Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski

Aired November 08, 2002 - 09:06   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: A crucial United Nations meeting gets underway in less than an hour from right now. It is expected to lead to passage of the U.S. resolution that would put weapons inspectors back into Iraq or else.
Our senior White House correspondent John King joins us now with the latest -- John, good morning.

JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Good morning to you, Daryn.

The Bush administration already making plans for the president to speak after today's vote. The White House quite confident the resolution, the new compromised resolution, will pass with overwhelming support.

Syria, perhaps abstaining, the White House says, all other members of the Security Council expected to vote in favor of this resolution, which gives Saddam Hussein one week, seven days, to say yes or no to the question of whether he will allow new weapons inspectors back into Iraq.

Other items in that agenda as well in the resolution, including the term "serious consequences" if there is any interference with those inspections, and if Iraq does not keep its other commitments to the United Nations.

Mr. Bush had to make compromises to get this resolution. He believes now, though, he will get what he wanted most, strong international support for standing up to Saddam Hussein.

The president served notice yesterday that he wants the inspectors to go back in, but he also had some very tough language to this prospect. If there is any interference with the inspectors at all, this is what Mr. Bush says comes next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Should we have to use troops, should it become a necessity in order to disarm him, the United States, with friends, will move swiftly, with force, to do the job. You don't have to worry about that. We will do -- we will do -- we will do what it takes militarily to succeed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: To win over France and others, the United States did commit to wait until the inspectors reported back to the Security Council on any interference by Iraq, but the White House says it is OK with that step. What the White House says it will not accept is that it will not wait if the debate bogs down for a subsequent Security Council authorization of force.

The White House says the president would have the authority to do that on his own. Again, this compromise struck after weeks of sometimes very frustrating diplomacy. The administration expects that vote later this morning, and we are expecting to hear from the president later today after the Security Council goes on the record -- Daryn.

KAGAN: John, real quickly, what can you tell me about this dinner that the president had, trying to show that he's not angry at Muslims, rather at Saddam Hussein?

KING: For the second year in a row, Mr. Bush had what is called an Iftar dinner during the holy month of Ramadan. Muslims fast during the day, they break that fast with a dinner at night.

Mr. Bush having another one here at the White House last night, saying that he wanted to thank Muslim Americans, he wanted to thank Muslims around the world for joining the United States in the war against terrorism, the president wanting to reiterate the point he has made consistently since September 11, 2001, that yes, he is waging a war against global terrorism, Mr. Bush said it should in no way be interpreted as a war against the Islam -- the Muslim faith.

KAGAN: John King at the White House. John, thank you -- Bill.

BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Daryn, if, as expected, this resolution passes the U.N. Security Council, will it help or hurt U.S. efforts to try and disarm Saddam Hussein? Let's talk about that from Washington this morning.

Former national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski is our guest now -- sir, good to see you again. Good morning to you.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Good to see you.

HEMMER: Is the U.S., at this point, headed for war?

BRZEZINSKI: No, not necessarily. It depends really on two things. One, will Saddam comply, and there are three dates we have to think about in regards to that.

One is within a week, that is to say, does he accept the U.N. resolution.

One is within a month, which would then roughly make December 15, will he give us a comprehensive and accurate report of what kind of weaponry he has, and then March 1, which is the time by which the inspections are to be completed, full report filed, and the U.N. decides whether he is complying or, in fact, refusing to comply with the requirement for disamrament. So that gives Saddam, so to speak, three dates during which he can either say yes or no, or try to obstruct.

HEMMER: In your -- sorry.

BRZEZINSKI: At our end, we have to be willing to take yes for an answer, because the U.N. resolution also implies that if he disarms, sanctions might be lifted, and that is going to be a hard pill to swallow.

HEMMER: Does then -- does Saddam Hussein, in your estimation, comply?

BRZEZINSKI: I think he has to make a choice between dying quickly right now, or taking a chance in surviving even with massive inspections. My guess is that since he's a survivor, he'll take the second choice.

HEMMER: Is it good enough, for those who are ultimately making these decisions about military action, is it good enough for them to get an Iraq that complies, at least on the surface, as best as inspectors can ascertain, or is this a different issue, does Saddam Hussein have to leave?

BRZEZINSKI: I think September 12, the day on which the president addressed the U.N., was the day in which that issue was resolved within the U.S. government.

There is an element in the U.S. government that would like to see Saddam go no matter what, but the U.N. decision, which involves the United States, and which is based on the U.S. sponsored resolution, clearly indicates that if Saddam complies, the U.N. and the United States, therefore, is prepared to go along with that.

HEMMER: Part of this resolution apparently spells out when Iraq would be in violation, essentially, of the new inspections on the ground. The inspectors themselves, it's my understanding, have the right to make that call. What triggers a violation, based on your understanding of this new resolution?

BRZEZINSKI: What triggers a violation is a report by the inspection team, by Ambassador Blix, to the Security Council, reporting noncompliance or obstruction.

Then the Security Council has to make a judgment, but the United States has indicated that it reserves the right to take independent action in the event that the report is negative. It doesn't, however, give the United States the right to decide where that report is.

HEMMER: Say there is one shack in one corner of one presidential palace somewhere in the country of Iraq, and Saddam Hussein's men on the ground say, No, you cannot open that door. Is that a violation?

BRZEZINSKI: That is a violation. Now, whether that is a violation that justifies triggering a war is a judgment that will have to be made. But you don't want to start opening the doors to violations. I think this resolution is comprehensive, and it makes it very clear that there must be no obstructions. But I repeat, it also means that we cannot then engage in actions designed to overthrow him, and we have to be prepared, at some point, to lift sanctions.

HEMMER: Only about 15 seconds left here, though. When this resolution passes, in the words of the president yesterday, he used the word "when," thinking it's already a done conclusion, it may be, for that matter, but when it passes, does the U.S. position, is it strengthened globally, because, indeed, it has the agreement of the U.N. Security Council?

BRZEZINSKI: Oh, absolutely. And we have, I think, to thank also the British and the French both for helping us out, because otherwise, we would have been embarked on a unilateral and solidarity war, and that would have been extremely costly, in fact, potentially very dangerous.

HEMMER: Thanks for talking again. Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security adviser in D.C.

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 November 8, 2002 - 09:06   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: A crucial United Nations meeting gets underway in less than an hour from right now. It is expected to lead to passage of the U.S. resolution that would put weapons inspectors back into Iraq or else.
Our senior White House correspondent John King joins us now with the latest -- John, good morning.

JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Good morning to you, Daryn.

The Bush administration already making plans for the president to speak after today's vote. The White House quite confident the resolution, the new compromised resolution, will pass with overwhelming support.

Syria, perhaps abstaining, the White House says, all other members of the Security Council expected to vote in favor of this resolution, which gives Saddam Hussein one week, seven days, to say yes or no to the question of whether he will allow new weapons inspectors back into Iraq.

Other items in that agenda as well in the resolution, including the term "serious consequences" if there is any interference with those inspections, and if Iraq does not keep its other commitments to the United Nations.

Mr. Bush had to make compromises to get this resolution. He believes now, though, he will get what he wanted most, strong international support for standing up to Saddam Hussein.

The president served notice yesterday that he wants the inspectors to go back in, but he also had some very tough language to this prospect. If there is any interference with the inspectors at all, this is what Mr. Bush says comes next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Should we have to use troops, should it become a necessity in order to disarm him, the United States, with friends, will move swiftly, with force, to do the job. You don't have to worry about that. We will do -- we will do -- we will do what it takes militarily to succeed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: To win over France and others, the United States did commit to wait until the inspectors reported back to the Security Council on any interference by Iraq, but the White House says it is OK with that step. What the White House says it will not accept is that it will not wait if the debate bogs down for a subsequent Security Council authorization of force.

The White House says the president would have the authority to do that on his own. Again, this compromise struck after weeks of sometimes very frustrating diplomacy. The administration expects that vote later this morning, and we are expecting to hear from the president later today after the Security Council goes on the record -- Daryn.

KAGAN: John, real quickly, what can you tell me about this dinner that the president had, trying to show that he's not angry at Muslims, rather at Saddam Hussein?

KING: For the second year in a row, Mr. Bush had what is called an Iftar dinner during the holy month of Ramadan. Muslims fast during the day, they break that fast with a dinner at night.

Mr. Bush having another one here at the White House last night, saying that he wanted to thank Muslim Americans, he wanted to thank Muslims around the world for joining the United States in the war against terrorism, the president wanting to reiterate the point he has made consistently since September 11, 2001, that yes, he is waging a war against global terrorism, Mr. Bush said it should in no way be interpreted as a war against the Islam -- the Muslim faith.

KAGAN: John King at the White House. John, thank you -- Bill.

BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Daryn, if, as expected, this resolution passes the U.N. Security Council, will it help or hurt U.S. efforts to try and disarm Saddam Hussein? Let's talk about that from Washington this morning.

Former national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski is our guest now -- sir, good to see you again. Good morning to you.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Good to see you.

HEMMER: Is the U.S., at this point, headed for war?

BRZEZINSKI: No, not necessarily. It depends really on two things. One, will Saddam comply, and there are three dates we have to think about in regards to that.

One is within a week, that is to say, does he accept the U.N. resolution.

One is within a month, which would then roughly make December 15, will he give us a comprehensive and accurate report of what kind of weaponry he has, and then March 1, which is the time by which the inspections are to be completed, full report filed, and the U.N. decides whether he is complying or, in fact, refusing to comply with the requirement for disamrament. So that gives Saddam, so to speak, three dates during which he can either say yes or no, or try to obstruct.

HEMMER: In your -- sorry.

BRZEZINSKI: At our end, we have to be willing to take yes for an answer, because the U.N. resolution also implies that if he disarms, sanctions might be lifted, and that is going to be a hard pill to swallow.

HEMMER: Does then -- does Saddam Hussein, in your estimation, comply?

BRZEZINSKI: I think he has to make a choice between dying quickly right now, or taking a chance in surviving even with massive inspections. My guess is that since he's a survivor, he'll take the second choice.

HEMMER: Is it good enough, for those who are ultimately making these decisions about military action, is it good enough for them to get an Iraq that complies, at least on the surface, as best as inspectors can ascertain, or is this a different issue, does Saddam Hussein have to leave?

BRZEZINSKI: I think September 12, the day on which the president addressed the U.N., was the day in which that issue was resolved within the U.S. government.

There is an element in the U.S. government that would like to see Saddam go no matter what, but the U.N. decision, which involves the United States, and which is based on the U.S. sponsored resolution, clearly indicates that if Saddam complies, the U.N. and the United States, therefore, is prepared to go along with that.

HEMMER: Part of this resolution apparently spells out when Iraq would be in violation, essentially, of the new inspections on the ground. The inspectors themselves, it's my understanding, have the right to make that call. What triggers a violation, based on your understanding of this new resolution?

BRZEZINSKI: What triggers a violation is a report by the inspection team, by Ambassador Blix, to the Security Council, reporting noncompliance or obstruction.

Then the Security Council has to make a judgment, but the United States has indicated that it reserves the right to take independent action in the event that the report is negative. It doesn't, however, give the United States the right to decide where that report is.

HEMMER: Say there is one shack in one corner of one presidential palace somewhere in the country of Iraq, and Saddam Hussein's men on the ground say, No, you cannot open that door. Is that a violation?

BRZEZINSKI: That is a violation. Now, whether that is a violation that justifies triggering a war is a judgment that will have to be made. But you don't want to start opening the doors to violations. I think this resolution is comprehensive, and it makes it very clear that there must be no obstructions. But I repeat, it also means that we cannot then engage in actions designed to overthrow him, and we have to be prepared, at some point, to lift sanctions.

HEMMER: Only about 15 seconds left here, though. When this resolution passes, in the words of the president yesterday, he used the word "when," thinking it's already a done conclusion, it may be, for that matter, but when it passes, does the U.S. position, is it strengthened globally, because, indeed, it has the agreement of the U.N. Security Council?

BRZEZINSKI: Oh, absolutely. And we have, I think, to thank also the British and the French both for helping us out, because otherwise, we would have been embarked on a unilateral and solidarity war, and that would have been extremely costly, in fact, potentially very dangerous.

HEMMER: Thanks for talking again. Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security adviser in D.C.

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