Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Interview With Samuel Berger
Aired November 14, 2002 - 07:04 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.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: If you were to believe Iraq, the weapons inspectors' job would be easy. The regime claims it has no weapons of mass destruction at all.
Can the inspectors resolve the contradiction between what Iraq says and what the world fears about Saddam's arsenal?
Joining us now from Washington is a man who has had a lot of experience in dealing with Iraq, former National Security Advisor Samuel Berger.
Good to see you, Sandy -- welcome.
SAMUEL BERGER, FMR. NATL. SEC. ADVISOR: Good morning, Paula.
ZAHN: Good morning.
Let's start off by talking about this letter received by Kofi Annan yesterday from the foreign minister of Iraq. And we're going to put up on the screen a small portion of that, where it says, "Iraq will 'deal' with the U.N. Security Council resolution, despite its bad contents."
That's not an out and outright acceptance, is it?
BERGER: Well, I think the verbiage is really irrelevant here. The fact is, either the inspectors will be permitted in or they won't. He seems to be saying that inspectors will be permitted in. I think that's what's critical here. And so, they can go about their work in a vigorous and deliberate way and establish to the satisfaction of a broad swath of the international community that he is not complying with his commitments.
ZAHN: The letter went on to say, and we'll put this up on the screen as well, that "Iraq's cooperation is based on U.N. weapons inspectors obeying international law and respecting Iraq's dignity and sovereignty."
What is that supposed to mean?
BERGER: This is for domestic consumption in Iraq. The Security Council resolution is absolutely clear. The United Nations defines the terms of the inspections, and those terms are unrestricted. It doesn't matter what Saddam says. If he blocks the inspectors, that is manifest intention -- manifest demonstration that he does not seek to cooperate, and I think that will be clear for the international community to see. There are no restrictions on what these inspectors can do, and if he places restrictions on the inspectors, he clearly has demonstrated his intent.
ZAHN: So, if you believe that particular part of the letter was for domestic consumption, does it matter at all when the letter said this? That "Iraq will follow up with a letter to Kofi Annan detailing international law violations contained in the U.N. Security Council resolution."
BERGER: The words don't matter here; the facts matter. Either he allows the inspectors to come back in, allows them to operate in an unrestricted way, or he doesn't. That's test No. 1.
Soon, on December 8, we will have a declaration from Saddam Hussein ostensibly describing the systems that he has and their locations. That will provide the baseline against which inspectors then can work with our intelligence, with the intelligence of other countries and determine whether that declaration is or is not correct.
I think how we proceed, Paula, over the next weeks and months is extremely important. We need -- the president, I think, has done a very good job of building a consensus for disarmament. We don't yet have a consensus for war.
We have to make certain that if we are going to confront Saddam Hussein and Iraq, because I think we probably will, we do so with the broadest base of international support, and it's seen very clearly as a result of his intransigence, not our impatience.
ZAHN: You mentioned that December 8 is supposed to provide a baseline, and yet, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is saying that date could be the soonest date we face a crisis now that Iraq has declared it has none of these weapons we are talking about here. Is that a possibility that could create military action on that date?
BERGER: Well, December 8 will be important in terms of seeing what he says. But material breach here is not just a legal concept, it's a strategic concept as well.
We have to make sure that we move in a way that maintains the broadest possible international base of support in the event that we confront Saddam Hussein with military conflict. It makes all of the difference in the world if this war is seen in the region, seen in the world, as largely a U.S.-British confrontation, or if it's seen as the international community confronting Saddam Hussein, as was the case in the Gulf War.
That is the -- all of the risks associated with this enterprise if we move to military action are substantially greater if this is seen as a British-American enterprise, and substantially reduced if it is seen as the international community confronting Saddam Hussein. And how we proceed now to outmaneuver Saddam before we out-muscle him in the next several weeks will determine whether we proceed with a broad base of support or a narrow base of support. ZAHN: So, you've talked about how critical that is to have the broadest possible base of support that you can. And yet, Kofi Annan, the secretary-general of the U.N., made it very clear yesterday that the U.S. has a much lower threshold for going to war than the other nations in the Security Council.
Let's listen to what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KOFI ANNAN, U.N. SECRETARY GENERAL: I think that we all have to be a bit patient. The inspectors will be there in a few days, within a week. They will be there by the 18th, and we are going to test it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAHN: And of course, he went on to say and making the point that he feels that the U.S. probably wants to move quicker than some of these other nations. What about that?
BERGER: Well, in the final analysis, we'll make the judgment as to when we think it's essential to move. But we will be far better off if we work in the next weeks to isolate Saddam Hussein, not to isolate ourselves.
There are significant risks associated with military conflict, notwithstanding the fact that one may be necessary here -- risks of turmoil in the region, risks of use of chemical and biological weapons against Israel, against our troops, risks that Saddam Hussein will try to bring the temple down with him and blow up oil wells, risks to our neighbors, his neighbors -- Pakistan, Jordan. All of those risks are substantially diminished if the confrontation with Iraq is seen as the international community opposing Iraq.
The president and Secretary Powell and his team I think have done a very skillful job in building an international consensus for disarmament now. And we have to be equally methodical and deliberate and strategic as we now pick the moment when we will be on very strong grounds for a confrontation, if that's necessary. And the world will see it clearly as the result of Saddam Hussein's intransigence, not our impatience, as I said before.
ZAHN: We very much appreciate your insights this morning. Sandy Berger, glad to have you aboard.
BERGER: Good to be with you, Paula.
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 14, 2002 - 07:04 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: If you were to believe Iraq, the weapons inspectors' job would be easy. The regime claims it has no weapons of mass destruction at all.
Can the inspectors resolve the contradiction between what Iraq says and what the world fears about Saddam's arsenal?
Joining us now from Washington is a man who has had a lot of experience in dealing with Iraq, former National Security Advisor Samuel Berger.
Good to see you, Sandy -- welcome.
SAMUEL BERGER, FMR. NATL. SEC. ADVISOR: Good morning, Paula.
ZAHN: Good morning.
Let's start off by talking about this letter received by Kofi Annan yesterday from the foreign minister of Iraq. And we're going to put up on the screen a small portion of that, where it says, "Iraq will 'deal' with the U.N. Security Council resolution, despite its bad contents."
That's not an out and outright acceptance, is it?
BERGER: Well, I think the verbiage is really irrelevant here. The fact is, either the inspectors will be permitted in or they won't. He seems to be saying that inspectors will be permitted in. I think that's what's critical here. And so, they can go about their work in a vigorous and deliberate way and establish to the satisfaction of a broad swath of the international community that he is not complying with his commitments.
ZAHN: The letter went on to say, and we'll put this up on the screen as well, that "Iraq's cooperation is based on U.N. weapons inspectors obeying international law and respecting Iraq's dignity and sovereignty."
What is that supposed to mean?
BERGER: This is for domestic consumption in Iraq. The Security Council resolution is absolutely clear. The United Nations defines the terms of the inspections, and those terms are unrestricted. It doesn't matter what Saddam says. If he blocks the inspectors, that is manifest intention -- manifest demonstration that he does not seek to cooperate, and I think that will be clear for the international community to see. There are no restrictions on what these inspectors can do, and if he places restrictions on the inspectors, he clearly has demonstrated his intent.
ZAHN: So, if you believe that particular part of the letter was for domestic consumption, does it matter at all when the letter said this? That "Iraq will follow up with a letter to Kofi Annan detailing international law violations contained in the U.N. Security Council resolution."
BERGER: The words don't matter here; the facts matter. Either he allows the inspectors to come back in, allows them to operate in an unrestricted way, or he doesn't. That's test No. 1.
Soon, on December 8, we will have a declaration from Saddam Hussein ostensibly describing the systems that he has and their locations. That will provide the baseline against which inspectors then can work with our intelligence, with the intelligence of other countries and determine whether that declaration is or is not correct.
I think how we proceed, Paula, over the next weeks and months is extremely important. We need -- the president, I think, has done a very good job of building a consensus for disarmament. We don't yet have a consensus for war.
We have to make certain that if we are going to confront Saddam Hussein and Iraq, because I think we probably will, we do so with the broadest base of international support, and it's seen very clearly as a result of his intransigence, not our impatience.
ZAHN: You mentioned that December 8 is supposed to provide a baseline, and yet, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is saying that date could be the soonest date we face a crisis now that Iraq has declared it has none of these weapons we are talking about here. Is that a possibility that could create military action on that date?
BERGER: Well, December 8 will be important in terms of seeing what he says. But material breach here is not just a legal concept, it's a strategic concept as well.
We have to make sure that we move in a way that maintains the broadest possible international base of support in the event that we confront Saddam Hussein with military conflict. It makes all of the difference in the world if this war is seen in the region, seen in the world, as largely a U.S.-British confrontation, or if it's seen as the international community confronting Saddam Hussein, as was the case in the Gulf War.
That is the -- all of the risks associated with this enterprise if we move to military action are substantially greater if this is seen as a British-American enterprise, and substantially reduced if it is seen as the international community confronting Saddam Hussein. And how we proceed now to outmaneuver Saddam before we out-muscle him in the next several weeks will determine whether we proceed with a broad base of support or a narrow base of support. ZAHN: So, you've talked about how critical that is to have the broadest possible base of support that you can. And yet, Kofi Annan, the secretary-general of the U.N., made it very clear yesterday that the U.S. has a much lower threshold for going to war than the other nations in the Security Council.
Let's listen to what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KOFI ANNAN, U.N. SECRETARY GENERAL: I think that we all have to be a bit patient. The inspectors will be there in a few days, within a week. They will be there by the 18th, and we are going to test it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAHN: And of course, he went on to say and making the point that he feels that the U.S. probably wants to move quicker than some of these other nations. What about that?
BERGER: Well, in the final analysis, we'll make the judgment as to when we think it's essential to move. But we will be far better off if we work in the next weeks to isolate Saddam Hussein, not to isolate ourselves.
There are significant risks associated with military conflict, notwithstanding the fact that one may be necessary here -- risks of turmoil in the region, risks of use of chemical and biological weapons against Israel, against our troops, risks that Saddam Hussein will try to bring the temple down with him and blow up oil wells, risks to our neighbors, his neighbors -- Pakistan, Jordan. All of those risks are substantially diminished if the confrontation with Iraq is seen as the international community opposing Iraq.
The president and Secretary Powell and his team I think have done a very skillful job in building an international consensus for disarmament now. And we have to be equally methodical and deliberate and strategic as we now pick the moment when we will be on very strong grounds for a confrontation, if that's necessary. And the world will see it clearly as the result of Saddam Hussein's intransigence, not our impatience, as I said before.
ZAHN: We very much appreciate your insights this morning. Sandy Berger, glad to have you aboard.
BERGER: Good to be with you, Paula.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.
