Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Saturday Morning News

Analysis With Brett Schaefer of the Heritage Foundation

Aired January 25, 2003 - 07:15   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 So far, world leaders are sharply divided on whether there should be a war against Iraq.
Brett Schaefer joins us for a look at who's siding with the U.S. and who's not. He's with the think tank Heritage Foundation, and he joins us from Washington now.

Good morning to you, Brett. Thanks for being here.

BRETT SCHAEFER, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Good morning.

COLLINS: I want to start, quickly, if we could, by just going through the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and talking about their specific positions. Let's go ahead and start with Britain, how about?

SCHAEFER: Well, Britain, obviously, would prefer to have a second Security Council resolution, but would and has said that it would support U.S. military action in Iraq even without that resolution.

COLLINS: OK. How about France? We have heard a lot from France and Germany both on that note.

SCHAEFER: Yes. France has stated quite specifically that they are opposed to military action without a second resolution, and so they couch this in sort of defense of international law, and therefore the Security Council is the ultimate authority here. But France is also very hypocritical on this issue, because they've invited, for instance, President Mugabe into France in direct violation of E.U. sanctions on travel.

So sometimes France likes to enforce international law and consensus, and sometimes it doesn't care.

COLLINS: That's interesting. All right, and how about Russia? They seem to be, at least -- I don't know if I'd say happy, but at least satisfied with the amount of cooperation that the Iraqi regime is giving to the inspectors.

SCHAEFER: I would put them somewhere between Britain and France. I think that if -- given what evidence that the United States says that it has, the United States government says that it has, Russia could be convinced to support, or at least abstain, in the vote for military force in Iraq. COLLINS: Now, when we talk about Germany, interesting to me that they do not have -- and let's talk about that for a minute -- about the veto power. Germany obviously came out with France saying that they are against any war with Iraq, say that they do not want to join the U.S. coalition. But what does that mean? If they are not a permanent member, they don't have veto power. Can you explain that to us a little bit?

SCHAEFER: Sure. The Security Council has 15 members. Five of those members are permanent. They're essentially the victors in World War II, China, Russia, Britain, France, and the United States. All those members have veto power, which means that they can block any kind of resolution going through the Security Council.

The other 10 members are elected on two-year terms and staggered, so there's five for one two-year term, and then the next year another five are elected. Right now, the 10 members kind of span the spectrum of support for the United States, Bulgaria has said that they would probably support U.S. military action even without a resolution, and Syria, which is obviously very sympathetic to Iraq and also a neighbor, so they're probably pretty frightened about Iraq, said that they oppose any kind of military action.

So it runs the whole gamut.

COLLINS: Right. Is it a fair statement to say that it really doesn't matter much, unless you are a permanent member, what your position is, at least as far as veto power goes?

SCHAEFER: Well, any resolution has to get past that first hurdle, which is the veto. And if it's not vetoed then, it really does matter whether those countries support it or not, because you need nine positive votes to have a Security Council resolution going forward.

COLLINS: All right. So tell us what you think is the expected outcome of that U.N. report coming up on Monday. We're just two days away.

SCHAEFER: Well, it's hard to say. The IAEA has said that they sort of -- they're -- the terminology I've heard them use is that light gray, dark gray, black, and they said they're going to put a -- have a report out in the gray area, and therefore not black or failing or whatever...

COLLINS: Do you think that's enough?

SCHAEFER: ... terminology (UNINTELLIGIBLE) want to use. Well, I think that's the wrong way to approach this issue, frankly. Compliance is not a gradation issue. Compliance is, do you comply or do you not comply? And the resolution quite clearly lays out, Resolution 1441 of the Security Council on Iraq, quite clearly lays out what they have to do in order to comply with that resolution.

And quite clearly, the United States has made this case many times, they have not fully complied with that, and therefore, in my opinion, they've failed. And so the question -- I mean, it -- let's say that I'm driving down the street and I'm breaking the law, I'm speeding. And the police officer pulls me over, and I say, Well, you know, police officer, I was obeying the speed limit down the road, and therefore I was in compliance back there. And his answer, of course, is going to be...

COLLINS: Right.

SCHAEFER: ... Well, you weren't in compliance when I saw you.

COLLINS: Right.

SCHAEFER: And so that's what the issue is right now. You can't be in partial compliance. You either are in full compliance or you're not.

COLLINS: All right.

SCHAEFER: And Iraq clearly is not.

COLLINS: All right. Brett Schaefer with the Heritage Foundation, we certainly do appreciate your time this morning.

SCHAEFER: Thank you very much.

COLLINS: All right. Have a great day.

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 January 25, 2003 - 07:15   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
HEIDI COLLINS:, CNN ANCHOR So far, world leaders are sharply divided on whether there should be a war against Iraq.
Brett Schaefer joins us for a look at who's siding with the U.S. and who's not. He's with the think tank Heritage Foundation, and he joins us from Washington now.

Good morning to you, Brett. Thanks for being here.

BRETT SCHAEFER, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Good morning.

COLLINS: I want to start, quickly, if we could, by just going through the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and talking about their specific positions. Let's go ahead and start with Britain, how about?

SCHAEFER: Well, Britain, obviously, would prefer to have a second Security Council resolution, but would and has said that it would support U.S. military action in Iraq even without that resolution.

COLLINS: OK. How about France? We have heard a lot from France and Germany both on that note.

SCHAEFER: Yes. France has stated quite specifically that they are opposed to military action without a second resolution, and so they couch this in sort of defense of international law, and therefore the Security Council is the ultimate authority here. But France is also very hypocritical on this issue, because they've invited, for instance, President Mugabe into France in direct violation of E.U. sanctions on travel.

So sometimes France likes to enforce international law and consensus, and sometimes it doesn't care.

COLLINS: That's interesting. All right, and how about Russia? They seem to be, at least -- I don't know if I'd say happy, but at least satisfied with the amount of cooperation that the Iraqi regime is giving to the inspectors.

SCHAEFER: I would put them somewhere between Britain and France. I think that if -- given what evidence that the United States says that it has, the United States government says that it has, Russia could be convinced to support, or at least abstain, in the vote for military force in Iraq. COLLINS: Now, when we talk about Germany, interesting to me that they do not have -- and let's talk about that for a minute -- about the veto power. Germany obviously came out with France saying that they are against any war with Iraq, say that they do not want to join the U.S. coalition. But what does that mean? If they are not a permanent member, they don't have veto power. Can you explain that to us a little bit?

SCHAEFER: Sure. The Security Council has 15 members. Five of those members are permanent. They're essentially the victors in World War II, China, Russia, Britain, France, and the United States. All those members have veto power, which means that they can block any kind of resolution going through the Security Council.

The other 10 members are elected on two-year terms and staggered, so there's five for one two-year term, and then the next year another five are elected. Right now, the 10 members kind of span the spectrum of support for the United States, Bulgaria has said that they would probably support U.S. military action even without a resolution, and Syria, which is obviously very sympathetic to Iraq and also a neighbor, so they're probably pretty frightened about Iraq, said that they oppose any kind of military action.

So it runs the whole gamut.

COLLINS: Right. Is it a fair statement to say that it really doesn't matter much, unless you are a permanent member, what your position is, at least as far as veto power goes?

SCHAEFER: Well, any resolution has to get past that first hurdle, which is the veto. And if it's not vetoed then, it really does matter whether those countries support it or not, because you need nine positive votes to have a Security Council resolution going forward.

COLLINS: All right. So tell us what you think is the expected outcome of that U.N. report coming up on Monday. We're just two days away.

SCHAEFER: Well, it's hard to say. The IAEA has said that they sort of -- they're -- the terminology I've heard them use is that light gray, dark gray, black, and they said they're going to put a -- have a report out in the gray area, and therefore not black or failing or whatever...

COLLINS: Do you think that's enough?

SCHAEFER: ... terminology (UNINTELLIGIBLE) want to use. Well, I think that's the wrong way to approach this issue, frankly. Compliance is not a gradation issue. Compliance is, do you comply or do you not comply? And the resolution quite clearly lays out, Resolution 1441 of the Security Council on Iraq, quite clearly lays out what they have to do in order to comply with that resolution.

And quite clearly, the United States has made this case many times, they have not fully complied with that, and therefore, in my opinion, they've failed. And so the question -- I mean, it -- let's say that I'm driving down the street and I'm breaking the law, I'm speeding. And the police officer pulls me over, and I say, Well, you know, police officer, I was obeying the speed limit down the road, and therefore I was in compliance back there. And his answer, of course, is going to be...

COLLINS: Right.

SCHAEFER: ... Well, you weren't in compliance when I saw you.

COLLINS: Right.

SCHAEFER: And so that's what the issue is right now. You can't be in partial compliance. You either are in full compliance or you're not.

COLLINS: All right.

SCHAEFER: And Iraq clearly is not.

COLLINS: All right. Brett Schaefer with the Heritage Foundation, we certainly do appreciate your time this morning.

SCHAEFER: Thank you very much.

COLLINS: All right. Have a great day.

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