Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Saturday

Interview With Scott Ritter

Aired September 07, 2002 - 18:02   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

CAROL LIN, CNN ANCHOR: Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter plans to meet with senior Iraqi officials tomorrow. And he will be addressing the Iraqi national assembly. He has been critical of the Bush administration's call for a regime change in Iraq.
And this is where we begin our program tonight. Scott Ritter is in Baghdad, and he joins us from our bureau there tonight.

Good evening, Scott. Thanks for being there.

SCOTT RITTER, FRMR. U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Good evening.

LIN: I just wanted to make sure that you could hear me. By whose invitation are you there?

RITTER: Yes, no, I can hear you fine, thanks.

It's actually on my own initiative. I made some phone calls about a month and a half ago, to try and set this in motion. And it's coming to fruition right now.

LIN: And why did you do this, Scott? I mean, you have been critical of the Bush administration, but why is it that you felt -- you -- as a former U.N. weapons inspector needed to go to Iraq to talk to officials there?

RITTER: Well, first or all, let's put it this way, me as an American citizen, concerned about the direction that my country is taking, I think that's the reason why I'm here. I'm here to help set in motion a sequence of events that, hopefully, could prevent a war that doesn't need to be fought.

LIN: And how are you going to do that?

RITTER: Well, by meeting with Iraqi government officials and by making a presentation to the Iraqi national assembly, hopefully, I'll be able to, you know, engender some thinking on their part, that might set in motion a sequence of events that could lead to the defusing of the current crisis. At least, in so far as the alleged threat that Iraq poses to international peace and security from their weapons of mass destruction programs are concerned.

LIN: Scott, why would you have credibility with these people? Didn't this regime kick you out, back in 1998?

RITTER: Well, first of all, let's put the record straight. This regime didn't kick anybody out in 1998. You know, the United States government ordered weapons inspectors out in December 1998, two days before the began bombing Iraq as part of Operation Desert Fox, a military campaign which used the United Nations inspection process as a deliberate vehicle at provoking confrontation. And then used information collected by the inspectors to target Iraqi facilities, including Saddam Hussein.

So, no inspectors were kicked out. Now, I had a very contentious relationship with Iraqis from 1991 to 1998 because I was a weapons inspector who was darn good at his job and was insistent that the Iraqis adhere to their obligations under Security Council resolution.

But I'll tell you one thing, I never once lied to the Iraqis. I always told them the truth. They know that I never deviated from the mandate set forth by the Council. So, when I arrived here today and say, look, I'm here to help facilitate something that might be advantageous to my country, but also to Iraq.

You know, I do have a tremendous amount of credibility. Because they know I don't lie. They know I stick to the truth. And I'm comfortable with that.

LIN: Who are you going to be meeting with? And is one of those persons Saddam Hussein, himself?

RITTER: Well, what I do know is that I'll be making a presentation to the Iraqi national assembly tomorrow. And then afterwards I've requested to have an opportunity to meet with senior Iraqi government officials. It's the prerogative of the Iraqi government to determine who, if, and when, I get to meet with these people. Right now, you know, nothing's been carved in stone. I get guess we'll just have to wait and see.

LIN: Why do you think they agreed to this meeting, Scott?

RITTER: Well, I don't think they have any choice. You know, war is on the horizon. What? We're at war. I mean, the -- the U.S./British air strike on western Iraq, just the other day, shows that we are in a warlike situation. We have the United States, you know, increasing the war rhetoric. Military troops are being prepared to deployment in this region. We have President Bush meeting with Tony Blair.

You know, war is inevitable unless something's done to defuse the situation. And I believe that the Iraqis are hopeful that -- as I said, perhaps a sequence of events could be initiated from this dialogue that will begin tomorrow that could lead to a defusing of the warlike rhetoric.

LIN: Did -- or has Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz give you any indication, I believe you met with him in Johannesburg, giving you and indication that Saddam Hussein's current regime would be open minded to what you have to say?

RITTER: Look, I wouldn't be here unless I believed that this initiative had a chance of success. So, while I don't want to -- you know, again, talk too much about the specifics of the conversations I had with Tariq Aziz, what I will say is this. They were positive enough to allow me to proceed onto this phase of the mission.

LIN: Do you think that he will be instrumental? Did he give you an indication that he could help and be instrumental in getting your message across and averting war?

RITTER: Well, look, Tariq Aziz and I believe every official in the Iraqi government is interested in averting war. I think it's something that the American people should be interested, too, as well. You know, Tariq Aziz is a very important player in the Iraqi government. He's somebody who definitely has his finger on the pulse of the foreign affairs portfolio. And I think he will be a player. But, again, that's the prerogative of the Iraqi government, to decide who will be there spokesperson and who will be the person who, you know, takes the initiative on this -- if at all.

LIN: Isn't there a question, in your mind, though, in terms of how the Iraqis can present, at least, an image of credibility. I mean, here they will have the opportunity to have a former U.N. weapons inspector addressing their national assembly. Will they offer, or will you ask for access to weapons sites?

RITTER: Well, good, I'm here as a weapons inspector. I'm here as an American citizen. Now, I have some credibility given the fact that I did the weapons inspections job for seven years, and was pretty darn good at it. But -- you know, in the end it will be up to Iraqis to determine what they want to do with regards to lifting the veil of suspicion that currently exists in certain circles in the United States and around the world, regarding their weapons of mass destruction program.

In the end I believe that the Iraqis have no choice but to allow United Nations' weapons inspectors back to Iraq without any preconditions and giving them unfettered access along the lines set forth by the Security Council resolutions. This is what the Security Council demands. This is what the United States government demands. This is what the world demands. So, in the end, that will have to be part of any formulation to resolve this.

But, again, that's up to the Iraqi government to decide.

LIN: But it's up to you to ask the question.

RITTER: You know, I'm not here to speak for them, or on their behalf. I'm simply here to -

LIN: Scott, you're more than a U.S. citizen. You're more than just an American.

RITTER: Yes, that question has been asked, it will continue to be asked.

LIN: All right, but will you ask for that? Will you ask for that access? Will you say, present a good faith -- a good faith effort here to the international community, give me a tour. Allow me access to sites that I wanted access to before. Show the international community that you have nothing to hide...

RITTER: No, absolutely not, I'm not here as a weapons inspector. The only people mandated to do weapons inspections are those inspectors who work for the United Nations monitoring verifications inspections commission.

I'm here as a private citizen. Yes, I have credibility. I won't dispute that I'm not your average Joe on the street American citizen. But I'm not here to do weapons inspections. That's not my job. I'm not equipped for it. I'm not trained for it. I'm not up to date on the latest intelligence. I don't have the proper sensors.

And I'm not mandated to do this task, even if the Iraqis were to give me the kind of access that you've spoken of. This would have zero credibility around the world. So, it's fruitless to even think about trying this.

It's the job of U.N. weapons inspectors to inspect Iraq and therefore in order to, you know, come to closure on the issue of weapons inspections, you're going to have to get the weapons inspectors in.

LIN: All right. Which is exactly what President Bush is going to be demanding at a U.N. speech, next Thursday.

At the same time, Scott, it sounds to me then that you're going to have a unique opportunity to address the Iraqi national assembly, but I'm not -- I'm still not sure what practical matter can come out of this. I mean, are you afraid that you're being used?

RITTER: Well, first of all, I were being invited here on their initiative, I might have those concerns. But since I initiated the sequence of events that have me here I feel like I'm in control of this situation. I'm not being used by anybody. I'm here on my own free will. And so far things are proceeding exactly along the lines that I had hoped they would.

LIN: Have you gotten a sense yet, from the Iraqi officials you have spoken to, their sense of what's already being released about President Bush's speech to the United Nations next week, that he will be issuing an ultimatum to Iraq, for unfettered weapons inspections, or else?

RITTER: Well, one of the problems with President Bush issuing that kind of ultimatum is that he has no credibility to issue that kind of ultimatum. Members of his administration have said inspections don't matter. Members or his administration have said that even if inspectors get back into Iraq, and succeed in disarming Iraq, that they're still going to seek regime removal.

You know, I have trouble being convinced by President Bush or anybody in their administration that the real issue is weapons of mass destruction. I'm concerned that they're using the weapons of mass destruction issue and the whole issue of disarmament as an excuse to go to war. That this is nothing about -- has nothing to do with the national security of the United States because I truly believe that there's no way a threat can be demonstrated in terms of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.

This is about President Bush's own domestic, political agenda in which he and his administration have invested so much political capital behind the concept of getting rid of the Iraqi president that they've boxed themselves into a rhetorical corner and are desperate to advance the situation. So they're using weapons inspections as such and excuse.

And I'm hopeful that not only will Iraq be able to defuse this, and bring the light of reality to their weapons of mass destruction programs, but the rest of the world will likewise see through it. So, more importantly, the American public will see through this. There's no way the United States of America should go to war based upon domestic, political objectives. That simply cannot happen.

LIN: But you, yourself, Scott Ritter, testified back in 1998, after leaving Baghdad. And you testified before the Senate Arms Services Committee, saying that Iraq had assembled the components for three nuclear weapons and that it lacked some basic material. And tomorrow, "The New York Times" is reporting that in the last 14 months, there have been several attempts, by Iraq, to buy thousands of aluminum tubes that would be used as components to enrich uranium. I mean, you have been witness to a weapons program inside of Iraq, that according to "The New York Times" has only developed. Isn't this an indication that Saddam Hussein may have the capability of launching a nuclear weapon?

RITTER: With all due respect to "The New York Times," they've been wrong in the past and, you know, I wouldn't jump immediately out and say, gosh, they're right. Iraq's got a nuclear weapons program based upon whatever evidence they might be presenting in their reporting. You know, as a weapons inspector, I've dealt with intelligence reports of a great deal better credibility than the kind of reporting that is generally found in the public domain newspaper. And about 90 to 05 percent of the time these reports turned out to be total fabrications or based upon unsubstantiated allegations. So, I withhold judgment on "The New York Times."

Going back to my testimony. Let's be clear what I said. That we had credible intelligence information that Iraq had retained components of three nuclear devices. But now I also wrote an article in June 2000 edition of the "Arms Control Today" in which I further elaborated on that. Saying, that if you listen to the entire intelligence report, if you accept that Iraqis having this capability, you have to also accept that they way they handled these components, especially high explosive lenses, (ph) they're not longer viable.

So, no Iraq may have hits of components from the weapons inspections, but these components are no longer viable. For Iraq to have a viable capability they would have to reconstitute the explosive lens manufacturing capability needed to reproduce these lenses and still acquire highly enriched uranium or plutonium.

So, I'm not worried about an Iraqi nuclear program at this point in time. LIN: Scott Ritter, thank you very much for joining us tonight. Safe travels through Baghdad. And we'll be looking forward to hearing your remarks before the Iraqi national assembly tomorrow.

Thank you very much, Scott Ritter from our Baghdad bureau.

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