Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Sunday Morning
Interview With James Rubin, Donald Shepperd
Aired February 09, 2003 - 07:12 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.
HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: The Bush administration seems focused on Iraq, but some people say there's a bigger threat, and that is North Korea. For some perspective on both countries, CNN military analyst, retired Major General Don Shepperd is joining us on the phone now from Tucson, Arizona. Good morning to you.
DON SHEPPERD, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Good morning, Heidi.
COLLINS: And former State Department spokesman James Rubin is in London this morning, and good morning to you, sir.
Thank you both for being here. I do want to go ahead and begin with that very question, which is, which is a larger threat to the U.S., Iraq or North Korea? General Shepperd, why don't you go ahead and begin.
SHEPPERD: Well, I tell you, from the standpoint of the war on -- standpoint of the war on terror, Iraq is the more serious threat right now. We've got to clean that up because of where we are, and where it is, and the energy resources of the world.
On the other hand, the fact that North Korea probably has at least a few nuclear weapons makes it very, very serious. I am very confident that we are going to get out of the North Korea situation diplomatically, Heidi.
COLLINS: James Rubin, do you agree with that assessment?
JAMES RUBIN, FORMER SPOKESMAN, STATE DEPARTMENT: Well, only partially. They are different threats. If your fear is the risk of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands, if that's your biggest fear in this modern era, North Korea is a far, far greater threat than Iraq. Even Secretary Powell's presentation to the U.N. this week made evident that they are some years away from getting a nuclear weapons capability, while from North Korea we face the real prospect, the prospect that the Clinton administration was prepared to use military force over in a matter of weeks, namely the reprocessing of the key nuclear ingredient, plutonium, that the North Koreans have now pulled out of the inspection, and they've hidden, and we don't know where it is.
So, this -- if the issue is nuclear weapons, the issue is far, far more imminent in North Korea than it is Iraq. If the issue is the broader problems in this world, with the dictator Saddam Hussein, the potential aggressiveness that he poses, the potential of his links to al Qaeda and what that could mean, there we have a real risk of chemical and biological weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. That is why the administration is focused on that.
COLLINS: And James, let me also ask you, we have Mohamed ElBaradei and Hans Blix in Iraq for possibly the last time this weekend. How critical is this meeting, and what's at stake here exactly?
RUBIN: Well, I think we're in the final moments of diplomatic efforts to avoid war. You have Hans Blix and ElBaradei in Baghdad, perhaps getting some minor concessions from the Baghdad regime, but the only thing that can stop military conflict at this point is not minor technical issues, it's a fundamental change of position by the regime to give up all that Secretary Powell showed the world the Iraqis have and to stop doing what Secretary Powell showed the world the Iraqis were doing in terms of thwarting the inspectors.
Meanwhile, you have France, and Germany, and Russia, trying to come up with some last-ditch alternative to war, where they are proposing that we triple the size of the inspections, possibly send in peacekeepers in advance of a war, under a U.N. mandate.
I don't think that's going fly, because the only reason the inspectors are in Iraq is that the United States military is poised for an invasion. Without that deployment, Iraq would never have let inspectors in in the first place.
So that effort I think is going to fail. We're in the final throws of diplomacy in the next week or two.
COLLINS: Right, and on that very same note, General Shepperd, tell me what you think about the U.S. actually going ahead and invading Iraq without the U.N., militarily speaking, not diplomatically, but militarily?
SHEPPERD: Well, military, we could to it, Heidi. There will be a coalition of the willing, as the president puts it. We will have some backing. It won't be everybody that we want if we have to do it on our own, but the president's made very clear that he can and will do it on our own, if the United Nations does not act. It will be a coalition minus France and Germany, and it might be a coalition without a U.N. resolution, but we can and it's very apparent that we will do it if required by the president.
COLLINS: How much do France and Germany really have to offer, militarily speaking, anyway?
SHEPPERD: It's not a case, Heidi, of what they have to offer militarily. It's the diplomatic power of the United Nations, and a world coalition united saying that this is what the world is going to do. That's the significance of this, not the military contributions, but rather the statements that it's the world against Saddam Hussein, not just the United States.
COLLINS: And let me go back to you, Mr. Rubin. How worried do you think the U.S. government is about this plan that France and Germany and now possibly Russia has to deploy these peacekeepers and increase the number of inspectors in Iraq? RUBIN: Well, I think it's probably a matter of extreme frustration to Secretary Powell and the president, that after proving, I think, convincingly, that Iraqis are not going to comply with this resolution, that that's not good enough. And I suspect they're quite frustrated, because in the end the issue of getting a U.N. resolution, getting unity in the world is not just a diplomatic advantages that General Shepperd mentioned, but also making it easier for key allies like Turkey, countries in the Arab world that we need support from, and then crucially, what comes after Saddam Hussein?
I don't think the American military, or the American people are going to want the entire burden of occupying and maintaining a force in Iraq for years without the support of countries like France and Germany, the United Nations, the countries that have gone in and spent the foreign assistance money, and the civilian works -- billions and billions of dollars, and provided the peacekeepers.
So, the president would far, far prefer, if we could get unity, but in the end I think they're prepared to push for a resolution and dare Russia and France to veto.
COLLINS: All right, let's talk about the terror threat level for just a moment. We know that it was raised a couple of days ago to orange, or high status as we've all been learning about.
General Shepperd, what does that mean for the military? Does it affect their plans at all, here or overseas?
SHEPPERD: Well, just like all of America, the military has to wonder what this means, and what's going to happen. It's very clear that we stand the chance of being hit, either overseas in U.S. military installations, or civilians, or within the United States.
Clearly, when the military is preparing and assembling for an operation, they know that they are vulnerable to terror attacks, and they really are on high alert. So, it doesn't really change what they're going to do, but just like all of America, it makes us worried, and it makes us more alert, Heidi.
COLLINS: That's right, and let me just finally ask you, Mr. Rubin, has the U.S. put the Security Council in a tough spot here as far as in jeopardy of appearing weak, if something isn't done quickly to disarm Saddam Hussein?
RUBIN: Yes, I do think that Secretary Powell's presentation did one simple thing. It proved that Iraq was violating the resolution that was passed last September, and I don't think even the French and the Russians are doubting that behind the scenes anymore.
The question now is, what do you do about it? And I think the argument that is most persuasive that Powell and the president have put together is what is the purpose of this U.N. Security Council, that you France, you Russia, have held so dear, if you're not prepared to back it up? The resolution talked about serious consequences, why won't you back it up? Unfortunately, that is accompanied often by the rhetoric of the secretary of defense, who seemed more interested in showing how alienated the United States is from the rest of the world by irritating the French and the Germans. This is sensitive diplomacy, and it's no time to score debating points. What we have to do is really put pressure on them behind the scenes, and give them a public way to move their position.
COLLINS: All right, I want to thank both of you. We do have a very big weekend, and a big week coming up, certainly regarding this situation with Iraq. We'll be hearing more from both of you, I'm sure. CNN military analyst, retired Major General Don Shepperd, thanks for joining us this morning by phone, and former State Department spokesman James Rubin in London. Thank you both, we do appreciate it.
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 February 9, 2003 - 07:12 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: The Bush administration seems focused on Iraq, but some people say there's a bigger threat, and that is North Korea. For some perspective on both countries, CNN military analyst, retired Major General Don Shepperd is joining us on the phone now from Tucson, Arizona. Good morning to you.
DON SHEPPERD, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Good morning, Heidi.
COLLINS: And former State Department spokesman James Rubin is in London this morning, and good morning to you, sir.
Thank you both for being here. I do want to go ahead and begin with that very question, which is, which is a larger threat to the U.S., Iraq or North Korea? General Shepperd, why don't you go ahead and begin.
SHEPPERD: Well, I tell you, from the standpoint of the war on -- standpoint of the war on terror, Iraq is the more serious threat right now. We've got to clean that up because of where we are, and where it is, and the energy resources of the world.
On the other hand, the fact that North Korea probably has at least a few nuclear weapons makes it very, very serious. I am very confident that we are going to get out of the North Korea situation diplomatically, Heidi.
COLLINS: James Rubin, do you agree with that assessment?
JAMES RUBIN, FORMER SPOKESMAN, STATE DEPARTMENT: Well, only partially. They are different threats. If your fear is the risk of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands, if that's your biggest fear in this modern era, North Korea is a far, far greater threat than Iraq. Even Secretary Powell's presentation to the U.N. this week made evident that they are some years away from getting a nuclear weapons capability, while from North Korea we face the real prospect, the prospect that the Clinton administration was prepared to use military force over in a matter of weeks, namely the reprocessing of the key nuclear ingredient, plutonium, that the North Koreans have now pulled out of the inspection, and they've hidden, and we don't know where it is.
So, this -- if the issue is nuclear weapons, the issue is far, far more imminent in North Korea than it is Iraq. If the issue is the broader problems in this world, with the dictator Saddam Hussein, the potential aggressiveness that he poses, the potential of his links to al Qaeda and what that could mean, there we have a real risk of chemical and biological weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. That is why the administration is focused on that.
COLLINS: And James, let me also ask you, we have Mohamed ElBaradei and Hans Blix in Iraq for possibly the last time this weekend. How critical is this meeting, and what's at stake here exactly?
RUBIN: Well, I think we're in the final moments of diplomatic efforts to avoid war. You have Hans Blix and ElBaradei in Baghdad, perhaps getting some minor concessions from the Baghdad regime, but the only thing that can stop military conflict at this point is not minor technical issues, it's a fundamental change of position by the regime to give up all that Secretary Powell showed the world the Iraqis have and to stop doing what Secretary Powell showed the world the Iraqis were doing in terms of thwarting the inspectors.
Meanwhile, you have France, and Germany, and Russia, trying to come up with some last-ditch alternative to war, where they are proposing that we triple the size of the inspections, possibly send in peacekeepers in advance of a war, under a U.N. mandate.
I don't think that's going fly, because the only reason the inspectors are in Iraq is that the United States military is poised for an invasion. Without that deployment, Iraq would never have let inspectors in in the first place.
So that effort I think is going to fail. We're in the final throws of diplomacy in the next week or two.
COLLINS: Right, and on that very same note, General Shepperd, tell me what you think about the U.S. actually going ahead and invading Iraq without the U.N., militarily speaking, not diplomatically, but militarily?
SHEPPERD: Well, military, we could to it, Heidi. There will be a coalition of the willing, as the president puts it. We will have some backing. It won't be everybody that we want if we have to do it on our own, but the president's made very clear that he can and will do it on our own, if the United Nations does not act. It will be a coalition minus France and Germany, and it might be a coalition without a U.N. resolution, but we can and it's very apparent that we will do it if required by the president.
COLLINS: How much do France and Germany really have to offer, militarily speaking, anyway?
SHEPPERD: It's not a case, Heidi, of what they have to offer militarily. It's the diplomatic power of the United Nations, and a world coalition united saying that this is what the world is going to do. That's the significance of this, not the military contributions, but rather the statements that it's the world against Saddam Hussein, not just the United States.
COLLINS: And let me go back to you, Mr. Rubin. How worried do you think the U.S. government is about this plan that France and Germany and now possibly Russia has to deploy these peacekeepers and increase the number of inspectors in Iraq? RUBIN: Well, I think it's probably a matter of extreme frustration to Secretary Powell and the president, that after proving, I think, convincingly, that Iraqis are not going to comply with this resolution, that that's not good enough. And I suspect they're quite frustrated, because in the end the issue of getting a U.N. resolution, getting unity in the world is not just a diplomatic advantages that General Shepperd mentioned, but also making it easier for key allies like Turkey, countries in the Arab world that we need support from, and then crucially, what comes after Saddam Hussein?
I don't think the American military, or the American people are going to want the entire burden of occupying and maintaining a force in Iraq for years without the support of countries like France and Germany, the United Nations, the countries that have gone in and spent the foreign assistance money, and the civilian works -- billions and billions of dollars, and provided the peacekeepers.
So, the president would far, far prefer, if we could get unity, but in the end I think they're prepared to push for a resolution and dare Russia and France to veto.
COLLINS: All right, let's talk about the terror threat level for just a moment. We know that it was raised a couple of days ago to orange, or high status as we've all been learning about.
General Shepperd, what does that mean for the military? Does it affect their plans at all, here or overseas?
SHEPPERD: Well, just like all of America, the military has to wonder what this means, and what's going to happen. It's very clear that we stand the chance of being hit, either overseas in U.S. military installations, or civilians, or within the United States.
Clearly, when the military is preparing and assembling for an operation, they know that they are vulnerable to terror attacks, and they really are on high alert. So, it doesn't really change what they're going to do, but just like all of America, it makes us worried, and it makes us more alert, Heidi.
COLLINS: That's right, and let me just finally ask you, Mr. Rubin, has the U.S. put the Security Council in a tough spot here as far as in jeopardy of appearing weak, if something isn't done quickly to disarm Saddam Hussein?
RUBIN: Yes, I do think that Secretary Powell's presentation did one simple thing. It proved that Iraq was violating the resolution that was passed last September, and I don't think even the French and the Russians are doubting that behind the scenes anymore.
The question now is, what do you do about it? And I think the argument that is most persuasive that Powell and the president have put together is what is the purpose of this U.N. Security Council, that you France, you Russia, have held so dear, if you're not prepared to back it up? The resolution talked about serious consequences, why won't you back it up? Unfortunately, that is accompanied often by the rhetoric of the secretary of defense, who seemed more interested in showing how alienated the United States is from the rest of the world by irritating the French and the Germans. This is sensitive diplomacy, and it's no time to score debating points. What we have to do is really put pressure on them behind the scenes, and give them a public way to move their position.
COLLINS: All right, I want to thank both of you. We do have a very big weekend, and a big week coming up, certainly regarding this situation with Iraq. We'll be hearing more from both of you, I'm sure. CNN military analyst, retired Major General Don Shepperd, thanks for joining us this morning by phone, and former State Department spokesman James Rubin in London. Thank you both, we do appreciate it.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
