Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Saturday Morning News

CNN Answers Viewer Questions About Iraq, UN

Aired September 14, 2002 - 09:36   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Joining us to -- on the receiving end of your calls, your questions, whether they're telephonically delivered or computer delivered. it doesn't matter, because Richard Roth and Rula Amin are more than capable of answering them for you.
Richard is our senior United Nations correspondent, Rula is live from Baghdad.

Let's get right to the e-mails. We got a bunch of them, and they're very good. We appreciate all your contributions.

Doug Waxler in Sacramento, California, has this one, Richard. "I just want to know what the heck took so long for the U.S. and the UN to take action now on all these resolutions. Why weren't these resolutions enforced? What is the use of resolutions if they aren't going to be enforced? Is the UN Just a paper tiger or what?"

RICHARD ROTH, CNN SENIOR UNITED NATIONS CORRESPONDENT: Well, I'm glad he hasn't decided his opinion on this matter yet. But basically, there are many resolutions that are just not enforced by the Security Council. They have passed over 1,500 or so. But it's up to the member countries on how tough they want to get.

The last few years, bit of a distraction for the United States. Terrorism, September 11, the disputed presidential election. If you go back and look back, nobody was going to come to the Security Council, certainly from the U.S., which is the biggest power here and has the most sway, and say, Hey, let's do something about this.

You have to lobby, you have to decide where you want to spend your international capital and also think of the consequences. There was a war with Iraq, but most of the resolutions dealt with getting out of Kuwait.

But yes, there are important resolutions saying they have to dismantle their weapons of mass destruction. There were -- the inspectors were pulled out, in effect, by the UN in 1998 at the urging of the U.S., so it was a little hard to say, Hey, take the inspectors back, even though the U.S. pulled them out.

They're going to get around to it in the next few days, sir. They're going to be working on a resolution which will have some teeth, and yet another deadline.

O'BRIEN: All right. CATHERINE CALLAWAY, CNN ANCHOR: All right, Rula, let's throw this one at you. "With all the difficulty of locating Osama bin Laden, how are we going to locate Saddam? And what happens if we do not locate him, and he creates the same kind of scenario for the U.S. that Osama has? I wonder how not being able to locate Saddam will play itself out. Will Saddam then be another Osama on the run? That to me is more troublesome." That's from Claude -- Rula.

RULA AMIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Catherine, what the people here in Iraq say, whether it's people or Iraqi officials, is that they are nothing like Osama bin Laden. They say they are a state, they had good relations with the U.S. for years, the U.S. supported them in their war against Iran, they have nothing to do with terrorism, they had nothing to do with September 11, and they are not a terrorist organization.

And when even we -- when we pose the question to them that if there is a war, the U.S. is very powerful, it has all kind of nuclear, chemical, biological traditional war instruments, and how can they resist? And what they say is that this is a country, and even if we're not up to the fight with the United States, Iraqis are going to resist.

Now, what is the outcome? Iraqi officials are saying they will win and teach the U.S. a lesson. The Iraqi people we talked to are concerned. They say they have been through so many wars and they have suffered under UN sanctions, and they really don't want to see another war -- Catherine.

O'BRIEN: All right. One more, let's get an e-mail in here from John Foster. This one will go to Richard. "The case that Bush made against Iraq at the UN stressed the number of times Iraq had violated UN resolutions. Could you help us understand what that means by comparing it to the compliance of other nations, such as Israel and the United States? And can you be specific in making that comparison?" John Foster has that for you, Richard. That's a big issue, isn't it?

ROTH: It is. And it's a little too early on a Saturday morning to go into that. But basically, there are resolutions that say that Israel has to withdraw from territories, occupied territories, but those resolutions also say during negotiations over an overall peace settlement, these resolutions, sir -- I believe it was a sir -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) are written by international lawyers who are experts, that later you could spend years trying to decipher words in these texts.

At many points, the Israelis say, the word "all" is not in there, as to withdraw from all the territories, they say is not in there. The Palestinians and Arab supporters say it means what it means, get out of the territories.

So you have these nuances, and they are beautifully written, some of these resolutions, just in the case that five, 10 years later the situation changes. Look, they waited years, the Security Council, in terms of enforcing in Bosnia, Serbia, President Milosevic and his government stayed in there. It wasn't until the U.S. and NATO got a little tougher that the Bosnia situation changed.

It really is all up to the members of the Security Council. A lot of the viewers, I know, Miles and Catherine, write in with these e-mails, and they think that the UN is some separate organization. Your tax dollars, the U.S. pays and the U.S. is the biggest member here, and certainly when the UN wants -- the U.S. wants to get down to business, things happen.

So the UN is not some special entity with black helicopters trying to invade the world or take over the world, but it is a mirror on who the world is. The U.S. could try to change things with how they carry themselves, what their policies are. Right now, a lot of the world allegedly doesn't like the U.S. for things on environment, international criminal court issues, Americans don't think about often, but they play big overseas.

O'BRIEN: And quickly, Richard, are we still in arrears, though? We paid the bill, didn't we?

(CROSSTALK)

ROTH: Yes, no...

CALLAWAY: ... owe some money?

O'BRIEN: Yes, we did, then.

ROTH: You're still with, the U.S. is still in arrears, several million dollars. But they have sped up their payment schedule. But right now Congress is still holding up money. In fact, I could tell you the exact number right now.

O'BRIEN: Ah. You anticipated this one.

CALLAWAY: Just (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

ROTH: One point -- Well, we always think about it about it, it's the first thing we do is check the debt. There's a big debt clock, you know, up in Manhattan on 42nd Street about the U.S. debt. Well, it looks like it's $1.9 billion for peacekeeping in the current year, in the regular budget, $365 million.

So besides e-mails, maybe viewers want to send in some coins.

CALLAWAY: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

O'BRIEN: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

CALLAWAY: Let's address this one to Rula. Let's go to Gina, who's on the phone with us from Fort Bragg this morning. Hello, Gina.

CALLER: Good morning. CALLAWAY: You have a question?

CALLER: Yes. My question is, why is it that now, 11 years after the Gulf War, is Saddam seen as such a problem, when he's basically the same tyrant as he was then, when I was served in '90 and '91 during the Gulf War conflict? Why now is he seen as such a problem?

AMIN: Well, this is a point that Iraq and the rest of the Arab world is pointing to, especially the people, not the officials, because you have a lot of Iraqis or Arabs who would say, point to other Arab countries like Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and they point to these regimes and say, some of them are monarchies, some of them are accused by the United States of being a dictatorship. Most of these countries don't have fair elections.

And yet they are allies of the United States. How come the fact that Iraq is similar now is pointed out? And that it's the same regime. Saddam Hussein's regime is the same regime that the U.S. had supported throughout his war with Iran, during the Iraq/Iran war.

So this is something that we have to ask U.S. officials. But it's something that is really on people's minds here as they try to figure out why now, what is going to happen? And if Iraq is going to allow the weapons inspectors, would that defuse the problem?

O'BRIEN: All right.

AMIN: Catherine?

O'BRIEN: Let's go back to Richard with this one from Dale Friesen, who's one of our frequent e-mailers. "Is the French three- week plan a benchmark for the future UN timetable and all of this?" And you might just want to lay out that briefly for folks.

ROTH: Good question, Dale. That's where the focus is going to be inside the Security Council. Secretary of State Colin Powell seemed to be headed toward the French direction when he said yesterday, I don't know if it will be one or more resolutions.

The French would like to see two resolutions produced towards Iraq. The first resolution would say that the weapons inspectors should return, that Iraq should accept them again after this four-year gap. If Iraq does not comply with that resolution, then a second resolution would be somewhat more of an ultimatum, saying that there would be consequences now, that they have to accept them.

Perhaps there'll be some wiggle room on exactly what are the consequences or what is the timetable for action, that won't be specified. But that's the French approach. The U.S. needs everybody on board. They may be willing to give on that as long as they get France.

And it appears Russia is edging closer to the U.S. position because Russia signed on to a big statement by the Security Council permanent five members, who all have vetoes, yesterday, Russia saying Iraq must face consequences if they don't permit -- if it doesn't permit inspectors.

CALLAWAY: You know, let's try to squeeze in one more phone call really quickly, because we're running out of time.

Joe in Georgia, you're on the line, quickly, please, (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...

CALLER: Yes, Catherine, you do -- you and Miles do a great job. My question is, Richard, what if America wants to invade Iraq, and the UN votes against it, what would happen?

ROTH: There probably will not be a UN vote against it, that wouldn't happen. The U.S. has done this before, it has gone in in an aggressive way sometimes, Kosovo, other places, and the UN just kind of stands by. At one point Russia tried to pass a resolution condemning it, it didn't happen.

That's what will happen. But the U.S. wants to avoid that. They'd like to have the international coalition support. They may well get it if Iraq doesn't permit the inspectors in.

The real problem, Mr. Caller, is, what happens when Iraq says, We'll take the inspectors, at the last minute, that gray area, while troops are massing and building? Nineteen ninety-one, President Saddam Hussein didn't cut it as close as that. He waited too late past the deadline. That's the real interesting point to watch.

O'BRIEN: All right, final point, we are way, way, way against the clock here. But Rula, there's so many people that have this question, I'd like you -- if you could give me a brief answer, if that's possible, from L.D.C. in South Carolina. "As members of the press, are you free to travel and report what you see? If so, what do you see as going on in Iraqis' daily life that might support dropping bombs on them?"

AMIN: Well, I'll tell you, we're not completely free. We have to be clear on that. Whenever we go and take our cameras trying to interview people or to take pictures, we have to be escorted by someone from the information ministry. There are occasions when we want to take pictures of certain -- like an electricity plant or some water plant, where we have to get (UNINTELLIGIBLE) specific permission. Sometimes we don't get that permission.

However, there -- you know, when we -- we can socialize with people, we can go to restaurants, we go to weddings, and we can talk to people freely without an escort. And regardless of all of the pressure on those people, on how free they can talk, there is a real concern here among Iraqis, they really don't want to see this war happen. They -- and they feel helpless, they feel there is nothing in their hand, they have nothing to do with it.

And a lot of them point us often and again, saying, The United States knows that the sanctions are hurting us, the people, and that the sanctions are not hurting the regime, that Saddam Hussein is not the one whose children are starving. It's our children who are starving. How come the sanctions are still there? How come we're still under those sanctions?

And they don't get it. They really don't get it. And they always urge us with this question -- Miles.

O'BRIEN: All right.

CALLAWAY: All right, Rula.

We just want to thank you both for being with us. That's Rula Amin, who was obviously in Baghdad, thank you, Rula. Also, our senior United Nations correspondent, Richard Roth. Thank you, Richard, for your insights this morning.

O'BRIEN: Great, great questions.

CALLAWAY: Good questions.

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