Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Missile Mystery Unfolding Off Coast of Yemen

Aired December 11, 2002 - 07:32   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.


BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: We want to get back now to that missile mystery unfolding off the coast of Yemen. A shipment of SCUD missiles intercepted in the North Arabian Sea found on board a freighter that left North Korea. Where were the missiles headed? Who was going to buy them and for what purpose?
CNN military analyst General Wesley Clark here now to offer his insight on the incident that was broken here yesterday afternoon on CNN.

Good morning, General.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST, FORMER NATO SUPREME COMMANDER: Good morning, Bill.

HEMMER: Good to see you.

What do you make of this?

CLARK: Well, I think first of all it's North Korea making money. This is a way they've got to earn hard currency exchange. They proliferate. They've done this for years. They've helped missile programs all through the Middle East by selling parts, technology and complete kits like this.

HEMMER: You say North Korea is, just to use your words, the dumbest country in the world in terms of getting themselves into trouble.

CLARK: They are absolutely thick-headed on this. They had an agreement on the nuclear program in which we were going to provide them two nuclear reactors. They insisted on starting a new program in parallel to gain more bargaining leverage. They play the toughest kind of bargaining games. So they're, the harder you squeeze the North Koreans, the more they do things like sell missiles abroad.

HEMMER: So who is going to buy these? I mean this is the ultimate question. We don't have a clear answer on that right now. If, as the White House says, they were intended, 99 percent sure, toward Yemen, what does that indicate to you? Final destination? Or could they go onward from Yemen?

CLARK: Well, that's the key question. This is a relatively short range missile, a couple of hundred miles. You have to ask why Yemen needs them. They have some right now. They have been used in that area in the past. They're a prestige weapon, so when the word gets out that you've got it, it raises the prestige of these smaller countries like Yemen. Maybe they'd keep them.

On the other hand, they're great trading material and Libya, Syria, maybe the Saudis want some of these for their own experimental purposes.

HEMMER: How concerned should the U.S. government be with this intercept yesterday? I mean this is, does this raise massive amounts of red flags?

CLARK: No, I don't think so.

HEMMER: Or is it minor?

CLARK: I think it's relatively minor. It confirms a pattern of behavior. I think what's more interesting is the fact that we did make the seizure and it is public and the United States is saying we're going to stop this. It's been going on for years. We've seen it before. Now we've got our hands on it and we've stopped it.

HEMMER: What struck me is how closely North Korea must be watched right now. If U.S. intelligence literally had these getting on board this freighter back in North Korea, tracking it the entire way through the Indian Ocean, eventually the North Arabian Sea, it was being watched quite closely.

CLARK: That's exactly right, and I think it's a clear message to every one of these countries that would try something to be careful. I mean we know what you're doing. The United States knows. We watch. We've got you under observation. You're not going to get away with this.

HEMMER: Another question I had for you, why stop it at sea? Are you convinced at that point, before you board that ship, that you know its destination? Is that why we get the Yemen 99 percent sure at the White House?

CLARK: Well, I think it was easier to stop it at sea. That way you didn't have any of the complications of international law. You didn't have to go to a country and say we want to send our warships into your territorial waters. You simply stop it out there. This turns out, of course, the registration, the manifest, everything about this shipment is illegal. So it's actually, the shipment is violating international law itself and violating shipping law.

If you wait till it goes into the port, then the governments have to be complicit in what you're doing. Otherwise you'd be invading Yemen or whatever to get the ship.

HEMMER: Thirty seconds left here. I want to shift our focus to this topic we're talking about online today. What do you make of the White House in the statement it has made, apparently, in this report in D.C. about retaliating, essentially, with a massive amount of firepower, a suggestion that nuclear weapons would not be out of the question if, indeed, the U.S. forces took weapons of mass destruction against them?

Your thoughts on that?

CLARK: Well, this has always been an implicit U.S. policy. Now it's been made explicit. You have to wonder why and what the purpose is.

HEMMER: 1991, did it work then as a deterrent?

CLARK: It did work then.

HEMMER: Do you see it the same this way?

CLARK: This is a more visible, explicit deterrent.

HEMMER: More so than 11 years ago?

CLARK: More so than 11 years ago.

HEMMER: Interesting.

OK, General Wesley Clark, thanks for stopping by in person again.

CLARK: Thanks, Bill.

HEMMER: Good to be with you.

CLARK: All right.

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 December 11, 2002 - 07:32   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: We want to get back now to that missile mystery unfolding off the coast of Yemen. A shipment of SCUD missiles intercepted in the North Arabian Sea found on board a freighter that left North Korea. Where were the missiles headed? Who was going to buy them and for what purpose?
CNN military analyst General Wesley Clark here now to offer his insight on the incident that was broken here yesterday afternoon on CNN.

Good morning, General.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST, FORMER NATO SUPREME COMMANDER: Good morning, Bill.

HEMMER: Good to see you.

What do you make of this?

CLARK: Well, I think first of all it's North Korea making money. This is a way they've got to earn hard currency exchange. They proliferate. They've done this for years. They've helped missile programs all through the Middle East by selling parts, technology and complete kits like this.

HEMMER: You say North Korea is, just to use your words, the dumbest country in the world in terms of getting themselves into trouble.

CLARK: They are absolutely thick-headed on this. They had an agreement on the nuclear program in which we were going to provide them two nuclear reactors. They insisted on starting a new program in parallel to gain more bargaining leverage. They play the toughest kind of bargaining games. So they're, the harder you squeeze the North Koreans, the more they do things like sell missiles abroad.

HEMMER: So who is going to buy these? I mean this is the ultimate question. We don't have a clear answer on that right now. If, as the White House says, they were intended, 99 percent sure, toward Yemen, what does that indicate to you? Final destination? Or could they go onward from Yemen?

CLARK: Well, that's the key question. This is a relatively short range missile, a couple of hundred miles. You have to ask why Yemen needs them. They have some right now. They have been used in that area in the past. They're a prestige weapon, so when the word gets out that you've got it, it raises the prestige of these smaller countries like Yemen. Maybe they'd keep them.

On the other hand, they're great trading material and Libya, Syria, maybe the Saudis want some of these for their own experimental purposes.

HEMMER: How concerned should the U.S. government be with this intercept yesterday? I mean this is, does this raise massive amounts of red flags?

CLARK: No, I don't think so.

HEMMER: Or is it minor?

CLARK: I think it's relatively minor. It confirms a pattern of behavior. I think what's more interesting is the fact that we did make the seizure and it is public and the United States is saying we're going to stop this. It's been going on for years. We've seen it before. Now we've got our hands on it and we've stopped it.

HEMMER: What struck me is how closely North Korea must be watched right now. If U.S. intelligence literally had these getting on board this freighter back in North Korea, tracking it the entire way through the Indian Ocean, eventually the North Arabian Sea, it was being watched quite closely.

CLARK: That's exactly right, and I think it's a clear message to every one of these countries that would try something to be careful. I mean we know what you're doing. The United States knows. We watch. We've got you under observation. You're not going to get away with this.

HEMMER: Another question I had for you, why stop it at sea? Are you convinced at that point, before you board that ship, that you know its destination? Is that why we get the Yemen 99 percent sure at the White House?

CLARK: Well, I think it was easier to stop it at sea. That way you didn't have any of the complications of international law. You didn't have to go to a country and say we want to send our warships into your territorial waters. You simply stop it out there. This turns out, of course, the registration, the manifest, everything about this shipment is illegal. So it's actually, the shipment is violating international law itself and violating shipping law.

If you wait till it goes into the port, then the governments have to be complicit in what you're doing. Otherwise you'd be invading Yemen or whatever to get the ship.

HEMMER: Thirty seconds left here. I want to shift our focus to this topic we're talking about online today. What do you make of the White House in the statement it has made, apparently, in this report in D.C. about retaliating, essentially, with a massive amount of firepower, a suggestion that nuclear weapons would not be out of the question if, indeed, the U.S. forces took weapons of mass destruction against them?

Your thoughts on that?

CLARK: Well, this has always been an implicit U.S. policy. Now it's been made explicit. You have to wonder why and what the purpose is.

HEMMER: 1991, did it work then as a deterrent?

CLARK: It did work then.

HEMMER: Do you see it the same this way?

CLARK: This is a more visible, explicit deterrent.

HEMMER: More so than 11 years ago?

CLARK: More so than 11 years ago.

HEMMER: Interesting.

OK, General Wesley Clark, thanks for stopping by in person again.

CLARK: Thanks, Bill.

HEMMER: Good to be with you.

CLARK: All right.

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