Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Interview With British Ambassador to United Nations
Aired March 11, 2003 - 07:06 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.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: To help us understand exactly what compromise issues may be on the table, let's turn to Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's ambassador to the U.N. He joins us now from the United Nations.
It's an honor to have you with us this morning -- welcome.
SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK, BRITISH AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: Good morning.
ZAHN: Let's talk a little bit about some of the compromises you might be willing to accept. It is being widely reported that the British-U.S. team is looking at proposing some benchmarks that Saddam Hussein would have to meet by a certain date to avoid war. How seriously do you back that idea?
GREENSTOCK: Well, we are just examining this idea at the moment. We haven't made any proposals in the Security Council. But we have observed, as you have observed, that there needs to be a combination of pressure on Iraq and a mechanism to deliver disarmament.
And if you focus only on the pressure, then you weaken the mechanism, the inspectors. If you focus only on the inspectors, you weaken the pressure, which is the only thing that has achieved anything in terms of disarmament over the last six months in Iraq. And you have Tony Blair saying that if France and Russia will veto anything that moves, then that removes the pressure on Iraq, which is the only thing to have achieved anything. So that is not reasonable.
But if you only focus on war, then people are saying, well, can't you do this through the normal U.N. route, put pressure on Saddam? Yes. But give him the chance to go through various hoops that shows that he's taken the strategic decision to disarm.
So, we're exploring that area, and I think we're collecting a little bit of interest in the Security Council. It's a new thought.
ZAHN: If the British prime minister believes that France will, in his words, "veto anything that moves," do you see any scenario where you can come up with language that would be veto-proof by France or Russia, for example?
GREENSTOCK: Well, we have to talk with them about it. They are very hard over at the moment. President Bush is equally determined, as is Tony Blair, to see Saddam disarmed one way or another. But the United Kingdom will only act within international law, and were looking for the United Nations to remain in control of this huge issue, which, of course, is connected with a whole range of other issues related to it.
So it's a big one, and we're going to go on talking until we find a way forward for the Security Council together.
ZAHN: Let's talk about the timeline here. I don't know whether you heard Suzanne Malveaux just reporting from the White House, but it is her belief that the White House would be willing to extend the time on the table maybe a week beyond the March 17 deadline. A Chilean diplomat is calling the March 17 deadline a fantasy this morning, and it is his belief that even Britain would be willing to go maybe even a month beyond March 17. Is that true?
GREENSTOCK: We are not setting any particular deadline. We have gone for the exemplary date of 17, March to indicate to the Security Council that time is short. It's up to leaders to decide on the precise date they're prepared to do one thing or the other, but the United Kingdom is in the negotiation, and it's prepared to look at timelines and tests together. But I'm pretty sure we're talking about action in March. Don't look beyond March.
ZAHN: Your prime minister has yet to say definitely if he will allow British troops to be involved in military action without a second resolution or the passage of a second resolution. Will he?
GREENSTOCK: Resolution 1441 laid out the clear terms by which Iraq would meet serious consequences if it did not comply, and there is no need under that resolution for a second resolution to authorize military force. But the Security Council does have to go through serious discussion if there's a report that Iraq is not in compliance. The inspectors have said all along that Iraq is not in full and immediate compliance. So in most of its terms, we have met the requirements of 1441.
And if military action is the only way to complete disarmament of Iraq, then my prime minister has made it absolutely clear that he will go that route.
ZAHN: And finally this morning, what do you think will be the consequences, though, of carrying on with military action without the support of the Security Council in this second resolution, not only for your country but the United States as well?
GREENSTOCK: Well, I think that's a good question, Paula, because Americans, as I see in the polls, do realize that they need allies to do this kind of thing. It's connected with what's going on in the Middle East, with the role of the United States in global affairs, with the United Nations as a useful global institution, with Afghanistan counterterrorism. It's connected with a lot of things.
Do Americans want to be on their own in all of those areas? I don't think that they do, and therefore a collective approach with allies, with friends, with the international community is very important. And the United Kingdom, important as it is, is not enough to be the single ally of the United States. It needs to go wider than that.
ZAHN: Sir Jeremy Greenstock, again, thank you very much for your time this morning.
GREENSTOCK: Thank you.
ZAHN: I know how tough it is to carve time out of your day, given the importance of the debate going on over at the U.N. Good luck to you. Thanks very much.
GREENSTOCK: Thanks a lot.
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 11, 2003 - 07:06 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: To help us understand exactly what compromise issues may be on the table, let's turn to Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's ambassador to the U.N. He joins us now from the United Nations.
It's an honor to have you with us this morning -- welcome.
SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK, BRITISH AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: Good morning.
ZAHN: Let's talk a little bit about some of the compromises you might be willing to accept. It is being widely reported that the British-U.S. team is looking at proposing some benchmarks that Saddam Hussein would have to meet by a certain date to avoid war. How seriously do you back that idea?
GREENSTOCK: Well, we are just examining this idea at the moment. We haven't made any proposals in the Security Council. But we have observed, as you have observed, that there needs to be a combination of pressure on Iraq and a mechanism to deliver disarmament.
And if you focus only on the pressure, then you weaken the mechanism, the inspectors. If you focus only on the inspectors, you weaken the pressure, which is the only thing that has achieved anything in terms of disarmament over the last six months in Iraq. And you have Tony Blair saying that if France and Russia will veto anything that moves, then that removes the pressure on Iraq, which is the only thing to have achieved anything. So that is not reasonable.
But if you only focus on war, then people are saying, well, can't you do this through the normal U.N. route, put pressure on Saddam? Yes. But give him the chance to go through various hoops that shows that he's taken the strategic decision to disarm.
So, we're exploring that area, and I think we're collecting a little bit of interest in the Security Council. It's a new thought.
ZAHN: If the British prime minister believes that France will, in his words, "veto anything that moves," do you see any scenario where you can come up with language that would be veto-proof by France or Russia, for example?
GREENSTOCK: Well, we have to talk with them about it. They are very hard over at the moment. President Bush is equally determined, as is Tony Blair, to see Saddam disarmed one way or another. But the United Kingdom will only act within international law, and were looking for the United Nations to remain in control of this huge issue, which, of course, is connected with a whole range of other issues related to it.
So it's a big one, and we're going to go on talking until we find a way forward for the Security Council together.
ZAHN: Let's talk about the timeline here. I don't know whether you heard Suzanne Malveaux just reporting from the White House, but it is her belief that the White House would be willing to extend the time on the table maybe a week beyond the March 17 deadline. A Chilean diplomat is calling the March 17 deadline a fantasy this morning, and it is his belief that even Britain would be willing to go maybe even a month beyond March 17. Is that true?
GREENSTOCK: We are not setting any particular deadline. We have gone for the exemplary date of 17, March to indicate to the Security Council that time is short. It's up to leaders to decide on the precise date they're prepared to do one thing or the other, but the United Kingdom is in the negotiation, and it's prepared to look at timelines and tests together. But I'm pretty sure we're talking about action in March. Don't look beyond March.
ZAHN: Your prime minister has yet to say definitely if he will allow British troops to be involved in military action without a second resolution or the passage of a second resolution. Will he?
GREENSTOCK: Resolution 1441 laid out the clear terms by which Iraq would meet serious consequences if it did not comply, and there is no need under that resolution for a second resolution to authorize military force. But the Security Council does have to go through serious discussion if there's a report that Iraq is not in compliance. The inspectors have said all along that Iraq is not in full and immediate compliance. So in most of its terms, we have met the requirements of 1441.
And if military action is the only way to complete disarmament of Iraq, then my prime minister has made it absolutely clear that he will go that route.
ZAHN: And finally this morning, what do you think will be the consequences, though, of carrying on with military action without the support of the Security Council in this second resolution, not only for your country but the United States as well?
GREENSTOCK: Well, I think that's a good question, Paula, because Americans, as I see in the polls, do realize that they need allies to do this kind of thing. It's connected with what's going on in the Middle East, with the role of the United States in global affairs, with the United Nations as a useful global institution, with Afghanistan counterterrorism. It's connected with a lot of things.
Do Americans want to be on their own in all of those areas? I don't think that they do, and therefore a collective approach with allies, with friends, with the international community is very important. And the United Kingdom, important as it is, is not enough to be the single ally of the United States. It needs to go wider than that.
ZAHN: Sir Jeremy Greenstock, again, thank you very much for your time this morning.
GREENSTOCK: Thank you.
ZAHN: I know how tough it is to carve time out of your day, given the importance of the debate going on over at the U.N. Good luck to you. Thanks very much.
GREENSTOCK: Thanks a lot.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.
