Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Today
Debate Continues Regarding Post-Saddam Iraq
Aired February 27, 2003 - 11:11 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.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: Well, members of the U.N. Security Council are meeting behind closed doors at this hour. They're starting to hash out a possible new resolution on Iraq.
Presumably, the latest progress report from U.N. weapons inspectors will figure into their deliberations. Our senior diplomatic correspondent, Richard Roth, is covering those events for us at the United Nations -- Richard, hello.
RICHARD ROTH, CNN SENIOR U.N. CORRESPONDENT: As you mentioned, Daryn -- hello. Hans Blix's latest report, a written report, is going to be a quarterly summary. Diplomats who have seen it say there's a little bit in it for everyone, but Blix seems to be holding off, waiting to see if this weekend the Al-Samoud 2 missiles begin to be dismantled by Iraq.
Reports out of Baghdad say one Iraqi official indicating a letter will come to the Security Council saying Baghdad will comply. But none of this has been verified. Too early to tell if that, indeed, will start.
Blix's top deputy is in Baghdad to go over some of these aspects of the dismantling. What about the Security Council? Meeting is now underway. The U.S. has a tough job for now, though there's still time. Take a look at the vote tally board. If one was to assume a vote was taken today, which will not happen, the United States has four countries in favor of a resolution: the U.S. has United Kingdom, Spain and Bulgaria.
As -- the negative votes, if that's next, let's see what we have up here -- it could be France, Russia, China -- well, this is the middle six. They are on the fence -- Angola, China, Guinea, Cameroon, you three African nations -- Mexico leaning, according to some diplomats, to the U.S. view. Still a little early.
And then, of course, France, Russia, China, Syria are opposed. Russia, France, and China with veto power, though it is far from clear whether they intend to use it. The Security Council is going over today the proposed U.S. resolution with the United Kingdom. Ambassadors filing in this morning to discuss behind closed doors for the first time, after two days of meetings. Angola's United Nations ambassador says everybody wants unity, and everybody would like disarmament by Iraq.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ISMAEL GASPAR MARTINS, ANGOLAN AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: It is what we have been demanding. That's what we are looking forward to hearing. That's what we are looking forward to hearing Dr. Blix to come and report. Until now, there hasn't been. We have said it. It is not enough. We want more, clear, and unambiguous cooperation on the part of Iraq.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: And this is what you're going to hear from the middle six, those who are uncommitted. You're not going to hear someone come out as a diplomat, Daryn, and say this is what I want from the U.S. government to get my vote. This is always very subtle, behind closed doors, discussions taking place in various capitals around the world -- Daryn.
KAGAN: Meanwhile, Richard, some of these smaller countries find themselves the most popular people at the dance, don't they? People like Angola and Cameroon that perhaps would not have gotten such positive attention from the U.S. in the past?
ROTH: If you're an Angolan diplomat, you have to say, Where was everybody when our nation was being torn apart by 30 years of civil war?
Of course, it was too dangerous a situation for a lot of people to be involved, but the big powers, after fighting it out in '75 between the U.S. and Soviet Union, took a hands-off approach.
So, for many of these so-called minnows, the uncommitted, they're in the limelight now. They can enjoy it while they're at it, and they're going to get as much as they can from the U.S. or France while they're at it.
KAGAN: Richard Roth at the United Nations, thank you -- Leon.
LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: Well, as we were talking moments ago with John King at the White House, Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai, is scheduled to meet with President Bush at the White House any minute now.
There's going to be a chance for those two leaders to sit down and discuss reconstruction efforts which are underway in Afghanistan, and that could very well become the model for a post-Saddam Iraq.
CNN Iraq analyst, Kenneth Pollack, joins us now from Washington with his take on whether this sort of plan is feasible for those parts of the world -- Ken, good to see you again. Glad to have you with us this morning.
I know you're an expert more on the Iraq side of the equation here, but from what we know about what's going on in Afghanistan, are there lessons to be learned there about what could actually be applicable in Iraq with the reconstruction process?
KENNETH POLLACK, CNN IRAQ ANALYST: Well, I think there are, but we also have to be very, very careful about it, Leon. The fact of the matter is that Iraq and Afghanistan are very different countries, and in particular, some of the things that were possible to even conceive of in Afghanistan probably aren't in the case of Iraq.
Just to give you a perfect example: in the case of Iraq, you don't have that middle level of leadership. The Hamid Karzais, the Ismail Khans (ph), the Gulbuddin Hekmatyars (ph), before he was killed, the Ahmed Shah Massouds (ph). Those people don't exist in Iraq because Saddam has either killed them all or co-opted them into the regime. And so going to kind of a council system the way that we did in Afghanistan probably isn't possible in Iraq, because you don't have that level of figures.
HARRIS: And that's the reason why we're talking -- or we're hearing talk coming from Washington about there perhaps being an American military official, or whatever being set up to sort of be the provost there, correct?
POLLACK: Right, well -- in point of fact, it's really why everyone is talking about a much more ambitious program of reconstruction for Iraq and a much more ambitious program of political reconstruction, because you're going to need to build from the ground up in Iraq in a way that you may not have had to in Afghanistan. But I think you really touched on an important sore spot right now, which is this question of whether or not there's going to be an American in charge of the reconstruction, or some international figure. Right now that's a big source of debate.
HARRIS: Exactly what -- well, what are the options there? Because, as the way it looks right now, the U.S. is pretty much going to be the overwhelming force that is going to be on the ground there, and basically is bringing more of the expertise to the arena, correct? And would it make sense, therefore, to have an American figure at the top of the chain?
POLLACK: Well, you're certainly right, Leon, that we're going to be doing a lot of the heavy lifting for a long period of time after Saddam Hussein's fall, but the question is whether it should be something along the lines of what we did in Germany and Japan, where you have the United States in there, especially in the case of Japan, effectively by ourselves calling all the shots, an American general in charge. We decided what the form of the Japanese constitution should look like. We really ran the show there.
The alternative out there is to follow the model that we've been using over the last 10 or 15 years, where effectively the United Nations is in charge, and then the question would be, how much say does the United States have within a U.N.-led system? You know, Bosnia, the United Nations played a major role, really was in charge of things, but over the course of time, as we have dealt with other interventions in Kosovo and East Timor, that evolved a little bit, and now there's a model out there in East Timor where, while the U.N. was in charge, they had an umbrella over the operation, the Australians played a major role in the East Timor operation. Called a lot of the shots behind the scenes, and a lot of people have been suggesting that we could do something similar in Iraq with the United States, playing that kind of same strong backbone role that the Australians played in East Timor. HARRIS: But Ken, when you look at this administration's experience with the U.N., and the reluctance this administration showed at the very outset of going to the U.N. to begin with, is it really feasible to think that the U.N. and the U.S. actually could work together to work out some sort of arrangement like that?
POLLACK: Well, you're hitting the nail right on the head, Leon, which is that this administration has a great deal of distrust for the entire U.N. process, and even in the case of reconstruction, you have figures inside the administration who are saying the reconstruction of Iraq is just too important to be left to the U.N., and their conception is that the U.N. bureaucracy is deeply corrupt, is not terribly responsible, and is not very good at doing these kinds of things, and they point to Bosnia and say, Look, the U.N. really didn't do a very good job there.
On the other hand, in the case of Iraq, there are real strong arguments to go through a U.N. route. At least to have the U.N. running the show. Because, first, on the one hand, we need a lot of countries to support us in Iraq. We don't want to be paying for the entire reconstruction, having the U.N. in charge will help there. We need the non-government organizations, the NGOs to come in, because Iraq is such a big issue to reconstruct. We need their manpower, so it will be helpful to have the U.N. in charge there. And in addition, we also need to reassure both the Iraqis and the Arab world that the U.S. isn't just coming in to take over Iraq's oil and colonize the place.
HARRIS: I'm glad you touched on that, Ken, because we couldn't leave this discussion without talking about the oil. Because as you know, that is the point that is being used around the world to beat up the U.S. on this whole issue.
They're saying that's the only reason why the Bush administration wants to get in there. So would it be smart, then, for the administration to develop a plan where it's not just U.S. companies that are getting access to the oil? Say, perhaps, to pay off those, or at least to thank those countries that have joined this coalition, to allow them to have more access to the oil? Is that how you see it should happen -- or play out there?
POLLACK: Well, that's certainly one of the options, and I'd say that is absolutely the minimal option that we can come up with, is the United States should, at the very least, put together a consortium of international oil firms to handle the reconstruction of Iraq's oil, and then the export of Iraq's oil until you do have a new, stable Iraqi government.
But, at the other end of the spectrum, it is also entirely conceivable that you would put the operation under a U.N. umbrella, and then you would use the U.N. oil for food program, effectively, to run the reconstruction of Iraq's oil fields and the export of Iraqi oil, and go through a U.N. system. My guess is that that would be the best way, if you wanted to assure the rest of the world, the rest of the Arab world, that the U.S. wasn't in there just to take Iraq's oil and walk away, the best way would be to have it done under the U.N. system.
But if you're not willing to do that, at the very least I think we do have to put together some kind of international consortium to try to reassure people that we're not doing this just to get Halliburton and Mobil in there, and let them take all of Iraq's oil well.
HARRIS: CNN Iraq Analyst Ken Pollack, thank you very much. Appreciate the insight as always.
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 February 27, 2003 - 11:11 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: Well, members of the U.N. Security Council are meeting behind closed doors at this hour. They're starting to hash out a possible new resolution on Iraq.
Presumably, the latest progress report from U.N. weapons inspectors will figure into their deliberations. Our senior diplomatic correspondent, Richard Roth, is covering those events for us at the United Nations -- Richard, hello.
RICHARD ROTH, CNN SENIOR U.N. CORRESPONDENT: As you mentioned, Daryn -- hello. Hans Blix's latest report, a written report, is going to be a quarterly summary. Diplomats who have seen it say there's a little bit in it for everyone, but Blix seems to be holding off, waiting to see if this weekend the Al-Samoud 2 missiles begin to be dismantled by Iraq.
Reports out of Baghdad say one Iraqi official indicating a letter will come to the Security Council saying Baghdad will comply. But none of this has been verified. Too early to tell if that, indeed, will start.
Blix's top deputy is in Baghdad to go over some of these aspects of the dismantling. What about the Security Council? Meeting is now underway. The U.S. has a tough job for now, though there's still time. Take a look at the vote tally board. If one was to assume a vote was taken today, which will not happen, the United States has four countries in favor of a resolution: the U.S. has United Kingdom, Spain and Bulgaria.
As -- the negative votes, if that's next, let's see what we have up here -- it could be France, Russia, China -- well, this is the middle six. They are on the fence -- Angola, China, Guinea, Cameroon, you three African nations -- Mexico leaning, according to some diplomats, to the U.S. view. Still a little early.
And then, of course, France, Russia, China, Syria are opposed. Russia, France, and China with veto power, though it is far from clear whether they intend to use it. The Security Council is going over today the proposed U.S. resolution with the United Kingdom. Ambassadors filing in this morning to discuss behind closed doors for the first time, after two days of meetings. Angola's United Nations ambassador says everybody wants unity, and everybody would like disarmament by Iraq.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ISMAEL GASPAR MARTINS, ANGOLAN AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: It is what we have been demanding. That's what we are looking forward to hearing. That's what we are looking forward to hearing Dr. Blix to come and report. Until now, there hasn't been. We have said it. It is not enough. We want more, clear, and unambiguous cooperation on the part of Iraq.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: And this is what you're going to hear from the middle six, those who are uncommitted. You're not going to hear someone come out as a diplomat, Daryn, and say this is what I want from the U.S. government to get my vote. This is always very subtle, behind closed doors, discussions taking place in various capitals around the world -- Daryn.
KAGAN: Meanwhile, Richard, some of these smaller countries find themselves the most popular people at the dance, don't they? People like Angola and Cameroon that perhaps would not have gotten such positive attention from the U.S. in the past?
ROTH: If you're an Angolan diplomat, you have to say, Where was everybody when our nation was being torn apart by 30 years of civil war?
Of course, it was too dangerous a situation for a lot of people to be involved, but the big powers, after fighting it out in '75 between the U.S. and Soviet Union, took a hands-off approach.
So, for many of these so-called minnows, the uncommitted, they're in the limelight now. They can enjoy it while they're at it, and they're going to get as much as they can from the U.S. or France while they're at it.
KAGAN: Richard Roth at the United Nations, thank you -- Leon.
LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: Well, as we were talking moments ago with John King at the White House, Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai, is scheduled to meet with President Bush at the White House any minute now.
There's going to be a chance for those two leaders to sit down and discuss reconstruction efforts which are underway in Afghanistan, and that could very well become the model for a post-Saddam Iraq.
CNN Iraq analyst, Kenneth Pollack, joins us now from Washington with his take on whether this sort of plan is feasible for those parts of the world -- Ken, good to see you again. Glad to have you with us this morning.
I know you're an expert more on the Iraq side of the equation here, but from what we know about what's going on in Afghanistan, are there lessons to be learned there about what could actually be applicable in Iraq with the reconstruction process?
KENNETH POLLACK, CNN IRAQ ANALYST: Well, I think there are, but we also have to be very, very careful about it, Leon. The fact of the matter is that Iraq and Afghanistan are very different countries, and in particular, some of the things that were possible to even conceive of in Afghanistan probably aren't in the case of Iraq.
Just to give you a perfect example: in the case of Iraq, you don't have that middle level of leadership. The Hamid Karzais, the Ismail Khans (ph), the Gulbuddin Hekmatyars (ph), before he was killed, the Ahmed Shah Massouds (ph). Those people don't exist in Iraq because Saddam has either killed them all or co-opted them into the regime. And so going to kind of a council system the way that we did in Afghanistan probably isn't possible in Iraq, because you don't have that level of figures.
HARRIS: And that's the reason why we're talking -- or we're hearing talk coming from Washington about there perhaps being an American military official, or whatever being set up to sort of be the provost there, correct?
POLLACK: Right, well -- in point of fact, it's really why everyone is talking about a much more ambitious program of reconstruction for Iraq and a much more ambitious program of political reconstruction, because you're going to need to build from the ground up in Iraq in a way that you may not have had to in Afghanistan. But I think you really touched on an important sore spot right now, which is this question of whether or not there's going to be an American in charge of the reconstruction, or some international figure. Right now that's a big source of debate.
HARRIS: Exactly what -- well, what are the options there? Because, as the way it looks right now, the U.S. is pretty much going to be the overwhelming force that is going to be on the ground there, and basically is bringing more of the expertise to the arena, correct? And would it make sense, therefore, to have an American figure at the top of the chain?
POLLACK: Well, you're certainly right, Leon, that we're going to be doing a lot of the heavy lifting for a long period of time after Saddam Hussein's fall, but the question is whether it should be something along the lines of what we did in Germany and Japan, where you have the United States in there, especially in the case of Japan, effectively by ourselves calling all the shots, an American general in charge. We decided what the form of the Japanese constitution should look like. We really ran the show there.
The alternative out there is to follow the model that we've been using over the last 10 or 15 years, where effectively the United Nations is in charge, and then the question would be, how much say does the United States have within a U.N.-led system? You know, Bosnia, the United Nations played a major role, really was in charge of things, but over the course of time, as we have dealt with other interventions in Kosovo and East Timor, that evolved a little bit, and now there's a model out there in East Timor where, while the U.N. was in charge, they had an umbrella over the operation, the Australians played a major role in the East Timor operation. Called a lot of the shots behind the scenes, and a lot of people have been suggesting that we could do something similar in Iraq with the United States, playing that kind of same strong backbone role that the Australians played in East Timor. HARRIS: But Ken, when you look at this administration's experience with the U.N., and the reluctance this administration showed at the very outset of going to the U.N. to begin with, is it really feasible to think that the U.N. and the U.S. actually could work together to work out some sort of arrangement like that?
POLLACK: Well, you're hitting the nail right on the head, Leon, which is that this administration has a great deal of distrust for the entire U.N. process, and even in the case of reconstruction, you have figures inside the administration who are saying the reconstruction of Iraq is just too important to be left to the U.N., and their conception is that the U.N. bureaucracy is deeply corrupt, is not terribly responsible, and is not very good at doing these kinds of things, and they point to Bosnia and say, Look, the U.N. really didn't do a very good job there.
On the other hand, in the case of Iraq, there are real strong arguments to go through a U.N. route. At least to have the U.N. running the show. Because, first, on the one hand, we need a lot of countries to support us in Iraq. We don't want to be paying for the entire reconstruction, having the U.N. in charge will help there. We need the non-government organizations, the NGOs to come in, because Iraq is such a big issue to reconstruct. We need their manpower, so it will be helpful to have the U.N. in charge there. And in addition, we also need to reassure both the Iraqis and the Arab world that the U.S. isn't just coming in to take over Iraq's oil and colonize the place.
HARRIS: I'm glad you touched on that, Ken, because we couldn't leave this discussion without talking about the oil. Because as you know, that is the point that is being used around the world to beat up the U.S. on this whole issue.
They're saying that's the only reason why the Bush administration wants to get in there. So would it be smart, then, for the administration to develop a plan where it's not just U.S. companies that are getting access to the oil? Say, perhaps, to pay off those, or at least to thank those countries that have joined this coalition, to allow them to have more access to the oil? Is that how you see it should happen -- or play out there?
POLLACK: Well, that's certainly one of the options, and I'd say that is absolutely the minimal option that we can come up with, is the United States should, at the very least, put together a consortium of international oil firms to handle the reconstruction of Iraq's oil, and then the export of Iraq's oil until you do have a new, stable Iraqi government.
But, at the other end of the spectrum, it is also entirely conceivable that you would put the operation under a U.N. umbrella, and then you would use the U.N. oil for food program, effectively, to run the reconstruction of Iraq's oil fields and the export of Iraqi oil, and go through a U.N. system. My guess is that that would be the best way, if you wanted to assure the rest of the world, the rest of the Arab world, that the U.S. wasn't in there just to take Iraq's oil and walk away, the best way would be to have it done under the U.N. system.
But if you're not willing to do that, at the very least I think we do have to put together some kind of international consortium to try to reassure people that we're not doing this just to get Halliburton and Mobil in there, and let them take all of Iraq's oil well.
HARRIS: CNN Iraq Analyst Ken Pollack, thank you very much. Appreciate the insight as always.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
