Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Saturday
Interview With Daryl Kimball
Aired December 20, 2003 - 14:18 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.
HOLLY FIRFER, CNN ANCHOR: A closer look at the deal now with Daryl Kimball in Washington, he is executive director of the Arms Control Association. A nonprofit group that keeps track of whose doing what weapons wise.
Welcome, Mr. Kimble. President Bush said that Libya's decision came in part as a result of quiet diplomacy, which came as a surprise to many, but was it really a surprise? Were you surprised by what we saw?
DARYL KIMBALL, ARMS CONTROL ASSOCIATION: Well I was surprised, because there has not been too much talk about Libya's weapons of mass destruction programs. Mainly its chemical program, that is it's main program for sometime. And I think this is a real triumph, the Bush administration and Blair government are to be congratulated for handling this well, pulling this off. There's more work to be done in terms of inspecting the facilities in Libya, making sure that they are dismantled but it's also a triumph of diplomacy and engagement and the willingness to talk to the Libyans that helped pull this off.
FIRFER: Let me ask you, how close to you think they really were to a nuclear weapon?
KIMBALL: We're finding here after these U.S. agents, British agents went in, that they were not close but they had a much more advanced program than previously believed. Keep in mind that a nuclear weapon program is a very enormous enterprise. You've got to first acquire it, the equipment, to make the nuclear material. The enriched uranium or the plutonium and then you have to assemble the bomb. They had some advanced equipment centrifuges distributed at various sites, and that's very disturbing. But I think we'll probably find that estimates will show that that -- those facilities still would have taken several years to produce sufficient quantities. But it is disturbing that we didn't know more about this earlier. And it suggests to me we need to work harder to improve international inspections everywhere, both in chemical, biological and nuclear.
FIRFER: Let's talk about those inspections. The IAEA had a difficult time in Iraq. How easy or difficult will it be to actually go in and inspect in Libya?
KIMBALL: Keep in mind even though Iraq was not helpful in the IAEA's role of dismantling their nuclear program, the IAEA did do the job, by '98, the Iraqi program had been dismantled. It should be easier here because Gadhafi is being cooperative, so we should be able to find out relatively quickly if the cooperation continues what was going on and we should be able to within short order, I would say, months, perhaps years, dismantle those nuclear facilities. The chemical and biological might be more difficult, because they are dual-use facilities, and we don't have a standing international inspector to deal with biological weapons. perhaps the old unmovic, Hans Blix's old organization, might be used here in Libya for that task.
FIRFER: Do you think this will sort of clear up the picture of where these weapons of mass destruction elements are coming from? Will it disrupt, do you think, other activities? Could this push us further along those lines?
KIMBALL: Well I think officials from the White House are correct in saying that because they were able to interdict some materials going in to Libya here, they're going to have a much better handle on where the elicit sources of nuclear equipment are nuclear weapons, really, are. Chemical, biological, so I think this is something of a breakthrough, especially if Libya is a helpful and cooperative -- and I think it be will interesting to find out where this equipment was coming from. This could be a very sensitive political and diplomatic issue; because it's quite likely those sources are some of the United States friends and allies. Pakistan is one potential source, Russia, perhaps another.
FIRFER: All right, Daryl Kimball, we appreciate your time today. Thank you very much.
KIMBALL: 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
Aired December 20, 2003 - 14:18 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
HOLLY FIRFER, CNN ANCHOR: A closer look at the deal now with Daryl Kimball in Washington, he is executive director of the Arms Control Association. A nonprofit group that keeps track of whose doing what weapons wise.
Welcome, Mr. Kimble. President Bush said that Libya's decision came in part as a result of quiet diplomacy, which came as a surprise to many, but was it really a surprise? Were you surprised by what we saw?
DARYL KIMBALL, ARMS CONTROL ASSOCIATION: Well I was surprised, because there has not been too much talk about Libya's weapons of mass destruction programs. Mainly its chemical program, that is it's main program for sometime. And I think this is a real triumph, the Bush administration and Blair government are to be congratulated for handling this well, pulling this off. There's more work to be done in terms of inspecting the facilities in Libya, making sure that they are dismantled but it's also a triumph of diplomacy and engagement and the willingness to talk to the Libyans that helped pull this off.
FIRFER: Let me ask you, how close to you think they really were to a nuclear weapon?
KIMBALL: We're finding here after these U.S. agents, British agents went in, that they were not close but they had a much more advanced program than previously believed. Keep in mind that a nuclear weapon program is a very enormous enterprise. You've got to first acquire it, the equipment, to make the nuclear material. The enriched uranium or the plutonium and then you have to assemble the bomb. They had some advanced equipment centrifuges distributed at various sites, and that's very disturbing. But I think we'll probably find that estimates will show that that -- those facilities still would have taken several years to produce sufficient quantities. But it is disturbing that we didn't know more about this earlier. And it suggests to me we need to work harder to improve international inspections everywhere, both in chemical, biological and nuclear.
FIRFER: Let's talk about those inspections. The IAEA had a difficult time in Iraq. How easy or difficult will it be to actually go in and inspect in Libya?
KIMBALL: Keep in mind even though Iraq was not helpful in the IAEA's role of dismantling their nuclear program, the IAEA did do the job, by '98, the Iraqi program had been dismantled. It should be easier here because Gadhafi is being cooperative, so we should be able to find out relatively quickly if the cooperation continues what was going on and we should be able to within short order, I would say, months, perhaps years, dismantle those nuclear facilities. The chemical and biological might be more difficult, because they are dual-use facilities, and we don't have a standing international inspector to deal with biological weapons. perhaps the old unmovic, Hans Blix's old organization, might be used here in Libya for that task.
FIRFER: Do you think this will sort of clear up the picture of where these weapons of mass destruction elements are coming from? Will it disrupt, do you think, other activities? Could this push us further along those lines?
KIMBALL: Well I think officials from the White House are correct in saying that because they were able to interdict some materials going in to Libya here, they're going to have a much better handle on where the elicit sources of nuclear equipment are nuclear weapons, really, are. Chemical, biological, so I think this is something of a breakthrough, especially if Libya is a helpful and cooperative -- and I think it be will interesting to find out where this equipment was coming from. This could be a very sensitive political and diplomatic issue; because it's quite likely those sources are some of the United States friends and allies. Pakistan is one potential source, Russia, perhaps another.
FIRFER: All right, Daryl Kimball, we appreciate your time today. Thank you very much.
KIMBALL: 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
