Return to Transcripts main page

Live From...

Analysis of Diplomatic Process at U.N.

Aired March 14, 2003 - 15:02   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: When the White House said the U.S. was going to enormous lengths to win U.N. support for disarming Iraq, it apparently meant that quite literally. President Bush heads Sunday to a summit in the Azores Islands with the two other sponsors of a U.N. ultimatum that's languishing in diplomatic limbo right now.
A compromised (UNINTELLIGIBLE) by Britain has apparently flopped. A new one today by Chile is dubbed as a non-starter by Washington. And all this brings to us CNN's senior U.N. correspondent Richard Roth. Richard, when we last we spoke, you said it just gets more complicated by the day. Shed some light on it. Make it simple for us, if you can.

RICHARD ROTH, CNN SENIOR U.N. CORRESPONDENT: Well that's why I've come outside to get away from the haze of smoke and documents inside the United Nations headquarters you see behind me. And I'm joined by a panel of U.N. correspondents who are experts, spending years here, trying to go through this.

Let me ask first, Philippe Bolopion of Radio France Internationale, where does the diplomatic process stand now? Very briefly.

PHILIPPE BOLOPION, RADIO FRANCE INTL.: I think it's very stuck. I think it's not going anywhere. All the proposals we are seeing coming around through the last week have been killed right away by the diplomats. I think there's simply no room for compromise. I think there is a program of (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that cannot be solved with benchmarks or anything else.

There's a real military (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that didn't allow the U.S. or the U.K. to give more time for to the inspections which was what the rest of the Security Council wants and...

ROTH: Inside the United Nations headquarters, James Bone (ph) of "The Times of London." James, British Prime Minister Blair will be there in the Azores Islands. Will that achieve anything that will help this diplomatic route?

JAMES BONE, "THE TIMES OF LONDON": Richard, the diplomatic show is over and the fat ladies are going to Azores to sing.

ROTH: Well, they've got some room there. It will be peace and tranquillity.

Maggie Farley of "The Los Angeles Times", is diplomacy dead as James predicts?

MAGGIE FARLEY, "THE LOS ANGELES TIMES": Well it's not peaceful here. It's an atmosphere of desperation, but most of all resignation. The Chileans and Mexicans have done their best to present the world with something that might bring peace, but it's already been rejected. They're going to continue talking throughout the weekend. But I think that the trip to the Azores might be the final note.

ROTH: Philippe, why does France oppose anything that is offered now, it seems?

BOLOPION: Well, they wouldn't oppose anything if the calendar was different. I think they would be ready to work with what we have been calling benchmarks, tests for Saddam Hussein to pass to avoid a war.

If you had given the inspectors at least one months and a half, two months, I think the French could have worked around something like that. But we know that during the last week we've been talking of a delays of days, never more. And I think because the U.S. was not able to give more time to the U.K., the diplomatic process was doomed to fail from the beginning.

(CROSSTALK)

BONE: Sergey Lavrov, the Russian ambassador says it very well. He says the two positions are war and no war, and there's no compromise between them.

The British, in their latest draft, basically were willing to give away the store. They were ask for a resolution that had no deadline in and the deadline will be put in a non-legally binding side statement by national governments whose supported the war.

The French weren't even willing to accept that. The French, and their allies on the council, are not even willing now to accept a restatement of last November's Resolution 1441. They admitted, President Chirac himself, Iraq was not cooperating. That should be a violation of Resolution 1441, but everybody on that side of the argument is saying, well, that doesn't matter that they're violating 1441. The question is we don't want to go to war over it.

BOLOPION: James, that was a big trick. I mean, the Mexican ambassador, I think, said it in the Security Council. He said, we know exactly what we're talking here.

I think that even farmers in the most remote part of China knew what the Security Council was talking about today. It was not about a package of (UNINTELLIGIBLE) resolution with a side statement with some deadlines.

It was a talk about war or peace in Iraq. Everybody knew it. And the U.K. couldn't come up with some complicated tricks, diplomatic tricks to have everybody involved.

(CROSSTALK) BONE: As I said, the British (UNINTELLIGIBLE) but the fundamental problem is, the question of war and peace.

ROTH: Maggie Farley, everybody remembers the Security Council in 1990. James Baker of the United States. There was a lot of peace and harmony except for Yemen and Cuba who didn't have vetoes at the time. What's happened to the Security Council?

FARLEY: And China abstained, remember. What happened to the Security Council? Nothing, they're still here. And what will happen to the Security Council? It's a question of war and peace for them too.

But the fact is the Security Council is still going to be important. The United Nations is still going to be important because they have to rebuild Iraq, even if the process to stop war has failed.

(CROSSTALK)

ROTH: Go ahead.

BOLOPION: I think what's happened is the diplomatic process was a total failure. I think the administration couldn't...

(CROSSTALK)

BOLOPION: The Bush administration couldn't manage with the old process. They've been trying to spin the story around claiming from the beginning that we'd have that nine votes, which they never had. They've been trying to bully the whole world around their position and they just discover that people don't like to be bullied around.

(CROSSTALK)

BOLOPION: People didn't like the whole (UNINTELLIGIBLE) of that negotiation. And at some point they said no, you cannot buy our vote. You cannot force us to vote for that war because we don't think it's a war that should happen. And I think it's a very big lesson for the Bush administration.

BONE: The problem with the diplomatic approach of the British and the Americans is, they fought this battle already last autumn. They won this battle when they got Resolution 1441. The Americans wanted one resolution, the French wanted tow resolutions, the deal was one resolution and a meeting.

And then the British came back and sought a second resolution, which is exactly what the French wanted. That was a massive blunder and got them into all kinds of trouble.

Now, Richard, what's going to happen at the U.N.? A lot of U.N. officials are exultant. The U.N.'s been (UNINTELLIGIBLE) activity. Foreign ministers come here every other week, they're already planning a kiss and make up of ....

(CROSSTALK) ROTH: We've got to end this. I don't know if we resolved anything. I hope we provided clarity with three United Nations-based correspondents, experts in the field.

Miles, back to you.

O'BRIEN: It's interesting how it mirrors the debate of the ambassadors that they cover. Anyway, I guess that's no surprise to you, Richard Roth at the United Nations. Thanks 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 14, 2003 - 15:02   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: When the White House said the U.S. was going to enormous lengths to win U.N. support for disarming Iraq, it apparently meant that quite literally. President Bush heads Sunday to a summit in the Azores Islands with the two other sponsors of a U.N. ultimatum that's languishing in diplomatic limbo right now.
A compromised (UNINTELLIGIBLE) by Britain has apparently flopped. A new one today by Chile is dubbed as a non-starter by Washington. And all this brings to us CNN's senior U.N. correspondent Richard Roth. Richard, when we last we spoke, you said it just gets more complicated by the day. Shed some light on it. Make it simple for us, if you can.

RICHARD ROTH, CNN SENIOR U.N. CORRESPONDENT: Well that's why I've come outside to get away from the haze of smoke and documents inside the United Nations headquarters you see behind me. And I'm joined by a panel of U.N. correspondents who are experts, spending years here, trying to go through this.

Let me ask first, Philippe Bolopion of Radio France Internationale, where does the diplomatic process stand now? Very briefly.

PHILIPPE BOLOPION, RADIO FRANCE INTL.: I think it's very stuck. I think it's not going anywhere. All the proposals we are seeing coming around through the last week have been killed right away by the diplomats. I think there's simply no room for compromise. I think there is a program of (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that cannot be solved with benchmarks or anything else.

There's a real military (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that didn't allow the U.S. or the U.K. to give more time for to the inspections which was what the rest of the Security Council wants and...

ROTH: Inside the United Nations headquarters, James Bone (ph) of "The Times of London." James, British Prime Minister Blair will be there in the Azores Islands. Will that achieve anything that will help this diplomatic route?

JAMES BONE, "THE TIMES OF LONDON": Richard, the diplomatic show is over and the fat ladies are going to Azores to sing.

ROTH: Well, they've got some room there. It will be peace and tranquillity.

Maggie Farley of "The Los Angeles Times", is diplomacy dead as James predicts?

MAGGIE FARLEY, "THE LOS ANGELES TIMES": Well it's not peaceful here. It's an atmosphere of desperation, but most of all resignation. The Chileans and Mexicans have done their best to present the world with something that might bring peace, but it's already been rejected. They're going to continue talking throughout the weekend. But I think that the trip to the Azores might be the final note.

ROTH: Philippe, why does France oppose anything that is offered now, it seems?

BOLOPION: Well, they wouldn't oppose anything if the calendar was different. I think they would be ready to work with what we have been calling benchmarks, tests for Saddam Hussein to pass to avoid a war.

If you had given the inspectors at least one months and a half, two months, I think the French could have worked around something like that. But we know that during the last week we've been talking of a delays of days, never more. And I think because the U.S. was not able to give more time to the U.K., the diplomatic process was doomed to fail from the beginning.

(CROSSTALK)

BONE: Sergey Lavrov, the Russian ambassador says it very well. He says the two positions are war and no war, and there's no compromise between them.

The British, in their latest draft, basically were willing to give away the store. They were ask for a resolution that had no deadline in and the deadline will be put in a non-legally binding side statement by national governments whose supported the war.

The French weren't even willing to accept that. The French, and their allies on the council, are not even willing now to accept a restatement of last November's Resolution 1441. They admitted, President Chirac himself, Iraq was not cooperating. That should be a violation of Resolution 1441, but everybody on that side of the argument is saying, well, that doesn't matter that they're violating 1441. The question is we don't want to go to war over it.

BOLOPION: James, that was a big trick. I mean, the Mexican ambassador, I think, said it in the Security Council. He said, we know exactly what we're talking here.

I think that even farmers in the most remote part of China knew what the Security Council was talking about today. It was not about a package of (UNINTELLIGIBLE) resolution with a side statement with some deadlines.

It was a talk about war or peace in Iraq. Everybody knew it. And the U.K. couldn't come up with some complicated tricks, diplomatic tricks to have everybody involved.

(CROSSTALK) BONE: As I said, the British (UNINTELLIGIBLE) but the fundamental problem is, the question of war and peace.

ROTH: Maggie Farley, everybody remembers the Security Council in 1990. James Baker of the United States. There was a lot of peace and harmony except for Yemen and Cuba who didn't have vetoes at the time. What's happened to the Security Council?

FARLEY: And China abstained, remember. What happened to the Security Council? Nothing, they're still here. And what will happen to the Security Council? It's a question of war and peace for them too.

But the fact is the Security Council is still going to be important. The United Nations is still going to be important because they have to rebuild Iraq, even if the process to stop war has failed.

(CROSSTALK)

ROTH: Go ahead.

BOLOPION: I think what's happened is the diplomatic process was a total failure. I think the administration couldn't...

(CROSSTALK)

BOLOPION: The Bush administration couldn't manage with the old process. They've been trying to spin the story around claiming from the beginning that we'd have that nine votes, which they never had. They've been trying to bully the whole world around their position and they just discover that people don't like to be bullied around.

(CROSSTALK)

BOLOPION: People didn't like the whole (UNINTELLIGIBLE) of that negotiation. And at some point they said no, you cannot buy our vote. You cannot force us to vote for that war because we don't think it's a war that should happen. And I think it's a very big lesson for the Bush administration.

BONE: The problem with the diplomatic approach of the British and the Americans is, they fought this battle already last autumn. They won this battle when they got Resolution 1441. The Americans wanted one resolution, the French wanted tow resolutions, the deal was one resolution and a meeting.

And then the British came back and sought a second resolution, which is exactly what the French wanted. That was a massive blunder and got them into all kinds of trouble.

Now, Richard, what's going to happen at the U.N.? A lot of U.N. officials are exultant. The U.N.'s been (UNINTELLIGIBLE) activity. Foreign ministers come here every other week, they're already planning a kiss and make up of ....

(CROSSTALK) ROTH: We've got to end this. I don't know if we resolved anything. I hope we provided clarity with three United Nations-based correspondents, experts in the field.

Miles, back to you.

O'BRIEN: It's interesting how it mirrors the debate of the ambassadors that they cover. Anyway, I guess that's no surprise to you, Richard Roth at the United Nations. Thanks 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