Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Interview With Sen. Richard Lugar

Aired March 10, 2003 - 09:16   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: This morning, the Bush administration is trying its best to win support for an Iraq ultimatum at the U.N. Secretary of State Colin Powell has been lobbying very hard for passage of a Security Council resolution that would give Saddam Hussein seven days to disarm from today.
Joining us now from Washington, Indiana Senator Richard Lugar, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Welcome back to our show. Good to see you again, sir.

SEN. RICHARD LUGAR (R-IN), CHAIRMAN, FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE: Good morning, Paula.

ZAHN: Just about an hour ago, the foreign minister, Igor Ivanov announced that Russia will, in fact, vote against the new resolution, if it comes up to a vote in the U.N. The word "veto" was not used.

What do you think the Russians are up to?

LUGAR: I think the Russians are still trying to gauge the very last extent of their relationship with the United States, what happens if they do several things. And likewise, the Russians and the French and others, for that matter, are surely by this time trying to gauge what the future of the United Nations Security Council is.

There is a lot of work still to be done ahead. The Korean problem, or peace in the Middle East with the Palestinians and the Israelis. There are a whole host of things. And then -- of course, in Iraq itself, there is the participation of countries the day after conflict is over, if it comes. What their roles will be. I suspect, until the very last, these calculations will be to a fine point, but my own optimism is that Russia and France will see the importance of the U.N. -- U.S. relationship, their participation in Iraq, and will not take action ultimately that would destroy, at least, a Security Council mandate on this second resolution.

ZAHN: We had on our show about an hour ago a former U.N. ambassador -- or U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Bill Richardson, and he suggested it is time for the U.S. to call France's bluff. Do you agree?

LUGAR: Well, we're calling the bluff in many ways already. I think Ambassador Richardson is experienced in this sort of thing. I think it's finally up to the French, as I say, to make these calculations, which they will make.

But we have to have in the United States a strong relationship with France, with Germany, with Russia, with China. Life goes on. It's extremely important. They realize that, too. I think that they do. The fact is that they understand Saddam is not disarmed, that he's really stiffed the world again, that Saddam believes, probably, he's going to luck out for the third or fourth time.

In this case, he's wrong, and that miscalculation on the part of Saddam is the problem. To the extent that he sees the nations of the world united, then he has to make some new judgments, which I don't think he's come to.

ZAHN: What would be the consequences, though, of going to war without the backing of the U.N. Security Council for the U.S.?

LUGAR: It would be unfortunate because President Bush has invested a very great deal of the prestige of this country, the diplomatic apparatus of this country in the U.N. There has been no ambiguity whatsoever about that from the time of his announcement on September 5 that we would, in fact, vigorously try to literally resurrect the prestige of the U.N., the Security Council as a group that might make a substantial difference.

Now, that has been proceeding and I think the world has had pretty good fortune thus far. That's why this is a very sobering moment about the future of the Security Council and really the effectiveness of the U.N., because what clearly cannot occur is weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists.

Most countries are not going to be able to countenance that, and therefore they will regroup in some other form.

The U.N. is extremely important, right now, as a given path that could work, that should work. It would be strengthened by this particular moment of decision.

ZAHN: Sir, I have time just for one last question. I wanted you to react to something that former President Jimmy Carter wrote in the "New York Times" over the weekend. He said, "Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home."

Do you believe that a military strike on Iraq will increase our vulnerability at home here in the United States?

LUGAR: No, I don't believe so. I understand that the argument that is being made about general instability in the Middle East and likewise vulnerability here, but in fact, the Iraq situation is a vital step toward getting terrorism under control, and it seems to me that the terrorist situation is likely to be thrown off base by success there. What really is at stake, however, is the day after. Whether the feeding goes well, whether the policing goes well, whether the democratic institutions get built, whether other countries come to the fore, whether they were with us or not at this moment of truth.

Those are the critical elements that will define the amount of stability and safety for us and for others. ZAHN: Very critical questions to ask. Senator Richard Lugar, always good to see you. Thank you again for dropping by.

Appreciate your time 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







Aired March 10, 2003 - 09:16   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: This morning, the Bush administration is trying its best to win support for an Iraq ultimatum at the U.N. Secretary of State Colin Powell has been lobbying very hard for passage of a Security Council resolution that would give Saddam Hussein seven days to disarm from today.
Joining us now from Washington, Indiana Senator Richard Lugar, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Welcome back to our show. Good to see you again, sir.

SEN. RICHARD LUGAR (R-IN), CHAIRMAN, FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE: Good morning, Paula.

ZAHN: Just about an hour ago, the foreign minister, Igor Ivanov announced that Russia will, in fact, vote against the new resolution, if it comes up to a vote in the U.N. The word "veto" was not used.

What do you think the Russians are up to?

LUGAR: I think the Russians are still trying to gauge the very last extent of their relationship with the United States, what happens if they do several things. And likewise, the Russians and the French and others, for that matter, are surely by this time trying to gauge what the future of the United Nations Security Council is.

There is a lot of work still to be done ahead. The Korean problem, or peace in the Middle East with the Palestinians and the Israelis. There are a whole host of things. And then -- of course, in Iraq itself, there is the participation of countries the day after conflict is over, if it comes. What their roles will be. I suspect, until the very last, these calculations will be to a fine point, but my own optimism is that Russia and France will see the importance of the U.N. -- U.S. relationship, their participation in Iraq, and will not take action ultimately that would destroy, at least, a Security Council mandate on this second resolution.

ZAHN: We had on our show about an hour ago a former U.N. ambassador -- or U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Bill Richardson, and he suggested it is time for the U.S. to call France's bluff. Do you agree?

LUGAR: Well, we're calling the bluff in many ways already. I think Ambassador Richardson is experienced in this sort of thing. I think it's finally up to the French, as I say, to make these calculations, which they will make.

But we have to have in the United States a strong relationship with France, with Germany, with Russia, with China. Life goes on. It's extremely important. They realize that, too. I think that they do. The fact is that they understand Saddam is not disarmed, that he's really stiffed the world again, that Saddam believes, probably, he's going to luck out for the third or fourth time.

In this case, he's wrong, and that miscalculation on the part of Saddam is the problem. To the extent that he sees the nations of the world united, then he has to make some new judgments, which I don't think he's come to.

ZAHN: What would be the consequences, though, of going to war without the backing of the U.N. Security Council for the U.S.?

LUGAR: It would be unfortunate because President Bush has invested a very great deal of the prestige of this country, the diplomatic apparatus of this country in the U.N. There has been no ambiguity whatsoever about that from the time of his announcement on September 5 that we would, in fact, vigorously try to literally resurrect the prestige of the U.N., the Security Council as a group that might make a substantial difference.

Now, that has been proceeding and I think the world has had pretty good fortune thus far. That's why this is a very sobering moment about the future of the Security Council and really the effectiveness of the U.N., because what clearly cannot occur is weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists.

Most countries are not going to be able to countenance that, and therefore they will regroup in some other form.

The U.N. is extremely important, right now, as a given path that could work, that should work. It would be strengthened by this particular moment of decision.

ZAHN: Sir, I have time just for one last question. I wanted you to react to something that former President Jimmy Carter wrote in the "New York Times" over the weekend. He said, "Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home."

Do you believe that a military strike on Iraq will increase our vulnerability at home here in the United States?

LUGAR: No, I don't believe so. I understand that the argument that is being made about general instability in the Middle East and likewise vulnerability here, but in fact, the Iraq situation is a vital step toward getting terrorism under control, and it seems to me that the terrorist situation is likely to be thrown off base by success there. What really is at stake, however, is the day after. Whether the feeding goes well, whether the policing goes well, whether the democratic institutions get built, whether other countries come to the fore, whether they were with us or not at this moment of truth.

Those are the critical elements that will define the amount of stability and safety for us and for others. ZAHN: Very critical questions to ask. Senator Richard Lugar, always good to see you. Thank you again for dropping by.

Appreciate your time 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