Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Blair Facing Intense Pressure From Own Parliament
Aired March 12, 2003 - 08:03 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: Back to London now, British Prime Minister Tony Blair faced some intense pressure this morning from his own parliament, where he laid out some very specific conditions for Saddam Hussein to follow in order to avoid war.
We're going to catch up with our CNN's international correspondent Christiane Amanpour in a moment for her perspective. But first, let's check in with the White House and Dana Bash to see how the White House is reacting to some of this incoming fire to Tony Blair -- it's a bit of a mess, isn't it?
DANA BASH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It sure seems that way. And despite what you called the mess, the president is going to continue to work the phones, Paula. Today we are expected to see more telephone calls to key members of the U.N. Security Council. He continued that round of phone call diplomacy yesterday, calling the leaders of Chile, Mexico and Angola. Those are all key members of the U.N. Security Council.
And really despite the fact that Tony Blair has laid out these benchmarks for Iraqi disarmament, those are some of the conditions that a lot of the Security Council member nations have been calling for, the other thing that they are asking for at the U.N. Security Council, a lot of these swing vote nations, is more time for Saddam Hussein to disarm, more time past the March 17th deadline, perhaps more than a month. And the White House, according to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, speaking to National Public Radio, the White House is saying that that's just not going to fly.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: We believe that March 17th is plenty of time. The Security Council members are discussing among themselves how to bring this to conclusion. But enough is enough and we need to bring this to conclusion.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BASH: And, Paula, given the promise of vetoes from France and Russia, or at least threats of vetoes, the White House is pretty pessimistic that they can get a resolution to actually pass at the U.N. What they're trying to do right now with these phone calls is round up at least nine votes to have a majority vote at the Security Council, to have a symbolic or moral victory there.
But the bottom line here, Paula, can be seen in today's White House talking points, these talking points that they put out every day, and that is a quote in here which says, "Peaceful disarmament looks less and less likely" -- Paula.
ZAHN: All right, Dana, we're going to leave it there.
Dana Bash reporting from the White House this morning.
Now on to London, where our CNN's international correspondent Christiane Amanpour is standing by.
Christiane, for those of the members of our audience that weren't with us in the first hour, can you quickly bring us up to date on some of the benchmarks that were set forth today that Saddam Hussein would have to meet in order to avoid war?
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. In fact, that's what we were being told already before Prime Minister Blair went before parliament in what was his weekly question time, that this was going to be when the prime minister outlined, we were told, six benchmarks that Saddam Hussein had to meet in order to be able to resolve this peacefully.
Of course, you know that these benchmarks are part of a frantic British diplomatic effort to try to get some kind of compromise on a second resolution that would win over enough votes. This is what the prime minister had to say on some of those benchmarks in parliament today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TONY BLAIR, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: What we are looking at is whether we can set out a very clear set of tests for Iraq to meet in order to demonstrate that it is in full compliance, not partial compliance, but full compliance.
For example, based on what the inspectors have already found, the anthrax, the thousands of liters unaccounted for, either produce it or produce the documentation showing it is destroyed. For example, since the last resolution in November, we have not had one single interview of an Iraqi scientist outside Iraq where they and their families can be guaranteed safety. We should make sure that Iraq is allowing those interviews to take place.
For example, the unmanned aerial vehicles, the things that can spray this chemical and biological poison, we should ensure they either produce them or produce, again, the documentation that shows they're destroyed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, what we're being told is that anthrax, V.X., drones, interviews, that's four that he outlined right there, we were told it was going to be six conditions. A foreign office minister before the prime minister started answering those questions said that one of the conditions would also be for Saddam Hussein himself to come on television and foreswear weapons of mass destruction.
Apparently another condition, although the prime minister himself hasn't said it yet, would be for Iraqi state companies to be banned from producing any kind of materials or elements that could make weapons of mass destruction.
So that's where we are right now and, of course, as you know, Britain also trying to talk about perhaps even a deadline slightly beyond the 17th that is already being talked about.
ZAHN: And let's close this morning with some of the latest public opinion polls in London.
AMANPOUR: Yes, yesterday we saw the latest one. That was 19 percent of British people said that they would support war without a second resolution. So that's a very, very small number of people comparatively, and the number keeps dropping. Most people in Britain do want a second resolution, which is really why Prime Minister Blair is going all out on this effort. But also there has been an added headache for him because in the last 24 hours, he's had to absorb really a body blow from Washington when the defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, basically said that if Prime Minister Blair's domestic problems here in England were so bad, then the U.S. would go it alone.
Essentially, that's what he said.
Well, of course, that caused Downing Street to hit the phones in a big way. Damage control, clear this up, we were told today. And the prime minister saying that no, his position hasn't changed. If it does come to war, then he is still committed to committing British forces.
ZAHN: Thanks, Christiane.
Christiane Amanpour reporting from London this morning.
Now, with White House aides all but conceding defeat on an Iraq war resolution, is the administration just going through the motions at the U.N. as it pushes for a vote before the end of the week?
Joining us now from Washington this morning, Ken Adelman, former director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and here in New York, Jonathan Tepperman, senior editor of "Foreign Affairs."
Welcome, gentlemen.
Glad to have both of you with us this morning.
JONATHAN TEPPERMAN, SECOND RESOLUTION EDITOR, "FOREIGN AFFAIRS": Good morning.
KEN ADELMAN, FORMER ARMS CONTROL OFFICIAL: Good morning.
ZAHN: Jonathan, I want you to react to something that Ken recently wrote about in a column where he basically said the real second U.N. resolution on Iraq's disarmament was written back in 1991 or passed in 1991, and the one currently under discussion would be the 18th. Why should the U.S. be seeking still more approval? TEPPERMAN: Technically I think he's right. But I think it's important to acknowledge, you know, one of the first things we learned when I was in law school was that just as it's as important as justice be done is the appearance that justice be done. So similarly in this case, it is almost as important that diplomacy be done than diplomacy actually be done. That is, the appearance is almost as important as the reality.
As we've just heard, Tony Blair, George Bush's best political friend in the world, is fighting for his very survival today and needs desperately this second U.N. resolution in order to bulwark support. To say that we're not interested and let him hang in the wind, I think, would be irresponsible.
ZAHN: Ken, do you buy the reason Jonathan just set forth that, in fact, the appearance is as important as the reality here?
ADELMAN: I really think this has become March madness and it's not on the basketball field, but it's in Turtle Bay at the United Nations. To think that diplomacy, we should give diplomacy a chance after 12 years is to say that diplomacy, we can never conclude that diplomacy hasn't worked.
How, after 12 years of Saddam Hussein totally defying the United Nations, 17 resolutions clearly broken, should we give breathing room and give diplomacy a chance?
Every alternative that people have discussed -- economic sanctions, diplomacy, more resolutions -- none of those have shown to work. So the question is do we want Saddam Hussein to stay in power with ties to terrorism and with weapons of mass destruction or do we want to do something about it?
And doing something about it does not mean passing more resolutions.
TEPPERMAN: No, what it means is defending our allies and garnering as much international support as possible until we have determined that that's no longer an option. So what we do is we set a Friday or a Monday deadline for a Security Council vote, as the White House has done, and then we say if we get that vote or not, we're going.
But we make every effort that we can so that when we go to war, we can say look, we have tried everything possible. And so we defend ourselves against charges of unilateralism.
You know, no country, including the United States, is so powerful that it can't use the help of allies. And so all I am talking about is not giving the U.N. a veto over American national defense, but rather using the U.N. for diplomatic and political purposes. And I still think that's an option. I'm not talking about open-ended negotiations. I'm talking about one or two more days of discussions.
ZAHN: What about that, Ken? ADELMAN: Well, I think Jonathan's logic is unassailable. It's -- and very nicely said. It is the exact logic that has given us what you called just a few minutes ago, Paula, very rightly, this mess. We have been trying, falling all over ourselves to get support in the United Nations. You have a president of the United States and the foreign ministry of France looking at Angola, Belize and Cameroon to protect American interests and to protect civilization. And it seems to me while these are fine countries and fine people and there's no doubt about it, to have the United Nations get a moral kind of persuasion and moral kind of credence on what is a clear threat to the world by going at the Cameroons seems to me really March madness.
ZAHN: Ken, you are saying it was a mistake to even talk about a second resolution here then?
ADELMAN: Oh, I think a second resolution is...
ZAHN: Just stick with 1441 or 1441 was not necessary either?
ADELMAN: I think a second resolution is absolutely wrong and I wish Blair and Bush would stop talking about it. It's an 18th resolution and once an 18th resolution would pass, the natural inclination is let's get a 19th resolution. Well, you know what? Resolutions, passing successive resolutions really doesn't scare Saddam Hussein. It doesn't motivate him.
All it does is show the United Nations is very interested in passing resolutions, not doing anything about the resolutions that it passes. Passing resolutions is easy. It just consumes a lot of paper because you have to translate it. But it does no good in the world.
ZAHN: Jonathan, you get 10 seconds for the last word this morning.
TEPPERMAN: I'd just ask Mr. Adelman to look at the text of the resolutions that we're talking about. And what we're looking for here are two or three more days of discussions before we go to war, which is something I think that any country can afford. And the resolution in particular would authorize automatically offensive actions against Saddam Hussein if he refuses to comply. That's not something that we've had before and that would make this a very different kettle of fish.
ZAHN: Gentlemen, we're going to have to leave it there.
Ken Adelman, Jonathan Tepperman, thank you both for dropping by this morning.
Appreciate your time.
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 March 12, 2003 - 08:03 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Back to London now, British Prime Minister Tony Blair faced some intense pressure this morning from his own parliament, where he laid out some very specific conditions for Saddam Hussein to follow in order to avoid war.
We're going to catch up with our CNN's international correspondent Christiane Amanpour in a moment for her perspective. But first, let's check in with the White House and Dana Bash to see how the White House is reacting to some of this incoming fire to Tony Blair -- it's a bit of a mess, isn't it?
DANA BASH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It sure seems that way. And despite what you called the mess, the president is going to continue to work the phones, Paula. Today we are expected to see more telephone calls to key members of the U.N. Security Council. He continued that round of phone call diplomacy yesterday, calling the leaders of Chile, Mexico and Angola. Those are all key members of the U.N. Security Council.
And really despite the fact that Tony Blair has laid out these benchmarks for Iraqi disarmament, those are some of the conditions that a lot of the Security Council member nations have been calling for, the other thing that they are asking for at the U.N. Security Council, a lot of these swing vote nations, is more time for Saddam Hussein to disarm, more time past the March 17th deadline, perhaps more than a month. And the White House, according to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, speaking to National Public Radio, the White House is saying that that's just not going to fly.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: We believe that March 17th is plenty of time. The Security Council members are discussing among themselves how to bring this to conclusion. But enough is enough and we need to bring this to conclusion.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BASH: And, Paula, given the promise of vetoes from France and Russia, or at least threats of vetoes, the White House is pretty pessimistic that they can get a resolution to actually pass at the U.N. What they're trying to do right now with these phone calls is round up at least nine votes to have a majority vote at the Security Council, to have a symbolic or moral victory there.
But the bottom line here, Paula, can be seen in today's White House talking points, these talking points that they put out every day, and that is a quote in here which says, "Peaceful disarmament looks less and less likely" -- Paula.
ZAHN: All right, Dana, we're going to leave it there.
Dana Bash reporting from the White House this morning.
Now on to London, where our CNN's international correspondent Christiane Amanpour is standing by.
Christiane, for those of the members of our audience that weren't with us in the first hour, can you quickly bring us up to date on some of the benchmarks that were set forth today that Saddam Hussein would have to meet in order to avoid war?
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. In fact, that's what we were being told already before Prime Minister Blair went before parliament in what was his weekly question time, that this was going to be when the prime minister outlined, we were told, six benchmarks that Saddam Hussein had to meet in order to be able to resolve this peacefully.
Of course, you know that these benchmarks are part of a frantic British diplomatic effort to try to get some kind of compromise on a second resolution that would win over enough votes. This is what the prime minister had to say on some of those benchmarks in parliament today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TONY BLAIR, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: What we are looking at is whether we can set out a very clear set of tests for Iraq to meet in order to demonstrate that it is in full compliance, not partial compliance, but full compliance.
For example, based on what the inspectors have already found, the anthrax, the thousands of liters unaccounted for, either produce it or produce the documentation showing it is destroyed. For example, since the last resolution in November, we have not had one single interview of an Iraqi scientist outside Iraq where they and their families can be guaranteed safety. We should make sure that Iraq is allowing those interviews to take place.
For example, the unmanned aerial vehicles, the things that can spray this chemical and biological poison, we should ensure they either produce them or produce, again, the documentation that shows they're destroyed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, what we're being told is that anthrax, V.X., drones, interviews, that's four that he outlined right there, we were told it was going to be six conditions. A foreign office minister before the prime minister started answering those questions said that one of the conditions would also be for Saddam Hussein himself to come on television and foreswear weapons of mass destruction.
Apparently another condition, although the prime minister himself hasn't said it yet, would be for Iraqi state companies to be banned from producing any kind of materials or elements that could make weapons of mass destruction.
So that's where we are right now and, of course, as you know, Britain also trying to talk about perhaps even a deadline slightly beyond the 17th that is already being talked about.
ZAHN: And let's close this morning with some of the latest public opinion polls in London.
AMANPOUR: Yes, yesterday we saw the latest one. That was 19 percent of British people said that they would support war without a second resolution. So that's a very, very small number of people comparatively, and the number keeps dropping. Most people in Britain do want a second resolution, which is really why Prime Minister Blair is going all out on this effort. But also there has been an added headache for him because in the last 24 hours, he's had to absorb really a body blow from Washington when the defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, basically said that if Prime Minister Blair's domestic problems here in England were so bad, then the U.S. would go it alone.
Essentially, that's what he said.
Well, of course, that caused Downing Street to hit the phones in a big way. Damage control, clear this up, we were told today. And the prime minister saying that no, his position hasn't changed. If it does come to war, then he is still committed to committing British forces.
ZAHN: Thanks, Christiane.
Christiane Amanpour reporting from London this morning.
Now, with White House aides all but conceding defeat on an Iraq war resolution, is the administration just going through the motions at the U.N. as it pushes for a vote before the end of the week?
Joining us now from Washington this morning, Ken Adelman, former director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and here in New York, Jonathan Tepperman, senior editor of "Foreign Affairs."
Welcome, gentlemen.
Glad to have both of you with us this morning.
JONATHAN TEPPERMAN, SECOND RESOLUTION EDITOR, "FOREIGN AFFAIRS": Good morning.
KEN ADELMAN, FORMER ARMS CONTROL OFFICIAL: Good morning.
ZAHN: Jonathan, I want you to react to something that Ken recently wrote about in a column where he basically said the real second U.N. resolution on Iraq's disarmament was written back in 1991 or passed in 1991, and the one currently under discussion would be the 18th. Why should the U.S. be seeking still more approval? TEPPERMAN: Technically I think he's right. But I think it's important to acknowledge, you know, one of the first things we learned when I was in law school was that just as it's as important as justice be done is the appearance that justice be done. So similarly in this case, it is almost as important that diplomacy be done than diplomacy actually be done. That is, the appearance is almost as important as the reality.
As we've just heard, Tony Blair, George Bush's best political friend in the world, is fighting for his very survival today and needs desperately this second U.N. resolution in order to bulwark support. To say that we're not interested and let him hang in the wind, I think, would be irresponsible.
ZAHN: Ken, do you buy the reason Jonathan just set forth that, in fact, the appearance is as important as the reality here?
ADELMAN: I really think this has become March madness and it's not on the basketball field, but it's in Turtle Bay at the United Nations. To think that diplomacy, we should give diplomacy a chance after 12 years is to say that diplomacy, we can never conclude that diplomacy hasn't worked.
How, after 12 years of Saddam Hussein totally defying the United Nations, 17 resolutions clearly broken, should we give breathing room and give diplomacy a chance?
Every alternative that people have discussed -- economic sanctions, diplomacy, more resolutions -- none of those have shown to work. So the question is do we want Saddam Hussein to stay in power with ties to terrorism and with weapons of mass destruction or do we want to do something about it?
And doing something about it does not mean passing more resolutions.
TEPPERMAN: No, what it means is defending our allies and garnering as much international support as possible until we have determined that that's no longer an option. So what we do is we set a Friday or a Monday deadline for a Security Council vote, as the White House has done, and then we say if we get that vote or not, we're going.
But we make every effort that we can so that when we go to war, we can say look, we have tried everything possible. And so we defend ourselves against charges of unilateralism.
You know, no country, including the United States, is so powerful that it can't use the help of allies. And so all I am talking about is not giving the U.N. a veto over American national defense, but rather using the U.N. for diplomatic and political purposes. And I still think that's an option. I'm not talking about open-ended negotiations. I'm talking about one or two more days of discussions.
ZAHN: What about that, Ken? ADELMAN: Well, I think Jonathan's logic is unassailable. It's -- and very nicely said. It is the exact logic that has given us what you called just a few minutes ago, Paula, very rightly, this mess. We have been trying, falling all over ourselves to get support in the United Nations. You have a president of the United States and the foreign ministry of France looking at Angola, Belize and Cameroon to protect American interests and to protect civilization. And it seems to me while these are fine countries and fine people and there's no doubt about it, to have the United Nations get a moral kind of persuasion and moral kind of credence on what is a clear threat to the world by going at the Cameroons seems to me really March madness.
ZAHN: Ken, you are saying it was a mistake to even talk about a second resolution here then?
ADELMAN: Oh, I think a second resolution is...
ZAHN: Just stick with 1441 or 1441 was not necessary either?
ADELMAN: I think a second resolution is absolutely wrong and I wish Blair and Bush would stop talking about it. It's an 18th resolution and once an 18th resolution would pass, the natural inclination is let's get a 19th resolution. Well, you know what? Resolutions, passing successive resolutions really doesn't scare Saddam Hussein. It doesn't motivate him.
All it does is show the United Nations is very interested in passing resolutions, not doing anything about the resolutions that it passes. Passing resolutions is easy. It just consumes a lot of paper because you have to translate it. But it does no good in the world.
ZAHN: Jonathan, you get 10 seconds for the last word this morning.
TEPPERMAN: I'd just ask Mr. Adelman to look at the text of the resolutions that we're talking about. And what we're looking for here are two or three more days of discussions before we go to war, which is something I think that any country can afford. And the resolution in particular would authorize automatically offensive actions against Saddam Hussein if he refuses to comply. That's not something that we've had before and that would make this a very different kettle of fish.
ZAHN: Gentlemen, we're going to have to leave it there.
Ken Adelman, Jonathan Tepperman, thank you both for dropping by this morning.
Appreciate your time.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
