Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Saturday Morning News

What Define an Iraqi Breach

Aired November 30, 2002 - 09:04   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 CALLOWAY, CNN ANCHOR: Turning to Iraq and the hunt for weapons, U.N. inspectors made some surprise visits to at least two sites today, one a military-industrial complex, and the other was a nuclear research site. Inspectors were accompanied by Iraqi officials to both of those sites. Inspectors say that Iraq has been cooperating so far.
Well, Iraqi officials are said to be complying in the searches as we said, raising some questions, though, of what would constitute an all-important breach that could trigger U.S. military action.

For some insight into all this, we are joined by Jim Walsh. He is, of course, with Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and has been with us recently to talk about this topic.

Jim, thanks for coming back. And I know you're going to be here for our "REPORTER'S NOTEBOOK." Lots of e-mail coming in with questions for you.

JIM WALSH, KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT: Oh, good, good.

CALLOWAY: But let's try to settle some right now concerning what would be a breach. Now, a material breach does not necessarily mean that material has to be found.

WALSH: You're absolutely right, Catherine. I think that's probably a misconception that people have about the resolution. It's not that the inspectors have to find a buried weapon for that -- for Iraq to be found in material breach. Iraq can violate the resolution in a number of ways. It says specifically in Article 4, I believe it is, that if they withhold information, make a false declaration, or do not fully cooperate, then that itself constitutes a material breach.

CALLOWAY: Impeding the path at all of the inspectors would...

WALSH: Absolutely. In fact, the word "interference" is in the resolution itself. So -- and I think that's the most likely outcome. If I were a betting man, and I'm not, I would say that we're going to find Iraq in material breach not because of anything we find in particular but because of a lack of cooperation further down the road.

CALLOWAY: But doesn't that set up a sort of a gray area? Because, you know, let's say that they do impede someone from going through a certain area. While it may say that that is a violation, would that be enough to trigger military action to get into wherever they are preventing you from going into? WALSH: Well, Catherine, I think that's an excellent question, because I think it's going to be in Iraqi self-interest at some point, as the inspectors come closer and closer to showing that they actually do have something, if that's what is going to happen, that they're going to try to delay them.

Now, they're going to try to delay them or obstruct them not in a overt and in-your-face sort of way, because that would lead to a call back to New York and a finding that they were in material breach. They'll try to do it subtly, they'll try to slow them down and interfere, but below that threshold that would cause a controversy.

CALLOWAY: Richard Butler told us this morning, and a very fine point, that, why would you not be cooperative if you know that they're going in an area where there's nothing to hide, that that should be the first indication that this kind of cooperation would not be taking place if they were going anywhere where something could be hidden.

WALSH: I think he's right about that. But I also think that the inspectors are, as Nic Robertson has indicated, start -- having a soft start.

CALLOWAY: Right.

WALSH: They're not going to go straight to the presidential palace, they're not going to go straight to that Iraqi nuclear scientist and sweep him out of the country. They want to get in there, establish a baseline, check the sites that they already knew about, and also get their feet on the ground, figure out how the Iraqis are reacting to them, get their game plan. And then after the declaration on December 8, that's when the game begins.

CALLOWAY: I know there's a lot of new technology that the inspectors have brought in with them. I'm wondering, in this U.N. resolution or in any of the limitations that have been set up for Iraq, is there an ABCs of exactly what would constitute a material violation, meaning if something is found, some type of material?

WALSH: Well, the resolutions tend to be vague, because they, they -- you can't predict what's going to happen in the future. So when you read the articles of that resolution, it simply says if they've made a false declaration. So that's why that December 8 date is so important because that's where Iraq's going to say what it has and what it doesn't have. And, of course, so far, it's been saying it has absolutely nothing. Now if they continue to say that, it will be easy to prove that that's not true.

CALLOWAY: Right.

WALSH: So they're probably going to declare something, and then it'll be a matter of, is this true -- and not only is it true, but can we confirm it? Because really the burden of proof is on Iraq to allow the inspectors to show that their statement is true.

CALLOWAY: When we say materials, we're talking about what? WALSH: Well, it's really -- in terms of "material breach," that's just a legal term. But in terms of the weapons of mass destruction material, we're talking about their store of chemical weapons, biological weapons, any nuclear research they may have done that violated previous resolutions, and missile work beyond a certain range.

CALLOWAY: But biological weapons, let's say something is found. There are -- declared by Iraq. Could they not have a reason for having this?

WALSH: Well, they have -- can have a reason to have some biological agents that might be dual-use in nature, they -- you know, pests that could be used as pesticides, you know, bugs to kill bugs, that sort of thing.

CALLOWAY: Right.

WALSH: But there's going to be no reason to have anthrax, there's going to be no reason to have botulinum, there's not going to be -- no reason to have a series of things that they used and actually made into weapons back in the early 1990s.

CALLOWAY: All right. Well, we are going to have you with us in, I guess, about 20 minutes, and along with a couple of other experts, including Nic Robertson. It'll be interesting to hear what he has to say about the inspections that took place today.

Thank you for being with us, Jim.

WALSH: I'm looking forward to it.

CALLOWAY: All right, we'll see you then. E-mails coming in.

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 November 30, 2002 - 09:04   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CATHERINE CALLOWAY, CNN ANCHOR: Turning to Iraq and the hunt for weapons, U.N. inspectors made some surprise visits to at least two sites today, one a military-industrial complex, and the other was a nuclear research site. Inspectors were accompanied by Iraqi officials to both of those sites. Inspectors say that Iraq has been cooperating so far.
Well, Iraqi officials are said to be complying in the searches as we said, raising some questions, though, of what would constitute an all-important breach that could trigger U.S. military action.

For some insight into all this, we are joined by Jim Walsh. He is, of course, with Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and has been with us recently to talk about this topic.

Jim, thanks for coming back. And I know you're going to be here for our "REPORTER'S NOTEBOOK." Lots of e-mail coming in with questions for you.

JIM WALSH, KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT: Oh, good, good.

CALLOWAY: But let's try to settle some right now concerning what would be a breach. Now, a material breach does not necessarily mean that material has to be found.

WALSH: You're absolutely right, Catherine. I think that's probably a misconception that people have about the resolution. It's not that the inspectors have to find a buried weapon for that -- for Iraq to be found in material breach. Iraq can violate the resolution in a number of ways. It says specifically in Article 4, I believe it is, that if they withhold information, make a false declaration, or do not fully cooperate, then that itself constitutes a material breach.

CALLOWAY: Impeding the path at all of the inspectors would...

WALSH: Absolutely. In fact, the word "interference" is in the resolution itself. So -- and I think that's the most likely outcome. If I were a betting man, and I'm not, I would say that we're going to find Iraq in material breach not because of anything we find in particular but because of a lack of cooperation further down the road.

CALLOWAY: But doesn't that set up a sort of a gray area? Because, you know, let's say that they do impede someone from going through a certain area. While it may say that that is a violation, would that be enough to trigger military action to get into wherever they are preventing you from going into? WALSH: Well, Catherine, I think that's an excellent question, because I think it's going to be in Iraqi self-interest at some point, as the inspectors come closer and closer to showing that they actually do have something, if that's what is going to happen, that they're going to try to delay them.

Now, they're going to try to delay them or obstruct them not in a overt and in-your-face sort of way, because that would lead to a call back to New York and a finding that they were in material breach. They'll try to do it subtly, they'll try to slow them down and interfere, but below that threshold that would cause a controversy.

CALLOWAY: Richard Butler told us this morning, and a very fine point, that, why would you not be cooperative if you know that they're going in an area where there's nothing to hide, that that should be the first indication that this kind of cooperation would not be taking place if they were going anywhere where something could be hidden.

WALSH: I think he's right about that. But I also think that the inspectors are, as Nic Robertson has indicated, start -- having a soft start.

CALLOWAY: Right.

WALSH: They're not going to go straight to the presidential palace, they're not going to go straight to that Iraqi nuclear scientist and sweep him out of the country. They want to get in there, establish a baseline, check the sites that they already knew about, and also get their feet on the ground, figure out how the Iraqis are reacting to them, get their game plan. And then after the declaration on December 8, that's when the game begins.

CALLOWAY: I know there's a lot of new technology that the inspectors have brought in with them. I'm wondering, in this U.N. resolution or in any of the limitations that have been set up for Iraq, is there an ABCs of exactly what would constitute a material violation, meaning if something is found, some type of material?

WALSH: Well, the resolutions tend to be vague, because they, they -- you can't predict what's going to happen in the future. So when you read the articles of that resolution, it simply says if they've made a false declaration. So that's why that December 8 date is so important because that's where Iraq's going to say what it has and what it doesn't have. And, of course, so far, it's been saying it has absolutely nothing. Now if they continue to say that, it will be easy to prove that that's not true.

CALLOWAY: Right.

WALSH: So they're probably going to declare something, and then it'll be a matter of, is this true -- and not only is it true, but can we confirm it? Because really the burden of proof is on Iraq to allow the inspectors to show that their statement is true.

CALLOWAY: When we say materials, we're talking about what? WALSH: Well, it's really -- in terms of "material breach," that's just a legal term. But in terms of the weapons of mass destruction material, we're talking about their store of chemical weapons, biological weapons, any nuclear research they may have done that violated previous resolutions, and missile work beyond a certain range.

CALLOWAY: But biological weapons, let's say something is found. There are -- declared by Iraq. Could they not have a reason for having this?

WALSH: Well, they have -- can have a reason to have some biological agents that might be dual-use in nature, they -- you know, pests that could be used as pesticides, you know, bugs to kill bugs, that sort of thing.

CALLOWAY: Right.

WALSH: But there's going to be no reason to have anthrax, there's going to be no reason to have botulinum, there's not going to be -- no reason to have a series of things that they used and actually made into weapons back in the early 1990s.

CALLOWAY: All right. Well, we are going to have you with us in, I guess, about 20 minutes, and along with a couple of other experts, including Nic Robertson. It'll be interesting to hear what he has to say about the inspections that took place today.

Thank you for being with us, Jim.

WALSH: I'm looking forward to it.

CALLOWAY: All right, we'll see you then. E-mails coming in.

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