Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Today

Iraq Inspections: Powell Prepares to Present U.S. Case to Security Council

Aired January 31, 2003 - 10:15   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: We pick up our discussion about the next test of gaining international support for action in Iraq.
Next week, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell is going to appear before the U.N. Security Council, as we said, and he is expected to go there and present circumstantial evidence that Iraq is hiding forbidden weapons. And he is expected to repeat his challenge to the world community to confront the threat. However, that -- the argument now is being waged not just there, but also in Washington.

Now, the question this morning is, what does the U.S. have to do to gain more international community support? Joining us now from London is Jamie Rubin, he is former assistant secretary of state for public affairs.

Good to see you again, Jamie, glad to have you with us this morning. Now, I've read the editorial piece that you had this morning in the "Financial Times." And in that piece you suggest that in these talks in Washington today between President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair that they should be talking about France just as much if not more than they talk about Iraq. Why?

JAMIE RUBIN, FMR. ASST. SECY. OF STATE: Well, I think the key to getting another U.N. resolution, which is what Bush and Blair are going to be talking about, is France. If France can be brought along, Russia will go along and a majority of the Security Council will go along.

The problem with the French position is that up until now they've said vaguely that the United States is being impatient and that we are trying to move too quickly. But they haven't answered the most fundamental question of all, how long will France wait for the Iraqis to continue to not cooperate with the inspectors. The French have been the biggest supporters of the U.N. Security Council, they've emphasized the legitimacy of the U.N. Security Council, and it is that Security Council that Iraq is thwarting.

So, France has to ask -- answer the question, how long is long enough. And if their answer is a year, then I suspect Blair and Bush are not going to wait and go without a U.N. resolution. If the answer of Jacques Chirac is a few weeks, then it will make a big difference to wait those few weeks, allow the inspections to continue, and then move after France is on board and have international legitimacy.

LEON HARRIS: So do you expect, then, that one of the things that's going to be settled in these meetings, either today or tomorrow, whatever, between President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, is some sort of deadline, this -- whether or not there is a U.N. resolution?

JAMIE RUBIN: I think they're going to work on the basis that they're going to seek a resolution, and then Tony Blair, as I understand it, is going to be seeing Chirac next week. And he will be carrying with him the views of Bush and the United Kingdom, about how long they can wait and have some idea of how long the Bush administration can wait.

So if Chirac says, you know, six weeks, four weeks, mid-March, that's one thing, but if he takes the view, as some have, that this inspection presence is good enough in and of itself and he wants to wait another year, then I think Blair is going to say, well, the jig is up, that's an unreasonable position and we're prepared to move without a Security Council resolution. So this is a really, really crucial day, and days next week, for the -- answering the question of whether we're going to have international support for American military action.

LEON HARRIS: Tell me how you read this situation, particularly from where you sit there in London as well as with your past there, inside the State Department. We're seeing and we're hearing that Secretary Powell is putting together a case that largely is going to be circumstantial. There's not going to be any real smoking guns from what we hear, there won't be any satellite photos that show conclusively something is going -- something untoward is going on, on the ground there.

Now, we're also seeing the administration sort of downplaying expectations from this presentation, sort of low-balling it as well. How do you read that? And how -- and what are the prospects of that kind of approach actually having any success in the Security Council?

JAMIE RUBIN: Well, they can try to downplay expectations all they want, but this is going to be one of the most important presentations to the United Nations Security Council in years. This is the moment when the secretary of state has to do two things -- number one he has to convince the world that the United States doesn't need to find a smoking gun, and it sure looks like there isn't a smoking gun.

It would be wise for the administration to stop talking about the possibility of some definitive proof. Instead he has to show that the argument the United States has been making, that it's up to Iraq to voluntarily disarm, the model that was used in South Africa, is an argument that Hans Blix, the chief inspector who has been much maligned in conservative circles and around the world, has accepted.

So if Powell were trying to convince France and other countries, what he would do is take Blix's words, Blix's view that Iraq is not voluntarily cooperating, Iraq is not participating in its own disarmament and use Blix's words to turn around the French and the other countries.

The least effective case I think he can make unless there's some new dramatic intelligence, is the link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Europeans don't believe it. The administration's own CIA director has put out statements disavowing that link. I don't think that's going to be very convincing. What he has to do is put the pressure on France to say how long is long enough, based on Hans Blix's arguments, which will convince other members of the Security Council. Tough job.

LEON HARRIS: Yes, definitely. We'll have to watch and see how he does it. Thanks very much, Jamie, appreciate the time as usual.

Jamie Rubin in London.

JAMIE RUBIN: 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





Security Council>


Aired January 31, 2003 - 10:15   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: We pick up our discussion about the next test of gaining international support for action in Iraq.
Next week, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell is going to appear before the U.N. Security Council, as we said, and he is expected to go there and present circumstantial evidence that Iraq is hiding forbidden weapons. And he is expected to repeat his challenge to the world community to confront the threat. However, that -- the argument now is being waged not just there, but also in Washington.

Now, the question this morning is, what does the U.S. have to do to gain more international community support? Joining us now from London is Jamie Rubin, he is former assistant secretary of state for public affairs.

Good to see you again, Jamie, glad to have you with us this morning. Now, I've read the editorial piece that you had this morning in the "Financial Times." And in that piece you suggest that in these talks in Washington today between President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair that they should be talking about France just as much if not more than they talk about Iraq. Why?

JAMIE RUBIN, FMR. ASST. SECY. OF STATE: Well, I think the key to getting another U.N. resolution, which is what Bush and Blair are going to be talking about, is France. If France can be brought along, Russia will go along and a majority of the Security Council will go along.

The problem with the French position is that up until now they've said vaguely that the United States is being impatient and that we are trying to move too quickly. But they haven't answered the most fundamental question of all, how long will France wait for the Iraqis to continue to not cooperate with the inspectors. The French have been the biggest supporters of the U.N. Security Council, they've emphasized the legitimacy of the U.N. Security Council, and it is that Security Council that Iraq is thwarting.

So, France has to ask -- answer the question, how long is long enough. And if their answer is a year, then I suspect Blair and Bush are not going to wait and go without a U.N. resolution. If the answer of Jacques Chirac is a few weeks, then it will make a big difference to wait those few weeks, allow the inspections to continue, and then move after France is on board and have international legitimacy.

LEON HARRIS: So do you expect, then, that one of the things that's going to be settled in these meetings, either today or tomorrow, whatever, between President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, is some sort of deadline, this -- whether or not there is a U.N. resolution?

JAMIE RUBIN: I think they're going to work on the basis that they're going to seek a resolution, and then Tony Blair, as I understand it, is going to be seeing Chirac next week. And he will be carrying with him the views of Bush and the United Kingdom, about how long they can wait and have some idea of how long the Bush administration can wait.

So if Chirac says, you know, six weeks, four weeks, mid-March, that's one thing, but if he takes the view, as some have, that this inspection presence is good enough in and of itself and he wants to wait another year, then I think Blair is going to say, well, the jig is up, that's an unreasonable position and we're prepared to move without a Security Council resolution. So this is a really, really crucial day, and days next week, for the -- answering the question of whether we're going to have international support for American military action.

LEON HARRIS: Tell me how you read this situation, particularly from where you sit there in London as well as with your past there, inside the State Department. We're seeing and we're hearing that Secretary Powell is putting together a case that largely is going to be circumstantial. There's not going to be any real smoking guns from what we hear, there won't be any satellite photos that show conclusively something is going -- something untoward is going on, on the ground there.

Now, we're also seeing the administration sort of downplaying expectations from this presentation, sort of low-balling it as well. How do you read that? And how -- and what are the prospects of that kind of approach actually having any success in the Security Council?

JAMIE RUBIN: Well, they can try to downplay expectations all they want, but this is going to be one of the most important presentations to the United Nations Security Council in years. This is the moment when the secretary of state has to do two things -- number one he has to convince the world that the United States doesn't need to find a smoking gun, and it sure looks like there isn't a smoking gun.

It would be wise for the administration to stop talking about the possibility of some definitive proof. Instead he has to show that the argument the United States has been making, that it's up to Iraq to voluntarily disarm, the model that was used in South Africa, is an argument that Hans Blix, the chief inspector who has been much maligned in conservative circles and around the world, has accepted.

So if Powell were trying to convince France and other countries, what he would do is take Blix's words, Blix's view that Iraq is not voluntarily cooperating, Iraq is not participating in its own disarmament and use Blix's words to turn around the French and the other countries.

The least effective case I think he can make unless there's some new dramatic intelligence, is the link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Europeans don't believe it. The administration's own CIA director has put out statements disavowing that link. I don't think that's going to be very convincing. What he has to do is put the pressure on France to say how long is long enough, based on Hans Blix's arguments, which will convince other members of the Security Council. Tough job.

LEON HARRIS: Yes, definitely. We'll have to watch and see how he does it. Thanks very much, Jamie, appreciate the time as usual.

Jamie Rubin in London.

JAMIE RUBIN: 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





Security Council>