Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
France Says It Will Not Accept Ultimatum on Iraq
Aired March 17, 2003 - 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.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said today that France will not accept an ultimatum on Iraq and that the U.S., Great Britain and Spain must ask themselves if war is really necessary.
Jim Bittermann now joins us from our Paris bureau with more -- good morning, Jim.
JIM BITTERMANN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Paula.
Dominique de Villepin went on to say that this war is a war of choice. He said he was struck by the fact that after that Azores summit yesterday that no one in the news conference referred to the inspections because the French believe the inspections are, should continue and are being successful, that they have uncovered weapons that are being destroyed and the inspectors should continue their inspections.
So there's been no change, as far as the French are concerned, about a U.N. resolution. They basically feel that any resolution that has an automatic move towards war is simply not in the cards as far as they are concerned and they're going to vote no on it.
They have went ahead and gone ahead in the U.N. as if Mr. Bush's comments were not even taken in here. They basically say that tomorrow they're going to table a motion which would provide for the inspections to go on for 30 to 60 days with a very fixed schedule of things that the inspectors should be looking at.
So the French proceeding as if the inspections are going to continue even though George Bush is saying that today is the day of truth -- Paula.
ZAHN: Jim, it is being characterized, today is not only the day of truth for Saddam Hussein. The "Wall Street Journal" framing it pretty much as the day of truth for Jacques Chirac, giving him one more last chance to show some flexibility. And I think you've made it very clearly through your reporting, the French are not going to accept any ultimatum of any kind.
Is there any flexibility outside of the time line?
BITTERMANN: Well, not that I can see. The fact is that the French have been joined this morning along with the Russians, the Chinese and the Germans, who have all said very similar things to what Jacques Chirac said last night and what Dominique de Villepin said this morning. Essentially their belief that this is not the right time to go to war, that they believe that the inspectors have been effective. There were destruction of missiles even today, continuing even today as the inspectors did their work in Iraq, and they point to that as something that has been turned up in the various inspections.
So, no, I think what's really at stake here, really, the problem is here is some different perceptions of what the United Nations is doing in this conflict with Iraq. Basically, the French say this is about disarmament and if it's about disarmament, disarmament is happening and should continue to happen. The inspectors should continue.
However, they say, if this is about overthrowing a government in Iraq, that's a different story, and it goes against the long history of international sovereignty laws and it would be illegal -- Paula.
ZAHN: Jim Bittermann, thank you so much.
On to the Azores summit over the weekend. It appears as though the window for diplomacy closes today and that today is a moment of truth, as President Bush described it. As the U.N. begins to debate again, the stage is set for a dramatic day there.
So is there any chance that diplomacy not war will be the final solution in Iraq?
Joining us now from London, James Rubin, former U.S. assistant secretary of state.
Good morning, Jamie.
Thanks so much for joining us.
JAMES RUBIN, FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE: Good morning. Good morning to you.
ZAHN: Did you hear anything in yesterday's news conference in the Azores that would lead you to believe there is any flexibility on the nations', those nation's part?
RUBIN: Absolutely not. I mean clearly today is diplomacy's D- Day. But we've had months now of miscues, bluffing, miscalculations, misunderstandings, Paris, London, Washington. The result has left a very bitter taste in everybody's mouth. I see the chance of a diplomatic event of any kind occurring today as virtually nil. The French believe that they moved yesterday to accept a 30 day time line and the vice president of the United States said that 30 days was too long and they weren't interested anymore.
And so I think the idea of the U.N. coming together today, giving one last chance for Saddam to disarm before war, is virtually nil.
ZAHN: Let's talk about the French position for a moment. It became quite clear from all the television appearances that administration members made yesterday that they wanted to redefine the problem as France being the obstacle, getting in the way of disarmament. The vice president saying it's difficult to take the French serious and believe that this is anything other than just further delaying tactics.
Does he have a point?
RUBIN: Well, he clearly has a point that the French haven't given the administration enough to work with. They say is war really necessary? And I think a fair question, has France really done every single thing possible to make an agreement with the administration?
On the other hand, we've seen a series of miscues and missteps by the administration on the diplomatic side beginning with the expectation that Putin would vote yes, beginning with the disaster in Turkey, where we misunderstood what was going on there, and ending with a real setback for American diplomacy at the U.N. when even Mexico and Chile and three African countries, Pakistan, people we have the ability to persuade, we have real leverage over, basically said that it's the administration that's not being flexible. And I think the French, had they given a little more leg, when historians look back at these last few weeks, theyll wonder had the French shown a little more leg, had they really said that if Saddam didn't comply with all of the disarmament requirements in 30 days, they would vote yes, not just have another meeting, but vote yes at that meeting and send or support the military operation.
Then I think the administration really would have been struggling and Tony Blair would have urged them to compromise. But instead they wrapped themself in diplomatic code around the continued inspections and the time frame envisaged by Hans Blix, the chief U.N. inspector, and that allowed Cheney to slap this idea down really without giving it any consideration whatsoever.
ZAHN: A final question for you this morning about some of some of the legal debates going on at the U.N. It is widely believed that if the second resolution was shot down and the U.S. went to war with a coalition of the willing anyway, that would be perceived as violating the U.N. charter. And then on the other hand, a simple no vote at all would leave enough legal ambiguity that there would not be a problem for the Bush administration.
What is your opinion?
RUBIN: Oh, I think that's exactly right. What we need to do is distinguish here between legality and political legitimacy. Iraq has been the subject of a series of U.S. resolutions. There's plenty of legal authority going back to 1991 for the use of military force. The issue really has never been a legal issue. The issue has been political legitimacy, should the United States initiate what fairly can be described as an attack on Iraq without not just a legal basis that exists in a series of resolutions, but with the real backing of the world?
And what we saw yesterday was the real backing is going to come from two countries, basically, maybe the Australians, as well -- Spain, the U.K. and Australia is the coalition that we're going to go to war with.
Now, once the war starts, France and Russia and these other countries, I hope and expect, will wish us an early victory so that they can get on to work together with us for the United Nations to bless a follow-up regime or operation in Iraq after Saddam Hussein is gone.
And so that's when the U.N. will come back into play. But I think you're exactly right that the legal issue is not, would be harmed if there was a resolution that was put forward and the administration lost. That would make it questionable legality. Right now the lawyers can make a pretty good case.
ZAHN: James Rubin, always good to see you.
James joining us from our London bureau this morning.
RUBIN: Thank you.
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 17, 2003 - 07:32 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said today that France will not accept an ultimatum on Iraq and that the U.S., Great Britain and Spain must ask themselves if war is really necessary.
Jim Bittermann now joins us from our Paris bureau with more -- good morning, Jim.
JIM BITTERMANN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Paula.
Dominique de Villepin went on to say that this war is a war of choice. He said he was struck by the fact that after that Azores summit yesterday that no one in the news conference referred to the inspections because the French believe the inspections are, should continue and are being successful, that they have uncovered weapons that are being destroyed and the inspectors should continue their inspections.
So there's been no change, as far as the French are concerned, about a U.N. resolution. They basically feel that any resolution that has an automatic move towards war is simply not in the cards as far as they are concerned and they're going to vote no on it.
They have went ahead and gone ahead in the U.N. as if Mr. Bush's comments were not even taken in here. They basically say that tomorrow they're going to table a motion which would provide for the inspections to go on for 30 to 60 days with a very fixed schedule of things that the inspectors should be looking at.
So the French proceeding as if the inspections are going to continue even though George Bush is saying that today is the day of truth -- Paula.
ZAHN: Jim, it is being characterized, today is not only the day of truth for Saddam Hussein. The "Wall Street Journal" framing it pretty much as the day of truth for Jacques Chirac, giving him one more last chance to show some flexibility. And I think you've made it very clearly through your reporting, the French are not going to accept any ultimatum of any kind.
Is there any flexibility outside of the time line?
BITTERMANN: Well, not that I can see. The fact is that the French have been joined this morning along with the Russians, the Chinese and the Germans, who have all said very similar things to what Jacques Chirac said last night and what Dominique de Villepin said this morning. Essentially their belief that this is not the right time to go to war, that they believe that the inspectors have been effective. There were destruction of missiles even today, continuing even today as the inspectors did their work in Iraq, and they point to that as something that has been turned up in the various inspections.
So, no, I think what's really at stake here, really, the problem is here is some different perceptions of what the United Nations is doing in this conflict with Iraq. Basically, the French say this is about disarmament and if it's about disarmament, disarmament is happening and should continue to happen. The inspectors should continue.
However, they say, if this is about overthrowing a government in Iraq, that's a different story, and it goes against the long history of international sovereignty laws and it would be illegal -- Paula.
ZAHN: Jim Bittermann, thank you so much.
On to the Azores summit over the weekend. It appears as though the window for diplomacy closes today and that today is a moment of truth, as President Bush described it. As the U.N. begins to debate again, the stage is set for a dramatic day there.
So is there any chance that diplomacy not war will be the final solution in Iraq?
Joining us now from London, James Rubin, former U.S. assistant secretary of state.
Good morning, Jamie.
Thanks so much for joining us.
JAMES RUBIN, FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE: Good morning. Good morning to you.
ZAHN: Did you hear anything in yesterday's news conference in the Azores that would lead you to believe there is any flexibility on the nations', those nation's part?
RUBIN: Absolutely not. I mean clearly today is diplomacy's D- Day. But we've had months now of miscues, bluffing, miscalculations, misunderstandings, Paris, London, Washington. The result has left a very bitter taste in everybody's mouth. I see the chance of a diplomatic event of any kind occurring today as virtually nil. The French believe that they moved yesterday to accept a 30 day time line and the vice president of the United States said that 30 days was too long and they weren't interested anymore.
And so I think the idea of the U.N. coming together today, giving one last chance for Saddam to disarm before war, is virtually nil.
ZAHN: Let's talk about the French position for a moment. It became quite clear from all the television appearances that administration members made yesterday that they wanted to redefine the problem as France being the obstacle, getting in the way of disarmament. The vice president saying it's difficult to take the French serious and believe that this is anything other than just further delaying tactics.
Does he have a point?
RUBIN: Well, he clearly has a point that the French haven't given the administration enough to work with. They say is war really necessary? And I think a fair question, has France really done every single thing possible to make an agreement with the administration?
On the other hand, we've seen a series of miscues and missteps by the administration on the diplomatic side beginning with the expectation that Putin would vote yes, beginning with the disaster in Turkey, where we misunderstood what was going on there, and ending with a real setback for American diplomacy at the U.N. when even Mexico and Chile and three African countries, Pakistan, people we have the ability to persuade, we have real leverage over, basically said that it's the administration that's not being flexible. And I think the French, had they given a little more leg, when historians look back at these last few weeks, theyll wonder had the French shown a little more leg, had they really said that if Saddam didn't comply with all of the disarmament requirements in 30 days, they would vote yes, not just have another meeting, but vote yes at that meeting and send or support the military operation.
Then I think the administration really would have been struggling and Tony Blair would have urged them to compromise. But instead they wrapped themself in diplomatic code around the continued inspections and the time frame envisaged by Hans Blix, the chief U.N. inspector, and that allowed Cheney to slap this idea down really without giving it any consideration whatsoever.
ZAHN: A final question for you this morning about some of some of the legal debates going on at the U.N. It is widely believed that if the second resolution was shot down and the U.S. went to war with a coalition of the willing anyway, that would be perceived as violating the U.N. charter. And then on the other hand, a simple no vote at all would leave enough legal ambiguity that there would not be a problem for the Bush administration.
What is your opinion?
RUBIN: Oh, I think that's exactly right. What we need to do is distinguish here between legality and political legitimacy. Iraq has been the subject of a series of U.S. resolutions. There's plenty of legal authority going back to 1991 for the use of military force. The issue really has never been a legal issue. The issue has been political legitimacy, should the United States initiate what fairly can be described as an attack on Iraq without not just a legal basis that exists in a series of resolutions, but with the real backing of the world?
And what we saw yesterday was the real backing is going to come from two countries, basically, maybe the Australians, as well -- Spain, the U.K. and Australia is the coalition that we're going to go to war with.
Now, once the war starts, France and Russia and these other countries, I hope and expect, will wish us an early victory so that they can get on to work together with us for the United Nations to bless a follow-up regime or operation in Iraq after Saddam Hussein is gone.
And so that's when the U.N. will come back into play. But I think you're exactly right that the legal issue is not, would be harmed if there was a resolution that was put forward and the administration lost. That would make it questionable legality. Right now the lawyers can make a pretty good case.
ZAHN: James Rubin, always good to see you.
James joining us from our London bureau this morning.
RUBIN: Thank you.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
