Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Interview with Jon Wolfstahl

Aired September 03, 2002 - 07:13   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: I want to get back to the issue of Iraq on a Tuesday morning right now. Iraq now saying it's ready to work with the U.N.
An Iraqi official says Baghdad seeks a solution to the escalating crisis with the U.S. and to get U.N. weapons inspectors back into the country.

The deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, met with the U.N. secretary-general, Kofi Annan, this morning at a summit in South Africa. The two talked about what Iraq right now is calling a "comprehensive solution."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TARIQ AZIZ, IRAQI DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER: And I made it clear a couple of days ago, every question of so-called weapons of mass destruction as a genuine concern by the United States. This matter could be dealt with reasonably and equitably.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HEMMER: The proposal, first raised yesterday, was rejected by the Bush administration, who believes Saddam Hussein is stockpiling chemical and biological weapons. Some weapons experts agree with that assessment.

And Jon Wolfstahl, analyst with the Carnegie Non-Proliferation Project, is live this morning in D.C. with us.

Jon, good morning to you.

JON WOLFSTAHL, CARNEGIE NON-PROLIFERATION PROJECT: Good morning, Bill.

HEMMER: We want to know what you think...

WOLFSTAHL: Well...

HEMMER: ... about the stockpiling of weapons. Your assessment is what?

WOLFSTAHL: Well, there is clear evidence that Saddam Hussein was left with a basic capability to produce both chemical and biological weapons after they kicked the inspectors out, the U.N. inspectors, in 1998. And there's a lot of evidence that suggests he has been continuing to build his capability since that time. The larger questions are in the area of nuclear weapons, where we don't have a lot of evidence, and there isn't a lot of clear information about whether or not he has nuclear weapons, or the assessment is that he doesn't, and he's a number of years away from getting one. But it's something that the leaders have to be concerned about.

HEMMER: So, Jon, how urgent is it, then? Do you push for weapons inspectors to, you know, scour the country of Iraq? Or do you follow the advice of the vice president, who says, don't wait until he has this nuclear capability, take it out now?

WOLFSTAHL: Well, I think it's important to remember that after the Gulf War, we discovered that Saddam Hussein had a lot more in the areas of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons' research and facilities than we knew. And it was the inspectors, not the bombing campaign, that eliminated that capability.

And so, I think there's a lot of good support and a lot of reason to get the inspectors back in, because even if you decide to go for a military campaign, you're still going to need to go in afterwards with inspectors and find whatever is there.

HEMMER: You know, Jon, this is such a complicated matter, and I think we're seeing it again today in South Africa. When you listen to the words of Tariq Aziz today, knowing Kofi Annan is there in South Africa, to me, it sounds a whole lot like 1998.

Remember the big push to get weapons inspectors back on the ground in Baghdad? Kofi Annan made a trip to the Iraqi capital to make sure it went through. Read between the lines here. The diplomatic dance is well underway. Would you not agree?

WOLFSTAHL: Oh, I agree, and you know, I think this is one area where the president has it exactly right.

Saddam Hussein and Tariq Aziz have no credibility on this issue. There is an U.N. Security Council resolution that requires them, and has required them since 1991, to accept inspectors anytime, anywhere, without debate or discussion. And time after time, they have refused that.

So I have no problem with the administration wanting to enforce the Security Council resolutions and allow inspectors back in. And that's why I think a lot of people that are concerned about this, what appears to be this push towards military action, they don't see the path going through the U.N., through the Security Council resolutions or through a basis in international law.

HEMMER: And you've got to wonder which way it goes, Jon. And you said it yourself, no credibility from Tariq Aziz or Saddam Hussein. If that is, indeed, the case, and you believe it, because you just said it, what do you do?

WOLFSTAHL: Well, I would argue that the Bush administration needs to start building international support the way George Bush's father did. And it's clear, if you listen to any of our allies, whether it's France, Germany or our allies in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, they want this process to go through the U.N. and through the international legal process.

And just as in the states, if you find that somebody who is plotting to kill you, you don't have the right to pick up a gun and shoot them. You go to the police, you go through the legal process, and you deal with it that way. And I think that's the path that has a lot more prospect for success.

HEMMER: One more thought here, Jon. If, indeed, the U.S. were to act unilaterally, what's the impact in the Arab world, what's the impact on Osama bin Laden and that continued hunt, the war on terror? Have you been able to assess that?

WOLFSTAHL: We have. And this is really one of the most amazing aspects. Saddam Hussein -- excuse me -- Osama bin Laden, if you listen to his own rhetoric, was trying to create a clash of cultures between the Islamic world, the Arab street and the West, and he failed on September 11 despite his best efforts.

But George Bush, if he goes and attacks Iraq without the basis of international law, and without any allies in the region, it could potentially hand Osama bin Laden that victory that he sought. He could bring the Arab street into play, and really galvanize anti- American opinion and anti-moderate opinion in the region as a whole.

HEMMER: Unless Baghdad collapses in 12 hours, which some people say is a possibility.

WOLFSTAHL: Even then, I think there is concern, because it's not just a question of Iraq. We also have to be concerned about what effect our policy has in the long run against moderate regimes, like Egypt, where there is a huge, seething young Arab population that is very anti-West, or in other states, where we'd like to see progress, like Iran. A U.S. unilateral military action in Iraq is only going to increase the fear and the paranoia in those states and I think work against us in the long run.

HEMMER: Thank you, Jon. Good conversation.

WOLFSTAHL: Thank you.

HEMMER: Jon Wolfstahl from D.C. this morning.

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