Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Today
Interview with Prime Minister Tony Blair
Aired January 31, 2003 - 10:33 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.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: We're going to turn our attention now back to our top story. That is the pivotal meeting between President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Our Christiane Amanpour is outside the British ambassador's residence in Washington. That is where she talked with Tony Blair earlier this morning.
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Daryn, good morning, and the message coming out of the British camp is that this could take several more weeks of intensive diplomatic negotiations, presentation of evidence by Colin Powell, and perhaps even not just one, but a couple more reports from the U.N. special weapons inspectors, Hans Blix and ElBaradei. This in order to get the broadest possible international coalition to perhaps and most likely seek yet another U.N. resolution authorizing war if Saddam Hussein does not comply with this necessity to disarm, as outlined by the current Security Council resolution.
We sat down with Prime Minister Blair just ahead of his meeting with President George Bush back here in the residence. And we asked him, is this about timing and setting deadlines, or pursuing this strategy of trying to gather a broad international coalition ahead of any confrontation?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TONY BLAIR, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Well, the timing is really governed by the judgment as to whether Iraq is cooperating or not, because the United Nations resolution we passed last November, didn't just say that the inspectors should go in there and have access to sites and so on, it laid down a very, very clear obligation on Iraq fully and completely to cooperate with the inspectors. Now, at the present, they're not doing that. The inspectors will give another report, I think, in a couple of weeks time. If they carry on not cooperating with the inspectors, then the judgment the Security Council will have to take is that they're in breach of the United Nations resolution, and that action should follow.
AMANPOUR: Do you think that would take another four weeks, six weeks?
BLAIR: I don't think we should have some arbitrary timetable. I think what we need to do is to have the timing governed by the judgment, are the inspectors getting the full cooperation? Not 50 percent, 60 percent, 20 percent cooperation, 100 percent cooperation from the Iraqi authorities. Now at the moment, it's absolutely clear they're not. For example, when the inspectors wanted to interview the key witnesses and experts who have been working on the Iraqi programs, they're told they can only interview them with so-called Iraqi minders, and then in the premises chosen by the Iraqi authorities, for obvious reasons. That is completely unacceptable.
The Iraqis have still not disclosed what have happened to all the literally thousands of munitions and chemical and biological agents left over from 1998. They're obliged to do so.
So when people say to me, how long do you give it? You give it as long as it takes to come to a conclusive and final judgment. They're not cooperating, and at the present, they're not.
AMANPOUR: You have said that you believe they're already in breach. How much more time do you need to come to a judgment on that?
BLAIR: I think that's a good question, because clearly, as defined by the original U.N. resolution, a failure to cooperate is a material breach. But I think in part because our other partners and the people who have worked with us want to be absolutely sure of this, then I think it's sensible, and we've got a fresh report is coming out from Dr. Blix in a couple of weeks time, to give it some time.
But the time is not, as I say, time to have the inspectors go in and chase around Iraq, trying to find this stuff. That is not what they're supposed to do. I mean, they're not detectives. They're supposed to have Iraq come to it, make a full, honest declaration. They haven't done it. They're supposed to be allowed to interview whoever they want to interview in whatever circumstances they want to interview, and they're not being allowed to do it.
AMANPOUR: You and other leaders have within suggesting there may be a second U.N. resolution. Is that your point of view?
BLAIR: Absolutely. I think it's right that we go for a second resolution, because that's the way of saying this is an issue the international community isn't going to duck. We didn't last November; we're not going to now.
But what I also said last November, the U.N. has to be the way of dealing with this issue, not the way of avoiding dealing with it, not the way of putting the inspectors back in there, saying play hide and seek, or like a detective agency, you try and find the stuff, Saddam tries to conceal it. No, that's not how it works. He is supposed to cooperate fully. And you know from the report of Dr. Blix, given last Monday, that at present, Iraq is not cooperating.
AMANPOUR: Can we talk about evidence, which is something that troubles many people around the world. They feel that the evidence hasn't been laid out. Now there's a certain distinction between evidence on weapons of mass destruction and on the other issue the U.S. is very strong on, and that is linking Al Qaeda to the regime of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. You in the Commons said on Wednesday, that we could not be sure of the exact links. There is a difference between you and the United States on that issue. BLAIR: I don't think there is a difference, but I've tried to choose my words carefully about this. And I know that Colin Powell, the U.S. secretary of state, is going to say some more about this in the next few days, and that's for him to do.
Can I just return to one point, though, about evidence, because I think this is absolutely vital for people. The evidence that Saddam has developed these types of weapons is there over 12 years. It is in April, 1991 that he was given a short period of time to allow the inspectors in, say what he had, and have those weapons programs closed down.
The evidence that we're looking for today is not evidence, has Iraq ever had these weapons of mass destruction? We know that they have. The evidence is, are they now cooperating in the way the U.N. said that they should?
And as for the link with Al Qaeda, as I say, that's something Colin Powell will speak about in a few day's time. And I certainly have no doubt, on a broad level, these issues of international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction are link.
AMANPOUR: Presumably British intelligence is also supporting in this presentation that will happen at the Security Council. Are you sure that there will be more evidence on not the issue of WMD, but the issue of the Al Qaeda-Iraq link, Al Qaeda-Saddam Hussein link.
BLAIR: As I say, I think you're best to wait for Colin Powell to give the evidence that he has. Of course we cooperate with the U.S. strongly on that.
But be under absolutely no doubt at all, and you can see this from reports then morning, if these international terrorist groups could get hold of weapons of mass destruction, they would use them, without any doubt at all, and that's why I've constantly said, these two issues, by these extremist, fanatical groups, weapons of mass destruction held by unstable rogue states who are trading in this material, keeping it, proliferating it, these issues are linked. This is the threat to our international security and peace and prosperity today, and we have to deal with it. Let's deal with it through the U.N., but let us deal with it.
AMANPOUR: Thank you very much indeed.
BLAIR: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: So, as we said, the issue now is going to be looking toward the evidence, on February 5th that Colin Powell is going to present. And of course there is a difference between the U.S. and the British on whether there are links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime.
The message from the British officials here is that they've conveyed to the White House, if you are going to portray this evidence to the Security Council, it better be done well, because it must be in a way to galvanize support, rather than potentially backfire.
And you can see from the interview, the strategy that's shaping up, more time needed in order to get a broad coalition. And we've also been told by the British officials the British urge the Americans to use the time that in any event is needed for the completion of the military buildup in the region, to use that time to gather much more international support, so that no member of the United Nations Security Council, particularly the five permanent members, could use their veto to block another resolution.
Back to you.
KAGAN: Christiane, I thought it was interesting listening to your interview, the differences that are there. Clearly, Tony Blair the strongest ally to this administration, and yet there are the difference that is we heard in the interview.
Must he not go back with something? He has come across the ocean to meet with President Bush. But if he goes back with no compromise either on the amount of time or going for a second U.N. resolution, how will he save face when he goes home?
AMANPOUR: Well, first of all, there don't seem to be, according to Prime Minister Blair, there are no differences on the broad picture. They stand shoulder to shoulder, as he said many times, on the necessity for Saddam Hussein to disarm, whether it be voluntarily or by force.
I think, though, what President Bush is going to hear from the prime minister, and what we're told we will hear from both the president and the prime minister at the end of their meetings today, is an agreement to go the U.N. route, again; again, to get more evidence from the weapons inspectors. They're due to come back again February 14. Maybe they'll come back again another time, and another time. In other words, to make a really good attempt to show that every effort is being spent on proving that Saddam Hussein is not cooperating before authorizing another resolution to go to war.
And Tony Blair is very clear that he wants another U.N. resolution, and we're hearing that that may be something the U.S. will agree to as well, as been reported by our White House folks.
KAGAN: Christiane Amanpour in Washington D.C. Nice to have on you this side of the pond for a change. Thank you so much for that interview.
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 31, 2003 - 10:33 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: We're going to turn our attention now back to our top story. That is the pivotal meeting between President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Our Christiane Amanpour is outside the British ambassador's residence in Washington. That is where she talked with Tony Blair earlier this morning.
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Daryn, good morning, and the message coming out of the British camp is that this could take several more weeks of intensive diplomatic negotiations, presentation of evidence by Colin Powell, and perhaps even not just one, but a couple more reports from the U.N. special weapons inspectors, Hans Blix and ElBaradei. This in order to get the broadest possible international coalition to perhaps and most likely seek yet another U.N. resolution authorizing war if Saddam Hussein does not comply with this necessity to disarm, as outlined by the current Security Council resolution.
We sat down with Prime Minister Blair just ahead of his meeting with President George Bush back here in the residence. And we asked him, is this about timing and setting deadlines, or pursuing this strategy of trying to gather a broad international coalition ahead of any confrontation?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TONY BLAIR, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Well, the timing is really governed by the judgment as to whether Iraq is cooperating or not, because the United Nations resolution we passed last November, didn't just say that the inspectors should go in there and have access to sites and so on, it laid down a very, very clear obligation on Iraq fully and completely to cooperate with the inspectors. Now, at the present, they're not doing that. The inspectors will give another report, I think, in a couple of weeks time. If they carry on not cooperating with the inspectors, then the judgment the Security Council will have to take is that they're in breach of the United Nations resolution, and that action should follow.
AMANPOUR: Do you think that would take another four weeks, six weeks?
BLAIR: I don't think we should have some arbitrary timetable. I think what we need to do is to have the timing governed by the judgment, are the inspectors getting the full cooperation? Not 50 percent, 60 percent, 20 percent cooperation, 100 percent cooperation from the Iraqi authorities. Now at the moment, it's absolutely clear they're not. For example, when the inspectors wanted to interview the key witnesses and experts who have been working on the Iraqi programs, they're told they can only interview them with so-called Iraqi minders, and then in the premises chosen by the Iraqi authorities, for obvious reasons. That is completely unacceptable.
The Iraqis have still not disclosed what have happened to all the literally thousands of munitions and chemical and biological agents left over from 1998. They're obliged to do so.
So when people say to me, how long do you give it? You give it as long as it takes to come to a conclusive and final judgment. They're not cooperating, and at the present, they're not.
AMANPOUR: You have said that you believe they're already in breach. How much more time do you need to come to a judgment on that?
BLAIR: I think that's a good question, because clearly, as defined by the original U.N. resolution, a failure to cooperate is a material breach. But I think in part because our other partners and the people who have worked with us want to be absolutely sure of this, then I think it's sensible, and we've got a fresh report is coming out from Dr. Blix in a couple of weeks time, to give it some time.
But the time is not, as I say, time to have the inspectors go in and chase around Iraq, trying to find this stuff. That is not what they're supposed to do. I mean, they're not detectives. They're supposed to have Iraq come to it, make a full, honest declaration. They haven't done it. They're supposed to be allowed to interview whoever they want to interview in whatever circumstances they want to interview, and they're not being allowed to do it.
AMANPOUR: You and other leaders have within suggesting there may be a second U.N. resolution. Is that your point of view?
BLAIR: Absolutely. I think it's right that we go for a second resolution, because that's the way of saying this is an issue the international community isn't going to duck. We didn't last November; we're not going to now.
But what I also said last November, the U.N. has to be the way of dealing with this issue, not the way of avoiding dealing with it, not the way of putting the inspectors back in there, saying play hide and seek, or like a detective agency, you try and find the stuff, Saddam tries to conceal it. No, that's not how it works. He is supposed to cooperate fully. And you know from the report of Dr. Blix, given last Monday, that at present, Iraq is not cooperating.
AMANPOUR: Can we talk about evidence, which is something that troubles many people around the world. They feel that the evidence hasn't been laid out. Now there's a certain distinction between evidence on weapons of mass destruction and on the other issue the U.S. is very strong on, and that is linking Al Qaeda to the regime of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. You in the Commons said on Wednesday, that we could not be sure of the exact links. There is a difference between you and the United States on that issue. BLAIR: I don't think there is a difference, but I've tried to choose my words carefully about this. And I know that Colin Powell, the U.S. secretary of state, is going to say some more about this in the next few days, and that's for him to do.
Can I just return to one point, though, about evidence, because I think this is absolutely vital for people. The evidence that Saddam has developed these types of weapons is there over 12 years. It is in April, 1991 that he was given a short period of time to allow the inspectors in, say what he had, and have those weapons programs closed down.
The evidence that we're looking for today is not evidence, has Iraq ever had these weapons of mass destruction? We know that they have. The evidence is, are they now cooperating in the way the U.N. said that they should?
And as for the link with Al Qaeda, as I say, that's something Colin Powell will speak about in a few day's time. And I certainly have no doubt, on a broad level, these issues of international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction are link.
AMANPOUR: Presumably British intelligence is also supporting in this presentation that will happen at the Security Council. Are you sure that there will be more evidence on not the issue of WMD, but the issue of the Al Qaeda-Iraq link, Al Qaeda-Saddam Hussein link.
BLAIR: As I say, I think you're best to wait for Colin Powell to give the evidence that he has. Of course we cooperate with the U.S. strongly on that.
But be under absolutely no doubt at all, and you can see this from reports then morning, if these international terrorist groups could get hold of weapons of mass destruction, they would use them, without any doubt at all, and that's why I've constantly said, these two issues, by these extremist, fanatical groups, weapons of mass destruction held by unstable rogue states who are trading in this material, keeping it, proliferating it, these issues are linked. This is the threat to our international security and peace and prosperity today, and we have to deal with it. Let's deal with it through the U.N., but let us deal with it.
AMANPOUR: Thank you very much indeed.
BLAIR: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: So, as we said, the issue now is going to be looking toward the evidence, on February 5th that Colin Powell is going to present. And of course there is a difference between the U.S. and the British on whether there are links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime.
The message from the British officials here is that they've conveyed to the White House, if you are going to portray this evidence to the Security Council, it better be done well, because it must be in a way to galvanize support, rather than potentially backfire.
And you can see from the interview, the strategy that's shaping up, more time needed in order to get a broad coalition. And we've also been told by the British officials the British urge the Americans to use the time that in any event is needed for the completion of the military buildup in the region, to use that time to gather much more international support, so that no member of the United Nations Security Council, particularly the five permanent members, could use their veto to block another resolution.
Back to you.
KAGAN: Christiane, I thought it was interesting listening to your interview, the differences that are there. Clearly, Tony Blair the strongest ally to this administration, and yet there are the difference that is we heard in the interview.
Must he not go back with something? He has come across the ocean to meet with President Bush. But if he goes back with no compromise either on the amount of time or going for a second U.N. resolution, how will he save face when he goes home?
AMANPOUR: Well, first of all, there don't seem to be, according to Prime Minister Blair, there are no differences on the broad picture. They stand shoulder to shoulder, as he said many times, on the necessity for Saddam Hussein to disarm, whether it be voluntarily or by force.
I think, though, what President Bush is going to hear from the prime minister, and what we're told we will hear from both the president and the prime minister at the end of their meetings today, is an agreement to go the U.N. route, again; again, to get more evidence from the weapons inspectors. They're due to come back again February 14. Maybe they'll come back again another time, and another time. In other words, to make a really good attempt to show that every effort is being spent on proving that Saddam Hussein is not cooperating before authorizing another resolution to go to war.
And Tony Blair is very clear that he wants another U.N. resolution, and we're hearing that that may be something the U.S. will agree to as well, as been reported by our White House folks.
KAGAN: Christiane Amanpour in Washington D.C. Nice to have on you this side of the pond for a change. Thank you so much for that interview.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
