Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Stakes High in What Could Be Final Week of Negotiations Over Iraq Resolution
Aired October 28, 2002 - 09:30 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: Stakes are very high and tensions at their peak as the U.N. Security Council heads into what could be the final week of negotiations over an Iraq resolution. Briefing Security Council members today, chief weapons inspector Hans Blix.
Let's go to our CNN U.N. correspondent Richard Roth standing by with now a preview.
Good morning, Richard.
RICHARD ROTH, CNN SR. U.N. CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Paula.
Today, the chief United Nations weapons inspector for Iraq, Hans Blix, in a way, is going to inspect the United States resolution Washington hopes gets passed here at the Security Council. Blix has been overseas. He's coming back, along with a leader of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Russia and France called for this briefing by Blix. In a way, they're looking to pressure him to support perhaps the French proposals that are circulating the council, hoping that he might say, well, we don't need some of the tough language that the United States proposes to make sure that the president of Iraq cooperates with those weapons inspectors.
But still, for the U.S., it's tough going, because over the weekend, President Bush met with the Mexican leader, Vincente Fox, and did not get Mexico's approval of the U.N. resolution. Mexico one of the so-called Elected Ten on the Security Council, and may play a key role in tallying these votes. The U.S. needs at least nine votes, yes, and no vetoes. There are five permanent members, one, of course, is the United States, and if there's a veto from any of the other four, the resolution would get killed. The United Kingdom, of course, supporting the U.S. resolution. But France, Russia, China, at best, for the U.S., they could abstain.
Over the weekend, Colin Powell, secretary of state, called it a key week ahead, but also said -- quote -- "victory may evade us," raising the possibility there may be no resolution, as the deadlock here goes on -- Paula.
ZAHN: So who are the key players we should be watching today besides Hans Blix?
ROTH: Well, you can watch what the various ambassadors are going to say going in and out of this meeting, but the U.S. had hoped for a vote as early as tomorrow, but many would tell you, toward the end of the week is when things may get going here. ZAHN: All right, appreciate the update, thanks, Richard. Good luck today. A lot to cover there.
ROTH: There has been much speculation about what is going on inside the mind of Saddam Hussein? How would Iraq's president react if his country came under attack?
Jerrold Post may be able to address that. He is a professor of political psychology at George Washington University, has studied Saddam for more than two decades. He joins us from Washington.
Welcome back, Dr. Post, glad to see you again.
JERROLD POST, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIV.: My pleasure to be with you.
ZAHN: I know you have spent, as we said, a number of decades studying Mr. Hussein's mind and personality. You say he's rational, yet capable of making some pretty foolish decisions. Why?
POST: Well, he's surrounded by a group of sycophants who, for good reason, are afraid to critically criticize Saddam. So they tell him what he wants to hear, rather than what he needs to hear. To criticize him is to be subject to being either losing your job or losing your life.
ZAHN: So besides threatening them with their life, what other thing things has he done that certainly are intimidating those sycophants, as you call them, that are surrounding him?
POST: There have been a number of really quite traumatic episodes. One of the most startling was in 1982 where the war with Iran that he started two years earlier was going very badly, and he was told by Khomeini, it could not stop until he was no longer president. Calls a cabinet meeting, gentlemen, what shall we do? Khomeni says, I must no longer be your president. Everyone of course to a many says, Saddam is Iraq, Iraq is Saddam. Then he says, no, no, no, I want your frank, candid and creative suggestions. And his Oxford-educated minister of health, says, well, Saddam, what about stepping down temporarily until our goal of peace is achieved and then resuming the presidency?
As the story goes, he thanked him for his candor, arrested him on the spot. When the man's wife pled with Saddam that night, please return my husband to me, he's always been loyal, he was deeply touched and promised her he would return her husband to her, which he did the next day, the only promise he ever kept, as best I can tell. He returned her husband to her in a black canvas body bag cut into pieces, which powerfully concentrated the attention of the other members of the cabinet, who to a man said, the war must continue, and he must stay on as president.
ZAHN: Yes, we fully understand why there's no dissent among those guys. Do you think Saddam Hussein is nuts?
POST: No, he is rational, but he has very exaggerated views of his own capability. And one of the things that's very important to understand is the impact of the Gulf Crisis upon him. For years he had been living with these dreams of glory. Some day he would succeed Soladean (ph), would liberate Jerusalem, would be counted as one of the world's great leaders, and yet he had languished in obscurity until the Gulf crisis. And suddenly, he had the world by the throat, Palestinians were cheering for him from the rooftops in Gaza and the occupied territories.
At last, he was this radical Arab leader, and was going to go down in history as a great leader. So despite the military defeat, for him, it was a promise at last to world-class leader.
ZAHN: What do you think weapons of mass destruction mean to him?
POST: I think they mean everything to him. At one level, major world leaders have major world weapons, or to put it more colloquially, big boys have big toys. On another level, because they're so weakened militarily, conventionally, all the more reason to have unconventional weapons.
And finally, when he defies the weapons inspectors, he's saying to his own military, you see, I am sovereign in my own nation. I think the chances of his ever agreeing to disarm and to genuinely open inspections are between zero and none. He is bound and determined to have these weapons.
And if he does acquire a nuclear capability, I have no doubt he would use this as a club to dominate the Gulf.
POST: So basically, you're saying, if backed into a corner, this guy could potentially unleash these weapons?
POST: If backed into a corner. He's rational, not a martyr. But when backed into a corner, and I think the declaratory policy of regime change may well have him being backed him into a corner. At that point he really can lash out, as he did after the gulf crisis. The three possibilities I see, I think it is quite likely he would use weapons of mass destruction, namely chem-bio, against U.S. ground forces and against Israel. I think it also possible he could light Iraq's oil fields afire, as he did with Kuwait, on kind of the theory, if I can't have them, nobody's going to have them.
ZAHN: And just a quick answer to this one, do you see the U.S. Going to war sometime next year?
POST: Well, it seems like we're moving in that direction. There's a great difference, though, between going in multilaterally and unilaterally. Unilaterally, it gives Saddam stature -- I am having the courage to stand up to the greatest nation on Earth. Multilaterally, because this man really wants to be a respected world leader, it's much more of a constraint for him.
ZAHN: Jerrold Post, as always, really appreciate your insights. Glad to have you with us on the air this morning.
POST: My great pleasure. ZAHN: Dr. Jerrold Post of George Washington University.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Over Iraq Resolution>
Aired October 28, 2002 - 09:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Stakes are very high and tensions at their peak as the U.N. Security Council heads into what could be the final week of negotiations over an Iraq resolution. Briefing Security Council members today, chief weapons inspector Hans Blix.
Let's go to our CNN U.N. correspondent Richard Roth standing by with now a preview.
Good morning, Richard.
RICHARD ROTH, CNN SR. U.N. CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Paula.
Today, the chief United Nations weapons inspector for Iraq, Hans Blix, in a way, is going to inspect the United States resolution Washington hopes gets passed here at the Security Council. Blix has been overseas. He's coming back, along with a leader of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Russia and France called for this briefing by Blix. In a way, they're looking to pressure him to support perhaps the French proposals that are circulating the council, hoping that he might say, well, we don't need some of the tough language that the United States proposes to make sure that the president of Iraq cooperates with those weapons inspectors.
But still, for the U.S., it's tough going, because over the weekend, President Bush met with the Mexican leader, Vincente Fox, and did not get Mexico's approval of the U.N. resolution. Mexico one of the so-called Elected Ten on the Security Council, and may play a key role in tallying these votes. The U.S. needs at least nine votes, yes, and no vetoes. There are five permanent members, one, of course, is the United States, and if there's a veto from any of the other four, the resolution would get killed. The United Kingdom, of course, supporting the U.S. resolution. But France, Russia, China, at best, for the U.S., they could abstain.
Over the weekend, Colin Powell, secretary of state, called it a key week ahead, but also said -- quote -- "victory may evade us," raising the possibility there may be no resolution, as the deadlock here goes on -- Paula.
ZAHN: So who are the key players we should be watching today besides Hans Blix?
ROTH: Well, you can watch what the various ambassadors are going to say going in and out of this meeting, but the U.S. had hoped for a vote as early as tomorrow, but many would tell you, toward the end of the week is when things may get going here. ZAHN: All right, appreciate the update, thanks, Richard. Good luck today. A lot to cover there.
ROTH: There has been much speculation about what is going on inside the mind of Saddam Hussein? How would Iraq's president react if his country came under attack?
Jerrold Post may be able to address that. He is a professor of political psychology at George Washington University, has studied Saddam for more than two decades. He joins us from Washington.
Welcome back, Dr. Post, glad to see you again.
JERROLD POST, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIV.: My pleasure to be with you.
ZAHN: I know you have spent, as we said, a number of decades studying Mr. Hussein's mind and personality. You say he's rational, yet capable of making some pretty foolish decisions. Why?
POST: Well, he's surrounded by a group of sycophants who, for good reason, are afraid to critically criticize Saddam. So they tell him what he wants to hear, rather than what he needs to hear. To criticize him is to be subject to being either losing your job or losing your life.
ZAHN: So besides threatening them with their life, what other thing things has he done that certainly are intimidating those sycophants, as you call them, that are surrounding him?
POST: There have been a number of really quite traumatic episodes. One of the most startling was in 1982 where the war with Iran that he started two years earlier was going very badly, and he was told by Khomeini, it could not stop until he was no longer president. Calls a cabinet meeting, gentlemen, what shall we do? Khomeni says, I must no longer be your president. Everyone of course to a many says, Saddam is Iraq, Iraq is Saddam. Then he says, no, no, no, I want your frank, candid and creative suggestions. And his Oxford-educated minister of health, says, well, Saddam, what about stepping down temporarily until our goal of peace is achieved and then resuming the presidency?
As the story goes, he thanked him for his candor, arrested him on the spot. When the man's wife pled with Saddam that night, please return my husband to me, he's always been loyal, he was deeply touched and promised her he would return her husband to her, which he did the next day, the only promise he ever kept, as best I can tell. He returned her husband to her in a black canvas body bag cut into pieces, which powerfully concentrated the attention of the other members of the cabinet, who to a man said, the war must continue, and he must stay on as president.
ZAHN: Yes, we fully understand why there's no dissent among those guys. Do you think Saddam Hussein is nuts?
POST: No, he is rational, but he has very exaggerated views of his own capability. And one of the things that's very important to understand is the impact of the Gulf Crisis upon him. For years he had been living with these dreams of glory. Some day he would succeed Soladean (ph), would liberate Jerusalem, would be counted as one of the world's great leaders, and yet he had languished in obscurity until the Gulf crisis. And suddenly, he had the world by the throat, Palestinians were cheering for him from the rooftops in Gaza and the occupied territories.
At last, he was this radical Arab leader, and was going to go down in history as a great leader. So despite the military defeat, for him, it was a promise at last to world-class leader.
ZAHN: What do you think weapons of mass destruction mean to him?
POST: I think they mean everything to him. At one level, major world leaders have major world weapons, or to put it more colloquially, big boys have big toys. On another level, because they're so weakened militarily, conventionally, all the more reason to have unconventional weapons.
And finally, when he defies the weapons inspectors, he's saying to his own military, you see, I am sovereign in my own nation. I think the chances of his ever agreeing to disarm and to genuinely open inspections are between zero and none. He is bound and determined to have these weapons.
And if he does acquire a nuclear capability, I have no doubt he would use this as a club to dominate the Gulf.
POST: So basically, you're saying, if backed into a corner, this guy could potentially unleash these weapons?
POST: If backed into a corner. He's rational, not a martyr. But when backed into a corner, and I think the declaratory policy of regime change may well have him being backed him into a corner. At that point he really can lash out, as he did after the gulf crisis. The three possibilities I see, I think it is quite likely he would use weapons of mass destruction, namely chem-bio, against U.S. ground forces and against Israel. I think it also possible he could light Iraq's oil fields afire, as he did with Kuwait, on kind of the theory, if I can't have them, nobody's going to have them.
ZAHN: And just a quick answer to this one, do you see the U.S. Going to war sometime next year?
POST: Well, it seems like we're moving in that direction. There's a great difference, though, between going in multilaterally and unilaterally. Unilaterally, it gives Saddam stature -- I am having the courage to stand up to the greatest nation on Earth. Multilaterally, because this man really wants to be a respected world leader, it's much more of a constraint for him.
ZAHN: Jerrold Post, as always, really appreciate your insights. Glad to have you with us on the air this morning.
POST: My great pleasure. ZAHN: Dr. Jerrold Post of George Washington University.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Over Iraq Resolution>
