Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Saturday Morning News
Former NATO Ambassador Discusses Iraq
Aired September 21, 2002 - 07:03 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.
CATHERINE CALLAWAY, CNN ANCHOR: President Bush making a big effort to drum up support at home and abroad for military action against Iraq. He has had more luck domestically than overseas, but even the U.S. public is divided on this issue.
We're going to examine that topic right now. Joining us from Washington to give us some insight, Robert Hunter, former ambassador to NATO, now with the Rand Corporation.
Thanks for being with us this morning, sir.
ROBERT HUNTER, FORMER AMBASSADOR TO NATO: Thank you.
CALLAWAY: Well, wake up, because we've got some new information just hit the wire just a few moments ago from the AP saying that Iraqi state-run radio is saying that Iraq would not abide by any new resolutions adopted by the U.N. Security Council, this coming as the Bush administration is pushing for a new resolution that might eliminate some of the stipulations that were attached to the original one.
How is this going to play in the U.N.?
HUNTER: Well, I suspect there are a few people in the U.N. who will take that seriously and say maybe we should back off. But this was a really dumb thing to do. It's like bringing that tiger to the assembly you just had. Because the Bush administration has been saying, Here is a man who will not abide by the existing resolutions, no matter what amount of power stands behind them.
And for them to come out now and say, Oh, if there's another one, we won't -- a new one, we won't abide by that -- frankly, that just builds the case for war. And certainly it builds the case for the ultimate removal of Saddam Hussein. It's kind of a death wish.
CALLAWAY: What do you -- what is this put Kofi Annan, what kind of situation is he in now? He helped draft the original one. Certainly there were some stipulations on for perhaps the examination of Saddam Hussein's palaces and these type of things. Do you think that he would support any type of change of that resolution?
HUNTER: Well, I think he will be in favor of a solid resolution that will enable the world, in effect, to go into Iraq and to find in any particular corner anywhere in the country anything that can contribute to weapons of mass destruction, and then to get rid of them. Anything short of that, obviously, the United States will do that by itself. And, in fact, it would be doing it on the behalf of a lot of other countries.
So this is just bad PR coming out of Baghdad. It's not something that's going to sway the central focus of what's going on here.
CALLAWAY: Let's talk about some of those other countries you just mentioned. Where does the U.S. stand in support right now? Let's take a look, for instance, at the French. Are they ever going to come around?
HUNTER: Absolutely. The French, who don't, incidentally, just speak for themselves when they do this, they enjoy getting out there and twisting the American tail, but they often have a lot of other support. But in the final analysis, the French will back us. They're going to try to channel it in directions which increase the chances that inspections have a chance to work and decreases the chances for war, at least an early war.
But the French will back us.
CALLAWAY: What about Saudi -- what about Kuwait, possible bases?
HUNTER: Well, they have already indicated that bases would be possible if there were a U.N. resolution. I don't believe that if there is broad support in the world -- and yes, there will be a U.N. resolution -- that either the Kuwaitis or the Saudis would stand in our way.
They will recognize if the United States is serious, and if this time Saddam Hussein is going to become history, they're not going to want to be sitting on the sidelines and see some other countries like Qatar becoming prominent in American thinking.
CALLAWAY: You know, and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) really thinking militarily in this strategy, but what about within Iraq? Should that not be something else that should be considered in all of this? What about the Kurds and the Shi'ites looking outside that security force that surrounds Saddam Hussein?
HUNTER: Well, the real questions now are not, Is there going to be major change in Iraq? Is its nuclear and other programs going to disappear? That's going to happen. It's what happens afterwards. We can hope that the potential consequences of conducting a war will not be what we fear, such as Saddam attacking Israel or losing someone like the head of Pakistan.
But then you have to worry about what happens next, keeping Iraq together. Turkey is desperately worried that there'll be an independent Kurdistan, which will exercise a magnetic effect...
CALLAWAY: Right.
HUNTER: ... on the Turkish Kurds. Nobody wants to see a precedent set for the breaking-up of countries in that region. What's -- what this means -- I think we need to face this, the American people -- going into Iraq, which, one way or another, we're going to have to do now, means being there a long, long time. It means doing things in Iraq that, frankly, the outside world has not been doing in Afghanistan.
We need to understand, we are there for the long haul. Probably been a long time coming to try to clean up that area for once and all. But it's going to take years, if not decades.
CALLAWAY: Robert Hunter, thank you for being with us this morning. It'll be interesting to see the fallout from this statement that came out this morning. Thanks for being with us.
HUNTER: 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 September 21, 2002 - 07:03 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CATHERINE CALLAWAY, CNN ANCHOR: President Bush making a big effort to drum up support at home and abroad for military action against Iraq. He has had more luck domestically than overseas, but even the U.S. public is divided on this issue.
We're going to examine that topic right now. Joining us from Washington to give us some insight, Robert Hunter, former ambassador to NATO, now with the Rand Corporation.
Thanks for being with us this morning, sir.
ROBERT HUNTER, FORMER AMBASSADOR TO NATO: Thank you.
CALLAWAY: Well, wake up, because we've got some new information just hit the wire just a few moments ago from the AP saying that Iraqi state-run radio is saying that Iraq would not abide by any new resolutions adopted by the U.N. Security Council, this coming as the Bush administration is pushing for a new resolution that might eliminate some of the stipulations that were attached to the original one.
How is this going to play in the U.N.?
HUNTER: Well, I suspect there are a few people in the U.N. who will take that seriously and say maybe we should back off. But this was a really dumb thing to do. It's like bringing that tiger to the assembly you just had. Because the Bush administration has been saying, Here is a man who will not abide by the existing resolutions, no matter what amount of power stands behind them.
And for them to come out now and say, Oh, if there's another one, we won't -- a new one, we won't abide by that -- frankly, that just builds the case for war. And certainly it builds the case for the ultimate removal of Saddam Hussein. It's kind of a death wish.
CALLAWAY: What do you -- what is this put Kofi Annan, what kind of situation is he in now? He helped draft the original one. Certainly there were some stipulations on for perhaps the examination of Saddam Hussein's palaces and these type of things. Do you think that he would support any type of change of that resolution?
HUNTER: Well, I think he will be in favor of a solid resolution that will enable the world, in effect, to go into Iraq and to find in any particular corner anywhere in the country anything that can contribute to weapons of mass destruction, and then to get rid of them. Anything short of that, obviously, the United States will do that by itself. And, in fact, it would be doing it on the behalf of a lot of other countries.
So this is just bad PR coming out of Baghdad. It's not something that's going to sway the central focus of what's going on here.
CALLAWAY: Let's talk about some of those other countries you just mentioned. Where does the U.S. stand in support right now? Let's take a look, for instance, at the French. Are they ever going to come around?
HUNTER: Absolutely. The French, who don't, incidentally, just speak for themselves when they do this, they enjoy getting out there and twisting the American tail, but they often have a lot of other support. But in the final analysis, the French will back us. They're going to try to channel it in directions which increase the chances that inspections have a chance to work and decreases the chances for war, at least an early war.
But the French will back us.
CALLAWAY: What about Saudi -- what about Kuwait, possible bases?
HUNTER: Well, they have already indicated that bases would be possible if there were a U.N. resolution. I don't believe that if there is broad support in the world -- and yes, there will be a U.N. resolution -- that either the Kuwaitis or the Saudis would stand in our way.
They will recognize if the United States is serious, and if this time Saddam Hussein is going to become history, they're not going to want to be sitting on the sidelines and see some other countries like Qatar becoming prominent in American thinking.
CALLAWAY: You know, and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) really thinking militarily in this strategy, but what about within Iraq? Should that not be something else that should be considered in all of this? What about the Kurds and the Shi'ites looking outside that security force that surrounds Saddam Hussein?
HUNTER: Well, the real questions now are not, Is there going to be major change in Iraq? Is its nuclear and other programs going to disappear? That's going to happen. It's what happens afterwards. We can hope that the potential consequences of conducting a war will not be what we fear, such as Saddam attacking Israel or losing someone like the head of Pakistan.
But then you have to worry about what happens next, keeping Iraq together. Turkey is desperately worried that there'll be an independent Kurdistan, which will exercise a magnetic effect...
CALLAWAY: Right.
HUNTER: ... on the Turkish Kurds. Nobody wants to see a precedent set for the breaking-up of countries in that region. What's -- what this means -- I think we need to face this, the American people -- going into Iraq, which, one way or another, we're going to have to do now, means being there a long, long time. It means doing things in Iraq that, frankly, the outside world has not been doing in Afghanistan.
We need to understand, we are there for the long haul. Probably been a long time coming to try to clean up that area for once and all. But it's going to take years, if not decades.
CALLAWAY: Robert Hunter, thank you for being with us this morning. It'll be interesting to see the fallout from this statement that came out this morning. Thanks for being with us.
HUNTER: 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
