. member states to -- quote -- "use all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660" -- which dealt with the Gulf War -- "and subsequent, relevant resolutions and restore international peace and security in the area."
Many people say, Well, these dealt with getting Iraq out of Kuwait. Others say they are just as valid today as they were 12 years ago, at the height of the Gulf War.
These resolutions are international law, they are the backbone, Kyra, to what the U.N. Security Council does. Many people say the U.N. is a talk shop, a debating society. When you get rid of all of the rhetoric and the speeches, these are the words that everyone refers to. This is the legal body, the heart and soul of what the U.N. will do on Iraq.
PHILLIPS: Richard, back to Resolution 1284, and I am looking at it specifically, "unconditional and unrestricted access," I am confused by this, because the last time weapons inspectors went in, they were not given that type of access, they were -- it was the palaces, correct, that they were not allowed to go near?
ROTH: Well, subsequent -- the palaces happened before 1284. That was passed a couple of years ago, and that was to give Iraq a chance to perhaps let the weapons inspectors in and give them a ray of hope that they may have sanctions suspended. So that was before -- that was after the palaces. The palaces was at the height of the final battles of obstructions. That is when Kofi Annan, and secretary-general went there.
Iraq will -- the big test, Kyra, will Iraq say mosques and presidential palaces and other things are still off limits? If there is going to be a contentious fracas and a standoff, it is likely to happen at a place that Iraq deems sensitive in nature due to its national integrity, and then the U.N. will have to decide whether it is worth the fight, and whether the U.S. may just decide to call in B- 52's, it is a little too early to tell yet, but that is where the big problem will probably come about.
PHILLIPS: Richard Roth, thank you.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired September 18, 2002 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: Up first this hour, a pledge from leaders of Congress to President Bush. Lawmakers won't leave town for the midterm elections without leaving some sort of resolution authorizing some sort of action against Iraq.
CNN's Kelly Wallace joins us live from the White House with more -- Kelly.
KELLY WALLACE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well hello, Kyra. This definitely a big victory for the president, because you you know, Democrats had been saying that perhaps Congress should wait and not vote on a resolution until the U.N. took some action.
But, the sentiment has changed and now the president is expected to get a vote on a resolution very, very soon, basically giving him the authority to use whatever means is necessary to deal with Saddam Hussein.
The bigger significance right now for U.S. officials, just how that vote could impact some skeptical U.S. allies. You had the president meeting with the four congressional leaders this morning, and he was asked about the big challenge facing this administration now, how Saddam Hussein's latest offer to allow weapons inspectors back inside his country, how that could complicate his goal of getting a tough new U.N. Security Council resolution. Well, the president calling Saddam's offer his latest ploy, saying the Iraqi leader simply cannot be trusted.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The fact that time and time again, dozens of times, he has told the world, Oh, I will comply, and he never does. That the nations which long for peace, and care about the validity of the United Nations will join us. So we are going to work hard to continue to make the case. I think reasonable people understand this man is unreasonable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Still, the administration facing a huge diplomatic challenge, because you have countries like France, China, and Russia, all seem to be saying there is not a need now for a tough new resolution, because Saddam Hussein is saying the weapons inspectors can come back in -- Kyra.
PHILLIPS: All right. Well, there has to be something going on behind the scenes, Kelly, there at the U.N. WALLACE: A lot going on behind closed doors, Kyra. Secretary of State Colin Powell continuing to go work with other U.S. allies. President Bush is likely to work the phones himself, perhaps reaching out to countries such as Russia, France, and China. Also, the administration trying to use, really, the bully pulpit to make the case. You have defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the Hill, you have top officials saying Saddam Hussein can't be trusted, the White House releasing a document yesterday outlining all the times Saddam Hussein has backed away from his pledge to allow unconditional access to his sites in Iraq, so the administration trying to get the message out that Saddam Hussein needs to know the U.S. and the world community are serious this time around -- Kyra.
PHILLIPS: Well, have U.S. officials told you what the next move is, if indeed this is unsuccessful, Kelly?
WALLACE: There are saying it is premature to speculate, Kyra. They are still holding out hope, and still very confident that ultimately, the U.N. will pass a new resolution which would spell out the consequences Saddam Hussein could face if he did not comply with all the U.N. resolutions.
They also say the president has said he holds onto all options if the U.N. does not take action, and of course, we know, that could include military force -- Kyra.
PHILLIPS: Kelly Wallace at the White House, thank you.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is making the case against Iraq today to the House Armed Service Committee. As you may have seen live here on CNN, Rumsfeld was reminded this morning that public testimony can be very different from closed-door briefings.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We will see to it that our guests are escorted...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Inspections, not war. Inspections, not war. Inspections, not war. Inspections, not war. Inspections, not war. Inspections, not war...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIPS: CNN's Kate Snow joins us now, on a raucous (ph) day on the Hill -- now, Kate, I have to say they were quite humorous with regard to responding to these protesters.
KATE SNOW, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, yes, Secretary Rumsfeld had a quick comeback. He said, at least in this country, in the United States, there is freedom of speech. Not so, he said, in the country of Iraq.
But in all seriousness, the secretary here, clearly, Kyra, to make a case, to lay out the case for the administration, the case being that Saddam Hussein is a real and potent threat and an immediate threat. He has said again and again that if the United States doesn't act now, he fears that we could lose tens of thousands, in his words, tens of thousands of American lives.
Rumsfeld went point by point earlier in his testimony through some of the criticisms, some of the critics who questioned the need to use military force against Iraq. One of the questions that keeps being raised here on Capitol Hill and elsewhere is whether it would impact the war on terror to start fighting a war in Iraq, would it take away from the effort to fight terrorism globally. Mr. Rumsfeld saying no, this is part of the war on terrorism, Iraq is part of that threat.
Also, he was asked -- he raised the question that critics have raised, would Iraq have weapons of mass destruction at this point, or might it be five to seven years before they have nuclear capabilities.
Mr. Rumsfeld saying the evidence is that it could be sooner than that, it could be six months to a year, maybe 18 months before Saddam Hussein could have a nuclear weapon, and he raised the threat of biological weapons, saying that that was the most immediate concern to the administration.
Mr. Rumsfeld generally saying that the administration believes it is better to take action now than to wait until it is too late.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: If the worst were to happen, not one of us here today would be able to honestly say that it was a surprise, because it will not be a surprise. We have connected the dots, as much as is humanly possible, before the fact. Only by waiting until after the event could we have proof positive, and by then, needless to say, it will be too late.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SNOW: Now Secretary Rumsfeld is encouraging the Congress to act quickly, joining in with what President Bush presented earlier today, meeting with the four leaders of the Congress. Kyra -- he is encouraging Congress not only to take up a resolution in support of the president soon, but he specifically said that Congress should do it before the United Nations Security Council acts. So pushing for very quick action from the U.S. Congress -- Kyra.
PHILLIPS: All right. So it is talk of quick action, and so much talk about an attack on Iraq. What about the conversation about post- Saddam world? That is -- that will make such a big effect on the economy and the resources.
SNOW: He was asked about that right in the beginning of the question and answer period, Kyra, by Ike Skelton, who is the ranking Democrat on that Armed Services Committee. He was asked, What are you going to guarantee as far as what would follow Saddam Hussein, if the regime were changed?
The secretary saying, Look, if the president decides that action is necessary, there would be a multilateral, multi-country effort made, a coalition, he said, to create a post-Saddam country in Iraq. He said that that -- the country of Iraq would not be broken up, that there is consensus on that, but it would have to be a situation where there are no longer weapons of mass destruction, a country that is respectful, he said, of ethnic diversity and fully, with Iraq's own participation, in creating whatever kind of government that might be.
That was his answer to Mr. Skelton. Some may say that that is not good enough, not enough of an answer, but that is what Mr. Rumsfeld is saying, that while they are considering military action, if it gets to that point, they certainly would have some sort of transition plan that they would try to impose on Iraq -- Kyra.
PHILLIPS: From the Hill, Kate Snow. Thanks Kate.
Israel, meanwhile, is standing firmly behind U.S. insistence that Iraq comply with years of U.N. demands or face the consequences. The Iraqi delegation was suspiciously absent when Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres addressed the U.N. General Assembly this morning.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHIMON PERES, FOREIGN MINISTER, ISRAEL: A front from bin Laden to Saddam Hussein is a menace to us all. It won't enable peace, nor permit freedom, neither to all people nor to their own people. In countries that harbor terror, women are discriminated against, men are oppressed, civil and human rights are violated, poverty cannot escape its own poorness.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
The U.S., meantime, is more determined than ever to have the United Nations Security Council come down hard on Iraq, but a new resolution is proving to be a tough sell.
Let's get more now from Senior U.N. Correspondent Richard Roth -- Richard, let's lay out, actually, both of these resolutions.
RICHARD ROTH, CNN SENIOR U.N. CORRESPONDENT: Yes, but is important to know, what we are going to show you are two key old resolutions that are still on the books.
It is -- just as it is going to be difficult to get these new resolution -- or resolutions passed, it wasn't easy to get the other ones adopted by the Security Council.
So, as they say in the trade here at the U.N., let's go to the resolutions.
A key resolution, if you want to play the lottery around here, everybody talks about Resolution 1284, which is the most resent resolution which is -- recalls all of the previous ones, and one key thing, which is what is on the minds at the U.S. and everyone else directed at the Iraqi government, this one says it "decides in particular that Iraq shall allow UNMOVIC," that is the U.N. weapons agency for inspection, tells those teams and Iraq, "immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all areas, facilities, equipment, records, and means of transport as they wish to inspect."
The U.S. would look at this language, should the inspectors get back in, and say, if there are obstructions or blockages, that this would warrant use of military force.
Let's take a look now at another resolution that is really recalled here often. It is the famous 678, with a key line which the U.S. says gives it the right to use force. It authorizes U.N. member states to -- quote -- "use all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660" -- which dealt with the Gulf War -- "and subsequent, relevant resolutions and restore international peace and security in the area."
Many people say, Well, these dealt with getting Iraq out of Kuwait. Others say they are just as valid today as they were 12 years ago, at the height of the Gulf War.
These resolutions are international law, they are the backbone, Kyra, to what the U.N. Security Council does. Many people say the U.N. is a talk shop, a debating society. When you get rid of all of the rhetoric and the speeches, these are the words that everyone refers to. This is the legal body, the heart and soul of what the U.N. will do on Iraq.
PHILLIPS: Richard, back to Resolution 1284, and I am looking at it specifically, "unconditional and unrestricted access," I am confused by this, because the last time weapons inspectors went in, they were not given that type of access, they were -- it was the palaces, correct, that they were not allowed to go near?
ROTH: Well, subsequent -- the palaces happened before 1284. That was passed a couple of years ago, and that was to give Iraq a chance to perhaps let the weapons inspectors in and give them a ray of hope that they may have sanctions suspended. So that was before -- that was after the palaces. The palaces was at the height of the final battles of obstructions. That is when Kofi Annan, and secretary-general went there.
Iraq will -- the big test, Kyra, will Iraq say mosques and presidential palaces and other things are still off limits? If there is going to be a contentious fracas and a standoff, it is likely to happen at a place that Iraq deems sensitive in nature due to its national integrity, and then the U.N. will have to decide whether it is worth the fight, and whether the U.S. may just decide to call in B- 52's, it is a little too early to tell yet, but that is where the big problem will probably come about.
PHILLIPS: Richard Roth, thank you.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
