Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Today

Talk With Former Weapons Inspector Garth Whitty

Aired January 10, 2003 - 10:34   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.


LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: With a look at the inspection process, we turn now to a man who has been there before. He's Garth Whitty, former U.N. weapons inspector, and he joins us once again from London.
Good to see you again, Garth, and Happy New Year. I haven't seen you since last year.

GARTH WHITTY, FMR. U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Good morning, and to you.

HARRIS: What do you make about the briefing that Hans Blix presented, along with Mohammed Elbaradei of the IAEA, the briefing they presented to the U.N. Security Council yesterday. Were there any surprises there, or was it everything you expected to hear?

WHITTY: I think no surprises at all. It was always going to be incredibly difficult to find anything. And certainly, the probability of finding items that contributed to weapons of mass destruction program at the known sites was always extremely slim. That didn't mean that those sites didn't have to be visited, of course.

HARRIS: How about the fact that the U.S. is now speeding up the process, at least to our eyes, it appears as though they're speeding up the process of feeding more and more intelligence information to the inspectors on the ground? Is it too soon to expect that any of that information would actually pay off with any discoveries at this point?

WHITTY: I think the difficulty is that Iraqi regime have had so much warning. And if, indeed, they have weapons of mass destruction or the components, they have had ample time to move them and hide them.

We have heard a lot about detection equipment that's available to the teams, which is outstanding, and certainly far superior to who what was involved years ago. But the reality is you still need to be within sufficiently close range for signatures to be picked up, no matter how sophisticated that equipment is.

HARRIS: So what then should we read or interpret from what we've seen so far, the lack of any real discoveries on the ground, along with the use of U.S. intelligence information? What are we to discern about either the quality or the quantity of the U.S. intelligence?

WHITTY: I think the problem is that no matter how good the intelligence may or may not have been, there has been such a lapse of time, then all sorts of things could have changed. I mean, with hindsight, I think the way the intelligence should have been handled, is there shouldn't have been a declaration that that intelligence was available, and the inspectors -- or the inspectors should have gone to those sites without notice, and at least had a greater chance of finding what was believed to have been there.

HARRIS: One of the items that President Bush has been touting in recent weeks as clear evidence that Iraq does have this illicit program up and running was this importation of these aluminum tubes. We heard Mohammed Elbaradei came out and refuted what the tubes are being used for in Iraq. Do you think that is a serious contradiction of the facts that President Bush has been presenting here, or what?

WHITTY: I think there's a problem. What we all have to appreciate, and the term is mentioned very frequently, is dual use or dual purpose. And there are a whole range of items that contribute to weapons of mass destruction programs, but equally, have use in conventional weapons programs and other benign uses, and therein lies the problem, really proving that something does contribute to a weapon of mass destruction program, or, indeed, it has some purpose that doesn't relate to that at all.

HARRIS: When the Bush administration raised the issue with aluminum tubes, but having Mohammed Elbardei coming out, and British authorities don't believe they were used for gas centrifuge or anything that might be used to manufacture nuclear weapons.

Let me ask you about something different here. It appears as though we're hearing Iraqi top officials saying that maybe there aren't going to be any interviews with any of these scientists outside of the country. In fact, I believe it was with the general who is in charge of the monitoring the program there. He said -- he's quoted as saying, General Hossam Mohammed Amin -- quote -- "Nobody is ready to go outside to make an interview with UNMOVIC or the IAEA."

How do you interpret that? Does that seem to be a clear signal to you that Iraq is not going to allow any inspectors to take any scientists out of that country?

WHITTY: I think it was always a long shot. I mean, I think we've discussed previously, the probability of any Iraqis going outside the country, knowing full well that there will be all sorts of coercion on their extended family back in Iraq, and really did mean that, although it was a jolly good idea, the probability of it happening was always very, very slim.

HARRIS: With that in mind, let me ask you this, You know that the briefing that was held yesterday, the information said, basically, that document dump that Iraq made in December left so many holes and so many unanswered questions. Iraq is now saying, well, look, we're ready to come in and answer any unanswered questions and fill in the gaps. Do you think Iraq should be allowed a second chance or an opportunity to come in and fill in the gaps?

WHITTY: I think all measures should be taken that are likely to prevent a war. I don't think anyone really wants a war. And whatever can be done to prevent that likelihood is certainly worth investigating. On the other hand, there is the question of procrastination forever, and that's something that certainly President Bush has said won't be tolerated, and I suspect lots of other people would be opposed to, too. So it's getting the balance right. What we don't want to do is rush into war. But at the same stage, at some time, the decision has to be made whether Iraq has demonstrated to everyone satisfaction that they do not, indeed, have a weapons of mass destruction program.

HARRIS: Garth Whitty in London, thank you, once again, for the insight and the expertise. Sure do appreciate it. Take care, we'll talk with you, no doubt, down the road.

WHITTY: Thank you. Goodbye.

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 January 10, 2003 - 10:34   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: With a look at the inspection process, we turn now to a man who has been there before. He's Garth Whitty, former U.N. weapons inspector, and he joins us once again from London.
Good to see you again, Garth, and Happy New Year. I haven't seen you since last year.

GARTH WHITTY, FMR. U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Good morning, and to you.

HARRIS: What do you make about the briefing that Hans Blix presented, along with Mohammed Elbaradei of the IAEA, the briefing they presented to the U.N. Security Council yesterday. Were there any surprises there, or was it everything you expected to hear?

WHITTY: I think no surprises at all. It was always going to be incredibly difficult to find anything. And certainly, the probability of finding items that contributed to weapons of mass destruction program at the known sites was always extremely slim. That didn't mean that those sites didn't have to be visited, of course.

HARRIS: How about the fact that the U.S. is now speeding up the process, at least to our eyes, it appears as though they're speeding up the process of feeding more and more intelligence information to the inspectors on the ground? Is it too soon to expect that any of that information would actually pay off with any discoveries at this point?

WHITTY: I think the difficulty is that Iraqi regime have had so much warning. And if, indeed, they have weapons of mass destruction or the components, they have had ample time to move them and hide them.

We have heard a lot about detection equipment that's available to the teams, which is outstanding, and certainly far superior to who what was involved years ago. But the reality is you still need to be within sufficiently close range for signatures to be picked up, no matter how sophisticated that equipment is.

HARRIS: So what then should we read or interpret from what we've seen so far, the lack of any real discoveries on the ground, along with the use of U.S. intelligence information? What are we to discern about either the quality or the quantity of the U.S. intelligence?

WHITTY: I think the problem is that no matter how good the intelligence may or may not have been, there has been such a lapse of time, then all sorts of things could have changed. I mean, with hindsight, I think the way the intelligence should have been handled, is there shouldn't have been a declaration that that intelligence was available, and the inspectors -- or the inspectors should have gone to those sites without notice, and at least had a greater chance of finding what was believed to have been there.

HARRIS: One of the items that President Bush has been touting in recent weeks as clear evidence that Iraq does have this illicit program up and running was this importation of these aluminum tubes. We heard Mohammed Elbaradei came out and refuted what the tubes are being used for in Iraq. Do you think that is a serious contradiction of the facts that President Bush has been presenting here, or what?

WHITTY: I think there's a problem. What we all have to appreciate, and the term is mentioned very frequently, is dual use or dual purpose. And there are a whole range of items that contribute to weapons of mass destruction programs, but equally, have use in conventional weapons programs and other benign uses, and therein lies the problem, really proving that something does contribute to a weapon of mass destruction program, or, indeed, it has some purpose that doesn't relate to that at all.

HARRIS: When the Bush administration raised the issue with aluminum tubes, but having Mohammed Elbardei coming out, and British authorities don't believe they were used for gas centrifuge or anything that might be used to manufacture nuclear weapons.

Let me ask you about something different here. It appears as though we're hearing Iraqi top officials saying that maybe there aren't going to be any interviews with any of these scientists outside of the country. In fact, I believe it was with the general who is in charge of the monitoring the program there. He said -- he's quoted as saying, General Hossam Mohammed Amin -- quote -- "Nobody is ready to go outside to make an interview with UNMOVIC or the IAEA."

How do you interpret that? Does that seem to be a clear signal to you that Iraq is not going to allow any inspectors to take any scientists out of that country?

WHITTY: I think it was always a long shot. I mean, I think we've discussed previously, the probability of any Iraqis going outside the country, knowing full well that there will be all sorts of coercion on their extended family back in Iraq, and really did mean that, although it was a jolly good idea, the probability of it happening was always very, very slim.

HARRIS: With that in mind, let me ask you this, You know that the briefing that was held yesterday, the information said, basically, that document dump that Iraq made in December left so many holes and so many unanswered questions. Iraq is now saying, well, look, we're ready to come in and answer any unanswered questions and fill in the gaps. Do you think Iraq should be allowed a second chance or an opportunity to come in and fill in the gaps?

WHITTY: I think all measures should be taken that are likely to prevent a war. I don't think anyone really wants a war. And whatever can be done to prevent that likelihood is certainly worth investigating. On the other hand, there is the question of procrastination forever, and that's something that certainly President Bush has said won't be tolerated, and I suspect lots of other people would be opposed to, too. So it's getting the balance right. What we don't want to do is rush into war. But at the same stage, at some time, the decision has to be made whether Iraq has demonstrated to everyone satisfaction that they do not, indeed, have a weapons of mass destruction program.

HARRIS: Garth Whitty in London, thank you, once again, for the insight and the expertise. Sure do appreciate it. Take care, we'll talk with you, no doubt, down the road.

WHITTY: Thank you. Goodbye.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com