Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Discussion with Bill Richardson
Aired October 18, 2002 - 09:17 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.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: After so much tough talk about Iraq, the Bush administration is talking compromise on the resolution now before the United Nations. It wants to get it passed without giving up any of its major principles.
Joining us now for perspective on that and the threat in North Korea, let's turn to Bill Richardson, a former U.N. ambassador under President Clinton. He joins us from New Mexico this morning.
BILL RICHARDSON, FMR. U.N. AMBASSADOR: Good morning, Paula.
ZAHN: We should also mention that you're running for another public office, governor.
All right, let's get started with what you think is going on at the U.N. The Bush administration is saying it's not caving in at this hour, and yet it appears everybody says they're getting close to an endgame. What do you think the resolution could end up looking like?
RICHARDSON: What will probably happen, Paula, is the use of force language will be deferred and the resolution will look like -- the inspectors go in, they should have unfettered access, and there will be untold consequences, without being specific on what happens. And then, step two, would probably be the inspectors returning, reporting to the Security Council, basically saying -- and I can bet 100 percent, that they did not get full access.
And then the real debate begins about what the consequences are. I think the Bush people are doing the right thing. They've got the support of the U.S. Congress. Diplomatically, they're moving. They should be patient. Now the U.N. moves slowly, but there should be an endgame eventually if the U.N. does not act, and then the president will have to decide what to do.
But I do agree you want to push diplomacy as much as you can within the U.N. system.
ZAHN: And yet, you say, you believed -- and this is all hypothetical conversation here -- but the inspectors come back after not having been given the access they think they deserve. The key question then is whether the U.S. is going to need a secretary resolution to allow for military action.
Do you think there is a way around that second resolution, where the inspectors would come back to the U.N., report on that, and there is another way the military action would be allowed? RICHARDSON: Well, the countries that are blocking us, Paula, it looks like Russia is the main one. France is sort of in and out. I think if the inspectors come back with a bad access situation then Russia, France, China, other members of the Security Council, are going to be very hard pressed to keep defending Iraq, and they are going to ask to agree to some kind of resolution that implies or uses the use of force. I think that is what what we should try to get.
Now, it doesn't look like the use of force language is going to come in a first resolution. So plan b should be, send the inspectors out there, demand unfettered access; if they don't get it, then come back and push for a stronger resolution.
I think here, the Bush administration needs to be very, very, very patient, use diplomacy, you know, get tough with our allies. Say to Russia, are you standing with us or not? Say to France, you're our friend, you have to help. France always, in the end, usually helps, but it may have to be strung out, and I do suggest that they continue these very intensive negotiations.
ZAHN: Well, let me ask you this, though, even after the U.S. goes to the diplomatic dance, do you think it's likely the U.S. will be at with Iraq down the road?
RICHARDSON: It sounds like it, but I think it's preferable to have multilateral support and have our allies behind us, to have an international coalition. Right now, that ballgame is at the United Nations, so you just have to keep pursuing it.
ZAHN: Let's turn our attention to North Korea. You happened to be there at the end of '94 after this deal was agreed to with North Korea, promising to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. Who got duped here?
RICHARDSON: I think the North Koreans, their word here, obviously, is now in question. What we have to be careful, Paula, is the North Koreans, this nuclear weapons program is their only card, so this is how they get international attention. Many times, they bluff.
Now, it does appear that they have a nuclear weapons program of some kind. So what we need to do is use diplomacy. We don't need a third international fight right now. We've got Al Qaeda, we've got Iraq. Let's internationalize this and use diplomacy. Use the International Atomic Agency. Use China, which has leverage over North Korea. Use Japan. I think the Bush people are playing it right, not appearing to make this a huge crisis.
I think that "axis of evil statement," though, was a mistake. The last thing you want to do with the North Koreans is give them a reason to get on the international stage. They're easily provoked. I think, again here, diplomacy needs to be used here, but a threat to the stability of Asia, where we have several thousand troops, where there is a DMZ, where North Korea has a million troops. We have to destabilize the situation, but let's internationalize it.
ZAHN: Let me ask this, what do you say to the folks out there who are very cynical and say, wait a minute. We bought these guys off the last time, to the tune of, even with that light water reactor, $5 billion, and they still pulled this stuff?
RICHARDSON: Well, the reason it's important to our national security is we have over 30,000 American troops on the DMZ, we have a treaty with South Korea. The stability of Asia, Japan, China is important to us.
Yes, these guys are bad guys, but you've got to deal with them. They're out there. I think the '94 treaty was the right thing to do. It halted their nuclear development. Now they have a secret program. But this is one of the poorest nations in the world. Their only card is this nuclear weapons program. So let's not overreact. It's serious, but let's internationalize it, let's use diplomacy. We have enough battles going on around, and I think it's important that we play it smart, we not overreact.
As I said, get the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, Austria that's also working on the Iraq issue, to send some inspectors there. We are going to have to negotiate with them. What they probably want, Paula, is rice, economic assistance, but let's not give them undue attention by overdramatizing this, at this point.
ZAHN: Mr. Richardson, we're going to lose you in two seconds, because we're losing the satellite. We pay our bills, but for some reason, we're losing the satellite.
We got to go. Thank you for your time this morning. We mentioned he's a Democratic candidate for governor of New Mexico.
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 October 18, 2002 - 09:17 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: After so much tough talk about Iraq, the Bush administration is talking compromise on the resolution now before the United Nations. It wants to get it passed without giving up any of its major principles.
Joining us now for perspective on that and the threat in North Korea, let's turn to Bill Richardson, a former U.N. ambassador under President Clinton. He joins us from New Mexico this morning.
BILL RICHARDSON, FMR. U.N. AMBASSADOR: Good morning, Paula.
ZAHN: We should also mention that you're running for another public office, governor.
All right, let's get started with what you think is going on at the U.N. The Bush administration is saying it's not caving in at this hour, and yet it appears everybody says they're getting close to an endgame. What do you think the resolution could end up looking like?
RICHARDSON: What will probably happen, Paula, is the use of force language will be deferred and the resolution will look like -- the inspectors go in, they should have unfettered access, and there will be untold consequences, without being specific on what happens. And then, step two, would probably be the inspectors returning, reporting to the Security Council, basically saying -- and I can bet 100 percent, that they did not get full access.
And then the real debate begins about what the consequences are. I think the Bush people are doing the right thing. They've got the support of the U.S. Congress. Diplomatically, they're moving. They should be patient. Now the U.N. moves slowly, but there should be an endgame eventually if the U.N. does not act, and then the president will have to decide what to do.
But I do agree you want to push diplomacy as much as you can within the U.N. system.
ZAHN: And yet, you say, you believed -- and this is all hypothetical conversation here -- but the inspectors come back after not having been given the access they think they deserve. The key question then is whether the U.S. is going to need a secretary resolution to allow for military action.
Do you think there is a way around that second resolution, where the inspectors would come back to the U.N., report on that, and there is another way the military action would be allowed? RICHARDSON: Well, the countries that are blocking us, Paula, it looks like Russia is the main one. France is sort of in and out. I think if the inspectors come back with a bad access situation then Russia, France, China, other members of the Security Council, are going to be very hard pressed to keep defending Iraq, and they are going to ask to agree to some kind of resolution that implies or uses the use of force. I think that is what what we should try to get.
Now, it doesn't look like the use of force language is going to come in a first resolution. So plan b should be, send the inspectors out there, demand unfettered access; if they don't get it, then come back and push for a stronger resolution.
I think here, the Bush administration needs to be very, very, very patient, use diplomacy, you know, get tough with our allies. Say to Russia, are you standing with us or not? Say to France, you're our friend, you have to help. France always, in the end, usually helps, but it may have to be strung out, and I do suggest that they continue these very intensive negotiations.
ZAHN: Well, let me ask you this, though, even after the U.S. goes to the diplomatic dance, do you think it's likely the U.S. will be at with Iraq down the road?
RICHARDSON: It sounds like it, but I think it's preferable to have multilateral support and have our allies behind us, to have an international coalition. Right now, that ballgame is at the United Nations, so you just have to keep pursuing it.
ZAHN: Let's turn our attention to North Korea. You happened to be there at the end of '94 after this deal was agreed to with North Korea, promising to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. Who got duped here?
RICHARDSON: I think the North Koreans, their word here, obviously, is now in question. What we have to be careful, Paula, is the North Koreans, this nuclear weapons program is their only card, so this is how they get international attention. Many times, they bluff.
Now, it does appear that they have a nuclear weapons program of some kind. So what we need to do is use diplomacy. We don't need a third international fight right now. We've got Al Qaeda, we've got Iraq. Let's internationalize this and use diplomacy. Use the International Atomic Agency. Use China, which has leverage over North Korea. Use Japan. I think the Bush people are playing it right, not appearing to make this a huge crisis.
I think that "axis of evil statement," though, was a mistake. The last thing you want to do with the North Koreans is give them a reason to get on the international stage. They're easily provoked. I think, again here, diplomacy needs to be used here, but a threat to the stability of Asia, where we have several thousand troops, where there is a DMZ, where North Korea has a million troops. We have to destabilize the situation, but let's internationalize it.
ZAHN: Let me ask this, what do you say to the folks out there who are very cynical and say, wait a minute. We bought these guys off the last time, to the tune of, even with that light water reactor, $5 billion, and they still pulled this stuff?
RICHARDSON: Well, the reason it's important to our national security is we have over 30,000 American troops on the DMZ, we have a treaty with South Korea. The stability of Asia, Japan, China is important to us.
Yes, these guys are bad guys, but you've got to deal with them. They're out there. I think the '94 treaty was the right thing to do. It halted their nuclear development. Now they have a secret program. But this is one of the poorest nations in the world. Their only card is this nuclear weapons program. So let's not overreact. It's serious, but let's internationalize it, let's use diplomacy. We have enough battles going on around, and I think it's important that we play it smart, we not overreact.
As I said, get the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, Austria that's also working on the Iraq issue, to send some inspectors there. We are going to have to negotiate with them. What they probably want, Paula, is rice, economic assistance, but let's not give them undue attention by overdramatizing this, at this point.
ZAHN: Mr. Richardson, we're going to lose you in two seconds, because we're losing the satellite. We pay our bills, but for some reason, we're losing the satellite.
We got to go. Thank you for your time this morning. We mentioned he's a Democratic candidate for governor of New Mexico.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
