Return to Transcripts main page

Live From...

Bush Administration Holds Important Meeting Tomorrow

Aired March 04, 2003 - 14:02   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.


MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: We begin this hour with the buildup to a mighty confrontation, one that still, at least theoretically, can be avoided. It's not a new war in Iraq, but the Bush administration's bid for a U.N. Security Council vote within days of Hans Blix's briefing on Friday.
An unnamed diplomat calls the U.S. campaign mean, frantic, and muscular. And it may be for naught if the draft resolution vaguely authorizing war seems doomed.

CNN's Richard Roth live from U.N. headquarters with the latest, where he says it's about 6:00 on the diplomatic clock -- Richard.

RICHARD ROTH, CNN SENIOR U.N. CORRESPONDENT: Well, maybe closer. I'm using European time, so I can swing either way. And still swinging, six undecided members of the Security Council, though they may very well have cast their votes with either side, but they are just not publicizing it at the moment.

The United States needs nine votes in favor for a resolution on Iraq, a resolution which is an implicit authorization for war.

If anyone vetoes, that resolution would not pass. U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Negroponte said today he will cross that bridge when he comes to it whether -- what the U.S. would do if it was facing a veto threat.

The Russian government has said everything but that it plans to veto, but many times countries are posturing and stating various bargaining positions in public, and then they do the opposite should the vote come to pass. Russian President Putin praising the Turkish parliament, or noting it for an important development when it turned down, in effect, the option for U.S. troops in Turkey. That still could be revisited, that issue.

Foreign minister Igor Ivanov has also said that abstention would not be the proper position, and that no country should attack militarily on their own without United Nations approval. Both the foreign minister of Russia and Britain addressed the resolution dilemma today in a press conference.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JACK STRAW, BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY: There are some outstanding questions about how we achieve this overall objective -- but I believe that if we maintain intensive dialogue of the kind that we've been having, then it may be possible to resolve those outstanding questions in a satisfactory manner.

IGOR IVANOV, RUSSIAN FOREIGN SECRETARY (through translator): I guess some of you may ask me a question today, if Russia is going to use its veto right. I can tell you, frankly, that we actually never discussed this issue today.

When it comes to the vote, each state is entitled to make a decision on its own.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROTH: Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov may very well come here, as well as the French foreign minister, the German foreign minister on Friday when Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector, holds a key significant updated briefing.

Whether it's his last briefing, still to be seen. It's an update on a briefing which he said that Iraq has not really been cooperating to the fullest extent, that it was rather limited, but he is expected now to praise Iraq's dismantling of some of those Al Samoud 2 missiles.

The French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, will be on hand. Some expect, possibly, some verbal fireworks over the right to use military force against Iraq. That's what happened last time following a Blix briefing. The U.S. would rather keep those types of debates and discussions behind closed doors -- Miles.

O'BRIEN: Richard, is there much hall talk at the United Nations about what happens if the U.S. does, in fact, go it alone, in spite of even a veto by the Security Council?

ROTH: Well, some diplomats say it's not very good for the United Nations. Today, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said if the United States or others went alone, it would neither enhance or diminish the United Nations or the Security Council, and he said it would not bring about a collapse similar to the League of Nations in the 1930s.

However, there is extreme worry about the U.S. going alone without international legitimacy. It sets up all kinds of precedents for other countries perhaps wanting to do something on their own. But the U.S. says look at the last resolution, 1441. It threatened Iraq with serious consequences. It said it was in material breach, and everyone on the council, including Syria, came on board.

O'BRIEN: All right. Richard Roth at the United Nations. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Let's go to the White House where officials maintain it's too soon to say whether the U.S. will opt to forsake the U.N. for a much smaller group known as the "coalition of the willing."

CNN White House Correspondent Suzanne Malveaux has more on that with us -- joining us from the North Lawn of the White House -- hello, Suzanne. SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, hi, Miles. The Bush administration is definitely pushing for that second resolution. President Bush earlier today before the American Medical Association making it very clear that he wants the support of the international community, but at the same time, that the United States does not need it. The president really hoping to get that kind of support, but administration officials say they hope that vote comes as early as, perhaps, Monday or Tuesday.

If they don't have the support, administration officials say they may withdraw the resolution and simply go it without the U.N. Security Council. That is not the preferred option.

But, of course, diplomacy continues. They are still trying to get that kind of support. It was just yesterday Secretary of State Powell met rather quietly with the foreign minister of Mexico. Today, he made himself available to journalists from many different countries, and the U.N. Security Council. The administration making it very clear, however, that time is running out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The first war of the 21st century requires the United States to work with international bodies to deal with these threats, and we will continue to do so.

I went to the United Nations to remind them that that body has a responsibility to make sure its words mean something. I reminded them that for 12 long years, the United Nations has asked Saddam to disarm because he's dangerous.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: Now, tomorrow, there will be a very important meeting taking place at the White House. The National Security Council, 9:00 tomorrow. General Tommy Franks, head of U.S. command, Central Command, will be here meeting with the president.

We are told that part of the discussion will be possibly whether or not they will offer an ultimatum, give an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, a list of requirements that he needs to comply, and a deadline. This would signal not only to Saddam Hussein but also would serve to signal those journalists as well as Iraqi citizens, diplomats, and inspectors that perhaps they have as little as 72 hours to get out of the country to be aware of what may take place next -- Miles.

O'BRIEN: All right. Just to be clear then, Suzanne, this would be a unilateral deadline set by the administration, correct?

MALVEAUX: Well, that's right. And also the administration. However, they don't like to call it unilateral. What they say is, that yes, we're dealing with a coalition here. That their allies, at least several dozen countries that are with us, but they say they could do it without the U.N. Security Council, that they'll do it with what they like to call their friends and allies, a coalition of the willing. But this would set a time table, a deadline for Saddam Hussein to comply, and would send a very strong signal to those on the ground that something would be imminent.

O'BRIEN: But truly a fork in the road for the administration and the U.N.?

MALVEAUX: Well, absolutely, and the Bush administration really has to determine this week whether or not they feel they have the kind of support from the U.N. Security Council to push for that second resolution. But the president has been very clear, and it seems it is getting much, much closer to making that decision, that he may have to do it without them.

CNN's Suzanne Malveaux at the White House. Thank you very much.

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 4, 2003 - 14:02   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: We begin this hour with the buildup to a mighty confrontation, one that still, at least theoretically, can be avoided. It's not a new war in Iraq, but the Bush administration's bid for a U.N. Security Council vote within days of Hans Blix's briefing on Friday.
An unnamed diplomat calls the U.S. campaign mean, frantic, and muscular. And it may be for naught if the draft resolution vaguely authorizing war seems doomed.

CNN's Richard Roth live from U.N. headquarters with the latest, where he says it's about 6:00 on the diplomatic clock -- Richard.

RICHARD ROTH, CNN SENIOR U.N. CORRESPONDENT: Well, maybe closer. I'm using European time, so I can swing either way. And still swinging, six undecided members of the Security Council, though they may very well have cast their votes with either side, but they are just not publicizing it at the moment.

The United States needs nine votes in favor for a resolution on Iraq, a resolution which is an implicit authorization for war.

If anyone vetoes, that resolution would not pass. U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Negroponte said today he will cross that bridge when he comes to it whether -- what the U.S. would do if it was facing a veto threat.

The Russian government has said everything but that it plans to veto, but many times countries are posturing and stating various bargaining positions in public, and then they do the opposite should the vote come to pass. Russian President Putin praising the Turkish parliament, or noting it for an important development when it turned down, in effect, the option for U.S. troops in Turkey. That still could be revisited, that issue.

Foreign minister Igor Ivanov has also said that abstention would not be the proper position, and that no country should attack militarily on their own without United Nations approval. Both the foreign minister of Russia and Britain addressed the resolution dilemma today in a press conference.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JACK STRAW, BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY: There are some outstanding questions about how we achieve this overall objective -- but I believe that if we maintain intensive dialogue of the kind that we've been having, then it may be possible to resolve those outstanding questions in a satisfactory manner.

IGOR IVANOV, RUSSIAN FOREIGN SECRETARY (through translator): I guess some of you may ask me a question today, if Russia is going to use its veto right. I can tell you, frankly, that we actually never discussed this issue today.

When it comes to the vote, each state is entitled to make a decision on its own.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROTH: Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov may very well come here, as well as the French foreign minister, the German foreign minister on Friday when Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector, holds a key significant updated briefing.

Whether it's his last briefing, still to be seen. It's an update on a briefing which he said that Iraq has not really been cooperating to the fullest extent, that it was rather limited, but he is expected now to praise Iraq's dismantling of some of those Al Samoud 2 missiles.

The French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, will be on hand. Some expect, possibly, some verbal fireworks over the right to use military force against Iraq. That's what happened last time following a Blix briefing. The U.S. would rather keep those types of debates and discussions behind closed doors -- Miles.

O'BRIEN: Richard, is there much hall talk at the United Nations about what happens if the U.S. does, in fact, go it alone, in spite of even a veto by the Security Council?

ROTH: Well, some diplomats say it's not very good for the United Nations. Today, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said if the United States or others went alone, it would neither enhance or diminish the United Nations or the Security Council, and he said it would not bring about a collapse similar to the League of Nations in the 1930s.

However, there is extreme worry about the U.S. going alone without international legitimacy. It sets up all kinds of precedents for other countries perhaps wanting to do something on their own. But the U.S. says look at the last resolution, 1441. It threatened Iraq with serious consequences. It said it was in material breach, and everyone on the council, including Syria, came on board.

O'BRIEN: All right. Richard Roth at the United Nations. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Let's go to the White House where officials maintain it's too soon to say whether the U.S. will opt to forsake the U.N. for a much smaller group known as the "coalition of the willing."

CNN White House Correspondent Suzanne Malveaux has more on that with us -- joining us from the North Lawn of the White House -- hello, Suzanne. SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, hi, Miles. The Bush administration is definitely pushing for that second resolution. President Bush earlier today before the American Medical Association making it very clear that he wants the support of the international community, but at the same time, that the United States does not need it. The president really hoping to get that kind of support, but administration officials say they hope that vote comes as early as, perhaps, Monday or Tuesday.

If they don't have the support, administration officials say they may withdraw the resolution and simply go it without the U.N. Security Council. That is not the preferred option.

But, of course, diplomacy continues. They are still trying to get that kind of support. It was just yesterday Secretary of State Powell met rather quietly with the foreign minister of Mexico. Today, he made himself available to journalists from many different countries, and the U.N. Security Council. The administration making it very clear, however, that time is running out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The first war of the 21st century requires the United States to work with international bodies to deal with these threats, and we will continue to do so.

I went to the United Nations to remind them that that body has a responsibility to make sure its words mean something. I reminded them that for 12 long years, the United Nations has asked Saddam to disarm because he's dangerous.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: Now, tomorrow, there will be a very important meeting taking place at the White House. The National Security Council, 9:00 tomorrow. General Tommy Franks, head of U.S. command, Central Command, will be here meeting with the president.

We are told that part of the discussion will be possibly whether or not they will offer an ultimatum, give an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, a list of requirements that he needs to comply, and a deadline. This would signal not only to Saddam Hussein but also would serve to signal those journalists as well as Iraqi citizens, diplomats, and inspectors that perhaps they have as little as 72 hours to get out of the country to be aware of what may take place next -- Miles.

O'BRIEN: All right. Just to be clear then, Suzanne, this would be a unilateral deadline set by the administration, correct?

MALVEAUX: Well, that's right. And also the administration. However, they don't like to call it unilateral. What they say is, that yes, we're dealing with a coalition here. That their allies, at least several dozen countries that are with us, but they say they could do it without the U.N. Security Council, that they'll do it with what they like to call their friends and allies, a coalition of the willing. But this would set a time table, a deadline for Saddam Hussein to comply, and would send a very strong signal to those on the ground that something would be imminent.

O'BRIEN: But truly a fork in the road for the administration and the U.N.?

MALVEAUX: Well, absolutely, and the Bush administration really has to determine this week whether or not they feel they have the kind of support from the U.N. Security Council to push for that second resolution. But the president has been very clear, and it seems it is getting much, much closer to making that decision, that he may have to do it without them.

CNN's Suzanne Malveaux at the White House. Thank you very much.

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