Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Saturday Morning News
Reporter's Notebook: Jane Arraf, Suzanne Malveaux, Richard Roth
Aired November 09, 2002 - 09:34 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.
RENAY SAN MIGUEL, CNN ANCHOR: It's time now for our "Reporter's Notebook" and your e-mail questions on Iraq. You can also call us with your questions if you like. The number, 1-800-807-2620. Our correspondents are standing by to answer your questions.
And joining us is CNN White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux, senior U.N. correspondent Richard Roth, and Jane Arraf, our Baghdad bureau chief.
CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: And we're going to put Jane Arraf in the hot seat first with a question from Travis from Calgary, Alberta.
He asks, "Why is the Bush administration giving Iraq any chances? Iraq lost a war in 1992, it should be forced to comply with the United States' demands. Why is the Bush administration letting the U.N. dictate U.S. foreign policy, an organization that really does not have any authority or the best interests of the United States in mind?"
Jane.
JANE ARRAF, CNN BAGHDAD BUREAU CHIEF: That's a really interesting question from a Canadian. I guess the short answer is that it's also in the U.S. interest, it would seem, to avoid a war. There seems to be a perception in that part of the world, perhaps, that this could be really quick and easy.
But people who actually know the region and the people who make decisions there, I think, realize that this really could draw the United States and Canada as well into something that it's really not prepared for and doesn't really want.
This is a huge country, and it's a complicated country, it's a very rich country, it's got all this oil. So it's not just a matter of coming in here and teaching Iraq a lesson. It's actually a matter, if you choose to attack Iraq, you kind of turn this whole region upside down. The 1991 Gulf War had the effect of an earthquake here, and this would be even worse.
So again, the short answer, there are a lot of things that could go wrong and a lot of things that could backfire against the United States.
SAN MIGUEL: Suzanne, a question for you, pending -- about the pending cost of any war against Iraq, from John, Virginia Beach, on U.S. Navy active duty, by the way. "If the weapons inspections fail, can we afford to go to war with Iraq? I've heard two versions from the Republicans and the Democrats. Now that the elections are over, what are the actual numbers?"
Suzanne.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's a good question, because we don't know those actual numbers. There have been different figures from the White House as well the Pentagon, giving in the tens of millions of dollars. It would be really very costly either way, both sides agreeing to this.
And really a debate over whether or not we can afford to go in with that kind of resources and those costs. One of the things that's really important, the Bush administration, in getting those allies to a consensus from the United Nations and the Security Council members, is really sharing the costs in a possible attack against Iraq. That is one of the reasons why the U.S. did not want to go it alone. It was politically motivated but also economically as well.
COSTELLO: Gotcha. OK, this one's for you, Richard. Tim from Astoria, New York, asks, "What specific steps has the United Nations set out in this new resolution to address Iraq's historical policy of stalling the inspectors in order to buy time?"
RICHARD ROTH, CNN SENIOR UNITED NATIONS CORRESPONDENT: Well, that question is asked not far from where I'm sitting. The inspectors will have some timelines and deadlines for Iraq to comply. They will leave within seven days from now to start heading toward Baghdad to set up a preliminary headquarters.
Iraq also has seven days in which to accept the terms of this resolution, by the way. We'll first have to see if the inspectors indeed get in there. Iraq will have 30 days in all, starting from yesterday, to turn over a full accounting of its program of weapons of mass destruction. And the resolution says any omission or any violation regarding that documentation would, in effect, result in a material breach, language the U.S. uses to say, war could be used to make Iraq comply because it is not willing to disarm.
SAN MIGUEL: Back to Jane Arraf in Baghdad.
This question from Dave in Columbus, Ohio: "Why is it that the United States is the only country that is allowed to have nuclear weapons? I don't want Saddam having them any more than the next guy does. But who's to say that no one can? We started the nuclear age, and now we are surprised when other countries are looking for them, i.e., Iraq, North Korea. It seems very hypocritical, if you ask me."
ARRAF: You know, that's a question that a lot of people here are asking, not just in Iraq but in this region and other parts of the world. And it's really quite key, because here what they say, what the Iraqi government says, and a lot of people on the street, genuinely, is that, Look, Israel has nuclear weapons, it hasn't admitted it, but it has -- they have nuclear weapons. Iran is probably building nuclear weapons. There are other countries including North Korea, and they are not being faced with the threat of war. But the bottom line is that the United States can have nuclear weapons because it has the support and the power that these other countries don't have.
Now, that does touch on a chord here. There is a really deep resentment against the United States, and it comes from just that perception, that this is hypocrisy, that there are double standards at play, and that there are different standards that apply for this part of the world, no matter what the threat is, perceived or otherwise, than applied to other countries.
COSTELLO: All right, Jane Arraf, thanks.
We're having problems with our phone system. We're going to get the quirks worked out. Our reporters will take more of your phone calls, and we're going to fix that problem. But we have plenty of e- mails.
We're back after this short break. Stay with CNN SATURDAY MORNING.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: A very somber ceremony going on right now. You're looking at live pictures from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C. More than 58,000 names are inscribed on the black granite memorial, and all those names are being read aloud to honor those lost in the Vietnam War, as part of the activities marking the 20th anniversary of this memorial, which was dedicated November 13, 1982.
SAN MIGUEL: We are remembering one war, talking about the possibility of another one, maybe, in our future. We go back to our "Reporter's Notebook," joined again by CNN White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux, Richard Roth, our U.N. correspondent out in New York, and our Baghdad bureau chief, Jane Arraf.
COSTELLO: We've been getting a lot of e-mails, guys, so let's. get going. Suzanne, this one's for you. "Isn't it the case that the United States is politically entrenched to go to war? The one outcome that will not happen is that inspectors will come back and report that Iraq has fully complied and either disarmed or, even less likely, had previously terminated weapons programs. Is it too easy for us to provoke a war and control of Iraq's oil fields? Is it too great a prize for us not to take it?" This one from Pascal.
MALVEAUX: Lot of parts to that question there. I'll start off by saying that the Bush administration has talked about this policy of regime change, really a euphemism for ousting Saddam Hussein. There have been questions about, Well, whatever happened to that? And senior administration officials insist it still stands.
But really the Bush administration is emphasizing now that the focus is on disarmament, the next move being up to Iraq. It's a good point. It's a good question, whether or not the United States is politically entrenched in going to war. The Bush administration does not believe fundamentally that Saddam Hussein is going to comply with all of these requirements. When they talk about regime change, they say, Sure, well, perhaps if Saddam Hussein does comply, then essentially it would be a change of regime. But they seriously doubt that that's going to happen.
And in that event, in that case, they are prepared, the United States is prepared, to confront Iraq and Saddam Hussein with an international coalition. That's why we have been seeing the military buildup over the last couple of months, we have been seeing kind of this coalition building so that the United States does not go it alone.
But clearly the administration is preparing for that possibility, and really, it's in Saddam Hussein's hands. But it's a very good question, just whether or not this actually goes either way. People are asking, Are we closer to war now, or are we closer to peace? And I think that we're both more prepared and closer to both war and peace, because you have less ambiguity, you've got the -- really the outline, the structure that is there, the troops that are ready.
It is simply a matter of movement, which way does it go? But clearly, there is some movement, some expectation that will determine whether or not we go to war or not go to war as opposed to people just stepping back and waiting for something to happen.
SAN MIGUEL: Richard Roth, a question, another question regarding the machinery and the, you know, how much wiggle room is not being given to Saddam Hussein in the new resolution.
This from Ismail: "Reportedly, the inspectors are to leave within 10 days. Iraqis have 30 days to complete the inventory of their stocks of weapons of mass destruction. What happens during this overlap, when inspectors do arrive and possibly start working, and the Iraqis still do inventory? Do any reports of any possible discoveries by inspectors trigger an automatic war? Or will the U.N. Security Council wait for the results of the Iraqi inventory report?"
ROTH: I keep asking those same questions at the U.N. There's some interesting areas here that you can do a lot of hypothetical what-ifs. The French ambassador, of course, was saying, Let's not look at the hypothetical dark scenarios, he's hoping for the best.
However, when you look at the entire schedule of things, it's really the U.N. chief weapons inspector who has to report back to the Security Council if he has a problem. So no matter when any of the inspectors or even the field technicians or even Mr. Blix himself, who leaves next weekend, if Baghdad permits this trip, to go to Iraq, that's what will start the whole process.
Even if there are overlapping deadlines and some people are where they aren't supposed to be yet -- I mean, if there's going to be a problem, France, China, Russia, they at least understand it's going to come from the U.N. weapons inspectors to report it to the council.
The big discrepancy has been what the U.S. says should happen after that, whether the U.S., as they say, should go it alone and can do whatever it wants, or whether there should be a full meeting, or as France, Russia, and China, in a late statement last night, very unusual printed statement, said, "The council must meet to take a position."
That's not something the White House wants.
COSTELLO: No. OK, Richard, thanks.
This next question, I find it very interesting, it's for Jane Arraf. "What kind of press coverage will we receive on the U.N. inspection process in Iraq? Would open press coverage be of value?" This one from Dale.
ARRAF: Well, certainly what we would like, and what the Iraqi government would like, the Iraqi government has been pressing all along to show really, it really, really wants these inspectors back in, and it is providing unconditional open access. So it really is pressing for press coverage every step of the way, virtually.
Now, the people who generally don't want it are the weapons inspectors themselves. When they were here before, they left in '98, but during those years that they were here, it was extremely difficult to cover them, because they said, naturally enough, that having cameras hanging around would impede their inspections and certainly reduce the element of surprise.
So there are very limited and very staged press events, certainly, but no real ongoing coverage. At this time, Iraq would like it to be different, but it's up to the U.N. and the weapons inspectors.
SAN MIGUEL: Suzanne, this question coming from Tom in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and this brings up, you know, some situations that also could apply to the war in Afghanistan. "Former President Clinton and his administration were always quizzed by usually hawkish Republicans about his, quote, `exit strategies' in various conflicts. So what is this administration's exit strategy in regards to Iraq?" But the question could apply to Afghanistan as well, I guess.
MALVEAUX: Well, certainly the Bush administration has really done a turnaround when it comes to taking that position. As you know, when President Bush was running, he talked about -- he was very critical of President Clinton and the Republicans as well, talking about the need for an exit strategy and the fact that the United States would become entrenched in some of these warfares throughout the world.
The Bush administration, though, however, in this situation, is saying that in terms of Afghanistan, that they are in it for the long haul. That means years invested in redeveloping that country, as well as Iraq. They have talked about kind of a financial commitment that the United States is willing to make as well as putting personnel on the ground and having an international coalition, not only involving troops but also just really a whole support system to help the Iraqi people. One thing that is happening is the administration is working with some of those opposition groups against Saddam Hussein, putting in some resources. They have met several times, they have had meetings and they've talked about ways of establishing a coalition working with those different groups to make sure that Iraq does not fall into terrorists' hands or simply fall apart with various warring factions.
So the Bush administration has made it clear that they are committed in the long haul to Iraq's development in the future.
COSTELLO: OK, Suzanne, thank you. And this ends our "Reporter's Notebook." Thank you for your wonderful questions, and thank you to Suzanne Malveaux, Richard Roth, and Jane Arraf in Baghdad.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Roth>
Aired November 9, 2002 - 09:34 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
RENAY SAN MIGUEL, CNN ANCHOR: It's time now for our "Reporter's Notebook" and your e-mail questions on Iraq. You can also call us with your questions if you like. The number, 1-800-807-2620. Our correspondents are standing by to answer your questions.
And joining us is CNN White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux, senior U.N. correspondent Richard Roth, and Jane Arraf, our Baghdad bureau chief.
CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: And we're going to put Jane Arraf in the hot seat first with a question from Travis from Calgary, Alberta.
He asks, "Why is the Bush administration giving Iraq any chances? Iraq lost a war in 1992, it should be forced to comply with the United States' demands. Why is the Bush administration letting the U.N. dictate U.S. foreign policy, an organization that really does not have any authority or the best interests of the United States in mind?"
Jane.
JANE ARRAF, CNN BAGHDAD BUREAU CHIEF: That's a really interesting question from a Canadian. I guess the short answer is that it's also in the U.S. interest, it would seem, to avoid a war. There seems to be a perception in that part of the world, perhaps, that this could be really quick and easy.
But people who actually know the region and the people who make decisions there, I think, realize that this really could draw the United States and Canada as well into something that it's really not prepared for and doesn't really want.
This is a huge country, and it's a complicated country, it's a very rich country, it's got all this oil. So it's not just a matter of coming in here and teaching Iraq a lesson. It's actually a matter, if you choose to attack Iraq, you kind of turn this whole region upside down. The 1991 Gulf War had the effect of an earthquake here, and this would be even worse.
So again, the short answer, there are a lot of things that could go wrong and a lot of things that could backfire against the United States.
SAN MIGUEL: Suzanne, a question for you, pending -- about the pending cost of any war against Iraq, from John, Virginia Beach, on U.S. Navy active duty, by the way. "If the weapons inspections fail, can we afford to go to war with Iraq? I've heard two versions from the Republicans and the Democrats. Now that the elections are over, what are the actual numbers?"
Suzanne.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's a good question, because we don't know those actual numbers. There have been different figures from the White House as well the Pentagon, giving in the tens of millions of dollars. It would be really very costly either way, both sides agreeing to this.
And really a debate over whether or not we can afford to go in with that kind of resources and those costs. One of the things that's really important, the Bush administration, in getting those allies to a consensus from the United Nations and the Security Council members, is really sharing the costs in a possible attack against Iraq. That is one of the reasons why the U.S. did not want to go it alone. It was politically motivated but also economically as well.
COSTELLO: Gotcha. OK, this one's for you, Richard. Tim from Astoria, New York, asks, "What specific steps has the United Nations set out in this new resolution to address Iraq's historical policy of stalling the inspectors in order to buy time?"
RICHARD ROTH, CNN SENIOR UNITED NATIONS CORRESPONDENT: Well, that question is asked not far from where I'm sitting. The inspectors will have some timelines and deadlines for Iraq to comply. They will leave within seven days from now to start heading toward Baghdad to set up a preliminary headquarters.
Iraq also has seven days in which to accept the terms of this resolution, by the way. We'll first have to see if the inspectors indeed get in there. Iraq will have 30 days in all, starting from yesterday, to turn over a full accounting of its program of weapons of mass destruction. And the resolution says any omission or any violation regarding that documentation would, in effect, result in a material breach, language the U.S. uses to say, war could be used to make Iraq comply because it is not willing to disarm.
SAN MIGUEL: Back to Jane Arraf in Baghdad.
This question from Dave in Columbus, Ohio: "Why is it that the United States is the only country that is allowed to have nuclear weapons? I don't want Saddam having them any more than the next guy does. But who's to say that no one can? We started the nuclear age, and now we are surprised when other countries are looking for them, i.e., Iraq, North Korea. It seems very hypocritical, if you ask me."
ARRAF: You know, that's a question that a lot of people here are asking, not just in Iraq but in this region and other parts of the world. And it's really quite key, because here what they say, what the Iraqi government says, and a lot of people on the street, genuinely, is that, Look, Israel has nuclear weapons, it hasn't admitted it, but it has -- they have nuclear weapons. Iran is probably building nuclear weapons. There are other countries including North Korea, and they are not being faced with the threat of war. But the bottom line is that the United States can have nuclear weapons because it has the support and the power that these other countries don't have.
Now, that does touch on a chord here. There is a really deep resentment against the United States, and it comes from just that perception, that this is hypocrisy, that there are double standards at play, and that there are different standards that apply for this part of the world, no matter what the threat is, perceived or otherwise, than applied to other countries.
COSTELLO: All right, Jane Arraf, thanks.
We're having problems with our phone system. We're going to get the quirks worked out. Our reporters will take more of your phone calls, and we're going to fix that problem. But we have plenty of e- mails.
We're back after this short break. Stay with CNN SATURDAY MORNING.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: A very somber ceremony going on right now. You're looking at live pictures from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C. More than 58,000 names are inscribed on the black granite memorial, and all those names are being read aloud to honor those lost in the Vietnam War, as part of the activities marking the 20th anniversary of this memorial, which was dedicated November 13, 1982.
SAN MIGUEL: We are remembering one war, talking about the possibility of another one, maybe, in our future. We go back to our "Reporter's Notebook," joined again by CNN White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux, Richard Roth, our U.N. correspondent out in New York, and our Baghdad bureau chief, Jane Arraf.
COSTELLO: We've been getting a lot of e-mails, guys, so let's. get going. Suzanne, this one's for you. "Isn't it the case that the United States is politically entrenched to go to war? The one outcome that will not happen is that inspectors will come back and report that Iraq has fully complied and either disarmed or, even less likely, had previously terminated weapons programs. Is it too easy for us to provoke a war and control of Iraq's oil fields? Is it too great a prize for us not to take it?" This one from Pascal.
MALVEAUX: Lot of parts to that question there. I'll start off by saying that the Bush administration has talked about this policy of regime change, really a euphemism for ousting Saddam Hussein. There have been questions about, Well, whatever happened to that? And senior administration officials insist it still stands.
But really the Bush administration is emphasizing now that the focus is on disarmament, the next move being up to Iraq. It's a good point. It's a good question, whether or not the United States is politically entrenched in going to war. The Bush administration does not believe fundamentally that Saddam Hussein is going to comply with all of these requirements. When they talk about regime change, they say, Sure, well, perhaps if Saddam Hussein does comply, then essentially it would be a change of regime. But they seriously doubt that that's going to happen.
And in that event, in that case, they are prepared, the United States is prepared, to confront Iraq and Saddam Hussein with an international coalition. That's why we have been seeing the military buildup over the last couple of months, we have been seeing kind of this coalition building so that the United States does not go it alone.
But clearly the administration is preparing for that possibility, and really, it's in Saddam Hussein's hands. But it's a very good question, just whether or not this actually goes either way. People are asking, Are we closer to war now, or are we closer to peace? And I think that we're both more prepared and closer to both war and peace, because you have less ambiguity, you've got the -- really the outline, the structure that is there, the troops that are ready.
It is simply a matter of movement, which way does it go? But clearly, there is some movement, some expectation that will determine whether or not we go to war or not go to war as opposed to people just stepping back and waiting for something to happen.
SAN MIGUEL: Richard Roth, a question, another question regarding the machinery and the, you know, how much wiggle room is not being given to Saddam Hussein in the new resolution.
This from Ismail: "Reportedly, the inspectors are to leave within 10 days. Iraqis have 30 days to complete the inventory of their stocks of weapons of mass destruction. What happens during this overlap, when inspectors do arrive and possibly start working, and the Iraqis still do inventory? Do any reports of any possible discoveries by inspectors trigger an automatic war? Or will the U.N. Security Council wait for the results of the Iraqi inventory report?"
ROTH: I keep asking those same questions at the U.N. There's some interesting areas here that you can do a lot of hypothetical what-ifs. The French ambassador, of course, was saying, Let's not look at the hypothetical dark scenarios, he's hoping for the best.
However, when you look at the entire schedule of things, it's really the U.N. chief weapons inspector who has to report back to the Security Council if he has a problem. So no matter when any of the inspectors or even the field technicians or even Mr. Blix himself, who leaves next weekend, if Baghdad permits this trip, to go to Iraq, that's what will start the whole process.
Even if there are overlapping deadlines and some people are where they aren't supposed to be yet -- I mean, if there's going to be a problem, France, China, Russia, they at least understand it's going to come from the U.N. weapons inspectors to report it to the council.
The big discrepancy has been what the U.S. says should happen after that, whether the U.S., as they say, should go it alone and can do whatever it wants, or whether there should be a full meeting, or as France, Russia, and China, in a late statement last night, very unusual printed statement, said, "The council must meet to take a position."
That's not something the White House wants.
COSTELLO: No. OK, Richard, thanks.
This next question, I find it very interesting, it's for Jane Arraf. "What kind of press coverage will we receive on the U.N. inspection process in Iraq? Would open press coverage be of value?" This one from Dale.
ARRAF: Well, certainly what we would like, and what the Iraqi government would like, the Iraqi government has been pressing all along to show really, it really, really wants these inspectors back in, and it is providing unconditional open access. So it really is pressing for press coverage every step of the way, virtually.
Now, the people who generally don't want it are the weapons inspectors themselves. When they were here before, they left in '98, but during those years that they were here, it was extremely difficult to cover them, because they said, naturally enough, that having cameras hanging around would impede their inspections and certainly reduce the element of surprise.
So there are very limited and very staged press events, certainly, but no real ongoing coverage. At this time, Iraq would like it to be different, but it's up to the U.N. and the weapons inspectors.
SAN MIGUEL: Suzanne, this question coming from Tom in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and this brings up, you know, some situations that also could apply to the war in Afghanistan. "Former President Clinton and his administration were always quizzed by usually hawkish Republicans about his, quote, `exit strategies' in various conflicts. So what is this administration's exit strategy in regards to Iraq?" But the question could apply to Afghanistan as well, I guess.
MALVEAUX: Well, certainly the Bush administration has really done a turnaround when it comes to taking that position. As you know, when President Bush was running, he talked about -- he was very critical of President Clinton and the Republicans as well, talking about the need for an exit strategy and the fact that the United States would become entrenched in some of these warfares throughout the world.
The Bush administration, though, however, in this situation, is saying that in terms of Afghanistan, that they are in it for the long haul. That means years invested in redeveloping that country, as well as Iraq. They have talked about kind of a financial commitment that the United States is willing to make as well as putting personnel on the ground and having an international coalition, not only involving troops but also just really a whole support system to help the Iraqi people. One thing that is happening is the administration is working with some of those opposition groups against Saddam Hussein, putting in some resources. They have met several times, they have had meetings and they've talked about ways of establishing a coalition working with those different groups to make sure that Iraq does not fall into terrorists' hands or simply fall apart with various warring factions.
So the Bush administration has made it clear that they are committed in the long haul to Iraq's development in the future.
COSTELLO: OK, Suzanne, thank you. And this ends our "Reporter's Notebook." Thank you for your wonderful questions, and thank you to Suzanne Malveaux, Richard Roth, and Jane Arraf in Baghdad.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Roth>
