Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Saturday
Interview With John Parker
Aired March 15, 2003 - 15:17 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.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Let's take a head count now and see where each member of the U.N. Security Council stands on the resolution putting a disarmament deadline on Iraq.
With the United States, Britain and Spain is Bulgaria. Mexico and Chile are considered countries to watch, even though a number of others are still undecided. And coming down firmly against the resolution are France, China, Russia, Syria and Germany.
Nine votes are needed to pass the proposal. No votes from Russia, France or China are automatic vetoes.
Now three of the countries opposing the resolution, Germany, France and Russia, have called for a Security Council meeting on Tuesday. No word yet on the agenda.
With us now to talk about the undecided members of the Security Council is John Parker, Washington bureau chief for "The Economist" magazine.
Good to see you.
JOHN PARKER, "THE ECONOMIST:" Good afternoon.
WHITFIELD: All right. Let's talk about some of those that are undecided right now: Guinea, Cameroon, Chile and Mexico. Of those nations, which one do you suppose might give in and throw support to the U.S./British plan?
PARKER: The one that I've always thought -- that I'm almost most surprised about that they haven't already indicated more support is Chile. The single most important issue facing the Chileans is the free trade agreement with the United States. They've already negotiated the main parts of the deal and are just waiting for it to be ratified by the Senate.
I would have thought, it's very important to them. They want it done. And I would have thought, it's a very awkward position for them to be in to have voted against the resolution. They are risking the Senate not ratifying the agreement.
WHITFIELD: And does it even matter at this point? There have been many who say that at this point, they really don't believe there is going to be another vote on the second proposed resolution, that that potential vote is moot at this juncture. PARKER: Yes. The reason for that is that the French have threatened to veto it under any circumstances. And what that's done for the undecideds is push them, I think, towards voting no. They don't really want to get caught in the middle of this.
If it's not going to succeed anyway, they might as well come out and indicate that they're very unlikely to vote for it, in the hope that the sponsors will not put it forward, not put the resolution forward, because they don't want it to be vetoed. And therefore, that will let them off the hook.
WHITFIELD: Well, since the White House has a feeling they just won't be able to garner those nine votes, and with this summit taking place, this emergency summit taking place tomorrow in the Azores, is it your belief that this is a plan of diplomacy or perhaps this is indeed the final plan to impose war?
PARKER: You mean the summit? I think the summit is what I think of as a sort of eve of war summit. They may well have a sort of last kind of gasp card to play to get the resolution through, but at the moment, it doesn't seem very likely, to put it no more than that.
I mean, the Guineans have said they're going to abstain. The attempt by the six undecideds by the end of last week to get a sort of compromised resolution has been shot down.
It doesn't look like the proposal can go anywhere, which means -- my guess is, we'll find out from the president afterwards on it, but my guess is that they will be saying, well, here's our last shot.
But they must be thinking, OK, what do we do if that fails or perhaps when that fails, how quickly do we go to war? How do we, as it were, handle the opening stages of the conflict?
WHITFIELD: And John, can it really be a plan or the last ditch effort of diplomacy if only the U.S., the British and the Spanish are there -- it doesn't involve anybody else -- to really constitute diplomacy talks?
PARKER: As I said, it seems to me very unlikely. I would say one thing, though. That the French foreign minister, de Villepin, went to three of the undecided African countries at the beginning of the week in the hope of persuading them and he didn't manage to do it.
So these people, the six undecideds are genuinely undecided. So they may think, well, let's give it one last shot. Even if it fails, to be honest, and they have to pull the resolution, they will have shown diplomatic willing to some extent. And that may -- that may have a sort of minor benefit to show that they were serious about diplomacy, that it wasn't just a sort of mask for going to war.
WHITFIELD: Well, John, earlier today, U.N. weapons chief Hans Blix had an exclusive interview with our Richard Roth and he admits that there is still much work to be done, particularly on the end of the U.N. inspectors.
Let's listen in one more time on what he had to say on that issue.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HANS BLIX, U.N. CHIEF WEAPONS INSPECTOR: I think everybody is talking now about speeding up the implementation of certain items in the Security Council. They are talking about the finalizing the disarmament, the destruction of the missiles as one element. Another is to get the interviews going, abroad. And the third one relates to clarifications about the unmanned air vehicles. And there's a question of anthrax, et cetera.
So there are a few issues which are on the table that the council has focused on already. But we will have our proper list of what we consider to be key tasks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WHITFIELD: Blix wants to avoid war, at the same time he says U.N. inspectors need a little bit more time. We know that France is already offering that the inspectors should be given more time. What's the rush? What's your view on his response today?
PARKER: I've got to say, it's seems to me that there's a bit of an air of unreality at the United Nations. Blix is talking about more time and he's previously said what he means by that is a matter of weeks or possibly months. And yet we've had the proposal from the Chileans to give 45 days or a few weeks of time shot down unceremoniously by the United States.
So we have on the one hand Blix talking about more time, and the sponsors of the resolution just really dismissing the notion of a good deal more time out of hand.
So it seems to me -- I'd be very surprised if Dr. Blix's suggestions went anywhere.
WHITFIELD: All right. John Parker of "The Economist" magazine. Thank you very much.
PARKER: Thanks.
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 15, 2003 - 15:17 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Let's take a head count now and see where each member of the U.N. Security Council stands on the resolution putting a disarmament deadline on Iraq.
With the United States, Britain and Spain is Bulgaria. Mexico and Chile are considered countries to watch, even though a number of others are still undecided. And coming down firmly against the resolution are France, China, Russia, Syria and Germany.
Nine votes are needed to pass the proposal. No votes from Russia, France or China are automatic vetoes.
Now three of the countries opposing the resolution, Germany, France and Russia, have called for a Security Council meeting on Tuesday. No word yet on the agenda.
With us now to talk about the undecided members of the Security Council is John Parker, Washington bureau chief for "The Economist" magazine.
Good to see you.
JOHN PARKER, "THE ECONOMIST:" Good afternoon.
WHITFIELD: All right. Let's talk about some of those that are undecided right now: Guinea, Cameroon, Chile and Mexico. Of those nations, which one do you suppose might give in and throw support to the U.S./British plan?
PARKER: The one that I've always thought -- that I'm almost most surprised about that they haven't already indicated more support is Chile. The single most important issue facing the Chileans is the free trade agreement with the United States. They've already negotiated the main parts of the deal and are just waiting for it to be ratified by the Senate.
I would have thought, it's very important to them. They want it done. And I would have thought, it's a very awkward position for them to be in to have voted against the resolution. They are risking the Senate not ratifying the agreement.
WHITFIELD: And does it even matter at this point? There have been many who say that at this point, they really don't believe there is going to be another vote on the second proposed resolution, that that potential vote is moot at this juncture. PARKER: Yes. The reason for that is that the French have threatened to veto it under any circumstances. And what that's done for the undecideds is push them, I think, towards voting no. They don't really want to get caught in the middle of this.
If it's not going to succeed anyway, they might as well come out and indicate that they're very unlikely to vote for it, in the hope that the sponsors will not put it forward, not put the resolution forward, because they don't want it to be vetoed. And therefore, that will let them off the hook.
WHITFIELD: Well, since the White House has a feeling they just won't be able to garner those nine votes, and with this summit taking place, this emergency summit taking place tomorrow in the Azores, is it your belief that this is a plan of diplomacy or perhaps this is indeed the final plan to impose war?
PARKER: You mean the summit? I think the summit is what I think of as a sort of eve of war summit. They may well have a sort of last kind of gasp card to play to get the resolution through, but at the moment, it doesn't seem very likely, to put it no more than that.
I mean, the Guineans have said they're going to abstain. The attempt by the six undecideds by the end of last week to get a sort of compromised resolution has been shot down.
It doesn't look like the proposal can go anywhere, which means -- my guess is, we'll find out from the president afterwards on it, but my guess is that they will be saying, well, here's our last shot.
But they must be thinking, OK, what do we do if that fails or perhaps when that fails, how quickly do we go to war? How do we, as it were, handle the opening stages of the conflict?
WHITFIELD: And John, can it really be a plan or the last ditch effort of diplomacy if only the U.S., the British and the Spanish are there -- it doesn't involve anybody else -- to really constitute diplomacy talks?
PARKER: As I said, it seems to me very unlikely. I would say one thing, though. That the French foreign minister, de Villepin, went to three of the undecided African countries at the beginning of the week in the hope of persuading them and he didn't manage to do it.
So these people, the six undecideds are genuinely undecided. So they may think, well, let's give it one last shot. Even if it fails, to be honest, and they have to pull the resolution, they will have shown diplomatic willing to some extent. And that may -- that may have a sort of minor benefit to show that they were serious about diplomacy, that it wasn't just a sort of mask for going to war.
WHITFIELD: Well, John, earlier today, U.N. weapons chief Hans Blix had an exclusive interview with our Richard Roth and he admits that there is still much work to be done, particularly on the end of the U.N. inspectors.
Let's listen in one more time on what he had to say on that issue.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HANS BLIX, U.N. CHIEF WEAPONS INSPECTOR: I think everybody is talking now about speeding up the implementation of certain items in the Security Council. They are talking about the finalizing the disarmament, the destruction of the missiles as one element. Another is to get the interviews going, abroad. And the third one relates to clarifications about the unmanned air vehicles. And there's a question of anthrax, et cetera.
So there are a few issues which are on the table that the council has focused on already. But we will have our proper list of what we consider to be key tasks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WHITFIELD: Blix wants to avoid war, at the same time he says U.N. inspectors need a little bit more time. We know that France is already offering that the inspectors should be given more time. What's the rush? What's your view on his response today?
PARKER: I've got to say, it's seems to me that there's a bit of an air of unreality at the United Nations. Blix is talking about more time and he's previously said what he means by that is a matter of weeks or possibly months. And yet we've had the proposal from the Chileans to give 45 days or a few weeks of time shot down unceremoniously by the United States.
So we have on the one hand Blix talking about more time, and the sponsors of the resolution just really dismissing the notion of a good deal more time out of hand.
So it seems to me -- I'd be very surprised if Dr. Blix's suggestions went anywhere.
WHITFIELD: All right. John Parker of "The Economist" magazine. Thank you very much.
PARKER: Thanks.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
