Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Sunday
Interview With Julian Borger, Hisham Melhem, Philippe Bolopion
Aired February 09, 2003 - 18:21 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.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I have said that if Saddam Hussein does not disarm, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. And I mean it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAROL LIN, CNN ANCHOR: How is the tough U.S. stance on Iraq playing overseas? Especially in countries where allied support could be crucial? This is how we put together our international roundtable. Let me introduce them to you. We have Julian Borger, he is the U.S. bureau chief for Britain's "The Guardian" newspaper. And then we have Hisham Melhem, he is the Washington bureau chief for the Lebanese "As- Safir" newspaper, and Philippe Bolopion is the New York correspondent for Radio France Internationale. I hope I didn't botch any of your names too badly. Good evening, gentlemen, thanks for being here.
Hisham, let me begin with you and this terror alert now that Americans are in the midst of. We're at orange alert, which is high alert, and U.S. intelligence sources are now saying that it may be linked to the Hajj, the holy pilgrimage for Muslims going to Mecca. Do you believe this is true? Is this what you're hearing?
HISHAM MELHEM, AS-SAFIR: Well, I have no information to corroborate this new changes here in Washington. People in the Middle East were very upset, because it was linked somehow to the Hajj, which is a very religious event every year in the Muslim world. So the way it was presented was not necessarily the best way to do it.
LIN: I'm wondering, though, what you think of how this terror alert was played out in the newspapers and radio and television across the Arab world.
MELHEM: It was a major story. I wrote a story about it. I read the report. It's one of those major stories today. Every time the president of the United States if he's worried about Saddam or international terror or the fight against international terror, this is serious business for everybody. I mean, the United States is about to embark on a major, radical transformation of the political map in the Middle East, and everybody's concerned about that, because what is likely to take place is nothing short of establishing a new (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in the region, and everybody around Iraq will be affected one way or the other, just as they were affected by the war on terror. So there is a great deal of concern, because of the uncertainty about the future and because what is likely to happen is going to set a major precedent.
LIN: Yes, Julian, I'm wondering, what do you make of the developments in Baghdad over the weekend, the chief U.N. weapons inspectors are saying -- they're not calling it a breakthrough, but they are seeing more cooperation from the Iraqis. Is this going to be enough for a positive report to the U.N. Security Council on Friday, and do you think it's enough to avert war?
JULIAN BORGER, THE GUARDIAN: Whether it's enough for a positive report, I think a lot is going to depend on Dr. Blix. I think Mr. ElBaradei has made it quite clear that he is willing to give at least a positive spin on what comes out of Baghdad in an effort to avoid a war. Dr. Blix, obviously, last time, was very negative, and his words and his choice of words are going to be crucial on Friday, when they report to the Security Council. Whether it will be enough to avert a war, I very much doubt it. I get the very much the impression here in Washington that this administration is dead set on ousting Saddam Hussein. I can't see anything that Dr. Blix or Dr. ElBaradei will say that will put them off.
LIN: Philippe, what are your listeners listening for, then, on the report on Friday, because if the chief weapons inspectors come back to the Security Council and still find Saddam Hussein not complying with the Resolution 1441, what are your listeners saying that France should do? Should France abstain, should France vote against a second resolution going to war?
PHILIPPE BOLOPION, RADIO FRANCE INTERNATIONAL: Well, it's going to depend very much on what Hans Blix is precisely saying. If he's really saying that the Iraqis are not cooperating at all, I think people in France are going to think about the next step very seriously.
Now, if he says most probably, like in the past, that the cooperation is not perfect, that they are still some gray areas, but still the inspections are working and they get good access, then people are going to think it's worth going through the inspections, it's worth trying to disarm Saddam Hussein through inspections, even if it's not a perfect process, you know, let's even beef it up, let's have more inspectors in the realm. It's probably a better way than war to disarm Iraq. It was a better way in '91, between '91 and '98, as you know there were much more weapons destroyed than during the first Gulf War.
LIN: Why is it that your listeners, though, were not convinced by the presentation that Secretary of State Colin Powell gave before the U.N. Security Council, the evidence that he had, the audiotapes, the photographs of noncompliance inside of Baghdad?
BOLOPION: Well, it's very difficult to say. You know, lots of it was very staged. I mean, lots of it, for example, the links between terrorism and Iraq, people were very surprised by this information. Everything was not very reliable. We read press release saying that the CIA was not comfortable with a lot of this information.
At the same time, I don't think they dismissed everything. I think that some of the pictures showing that Iraq might have tried to sanitize some sites before the inspectors arrived are certainly worth investigating. They are not going to take the U.S. word on that, but I'm sure the inspectors are going to try to find on the ground if some of these information were reliable.
LIN: Gentlemen, stay right there. We're going to take a quick break but come back and pick up on the point that if there is a second resolution and it goes to a vote, how will these different countries vote? Should they abstain? What will the reaction be in the Arab world? We're going to be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: The reason we just can't stand by and let Iraq ignore the will of the international community is because that we are allowing him to keep his weapons of mass destruction and develop more, and these are dangerous weapons. They are a threat to the people in the region, they are a threat to the world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LIN: Well, you have heard from the Bush administration about their argument towards war but we want to get a more international perspective, so we put together an international roundtable.
In case you're just joining us, I want to reintroduce my guests. First and foremost, Julian Borger from the British newspaper "The Guardian;" and then we have Hisham Melhem from the Lebanese newspaper "As-Safir" and also joining us today Philippe Bolopion from Radio France Internationale for the French perspective.
Thank you very much, gentlemen, once again for being here. Hisham, if I could start with you again, Syria and Pakistan are both two Muslim countries who are voting members of the Security Council. They actually voted in support of Resolution 1441. Do you think that they will vote to authorize an attack against Iraq if there is a second resolution?
MELHEM: It's very difficult to see Syria voting for a military option against Iraq. In the case of Pakistan, probably they will abstain. I doubt that they will vote against it.
The Syrians cannot approve of it because of a variety of reasons, political and economic. They've had a good relationship with the Iraqis. They will find it extremely difficult to justify sanctioning a war against an Arab government, especially a government with which they've been having economic and political support.
The Syrians will be reflecting the views of the public opinion in the region even those segments of public opinion who believe that what exists in Baghdad is a monstrous, repulsive, obnoxious bloody regime. At that same time, they believe that the United States could not make the case at this -- until now that it represents a clear and present danger to its neighbors as well as to the United States.
So, that's why people are very uncertain about the future. They are not -- probably a U.N. sanctioned resolution will help the governments of the region to deal with the war and its impact, but as far as the people are concerned, they see that their governments have failed them in terms of development, in terms of protecting them, and they see another war against Iraq as leading to greater chaos and uncertainty in the region.
So, there is a sense of helplessness, anger, resentment, directed in all directions against the existing governments, against the United States, and that's why it's a very dicey situation.
And I'm not sure the administration really understands fully the implications of such a radical departure, because they are really (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the whole situation in the region and people in the region, especially the political classes understand that a new regime in Iraq that is friendly to the United States will enhance America's abilities to isolate and pressure Iran and Syria, to marginalize Saudi Arabia, to influence the oil policy in the region, to change the terms of (UNINTELLIGIBLE) of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
So, this is really a major change that is about to take place in a very pivotal country and that's why they are concerned.
LIN: Hisham, let me get a couple more opinions her. Julian, do you think that the United States will act unilaterally if it can not get consensus on the U.N. Security Council for a war resolution?
BORGER: Yes. I think the U.S. is certainly prepared to do that. I think the interesting question is Tony Blair and Britain? I think in those circumstances, Tony Blair would be in a very difficult position because he's way, way ahead of public opinion in Britain over the Iraq issue and if he doesn't have a U.N. Security Council resolution behind him, he has a serious political problem if he is to follow George Bush into war.
LIN: Philippe, what happens then? Do you think France would abstain or vote against a war resolution and, if so, how would the French people feel if the United States did act unilaterally?
BOLOPION: Well, first for the French voter it's difficult to say right now. I don't think they would use a veto but right now they wouldn't need it because the U.S. to pass a resolution would need the support of at least nine of the 15 countries of the Security Council. For now they have perhaps five votes maximum, so we are not there yet.
Now, the question to know how France would feel if the U.S. was going to go to war even without any Security Council resolution, I think it would feel like most of the rest of the world. It would feel that it's a blow to international law. It's a blow to the way we are conducting, you know, international relations for the last ten or 20 years. It would be bad for the U.S. It would be bad for the U.N. Security Council and the whole U.N. I don't think anyone is really thinking of that as being a positive development.
LIN: Philippe Bolopion, thank you very much from Radio France Internationale. Julian Borger, thank you very much from "The Guardian," and Hisham Melhem from "As-Safir" the Lebanese newspaper, I appreciate you joining us today.
MELHEM: Thank you.
BOLOPION: Thank you.
BORGER: 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
Bolopion>
Aired February 9, 2003 - 18:21 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I have said that if Saddam Hussein does not disarm, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. And I mean it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAROL LIN, CNN ANCHOR: How is the tough U.S. stance on Iraq playing overseas? Especially in countries where allied support could be crucial? This is how we put together our international roundtable. Let me introduce them to you. We have Julian Borger, he is the U.S. bureau chief for Britain's "The Guardian" newspaper. And then we have Hisham Melhem, he is the Washington bureau chief for the Lebanese "As- Safir" newspaper, and Philippe Bolopion is the New York correspondent for Radio France Internationale. I hope I didn't botch any of your names too badly. Good evening, gentlemen, thanks for being here.
Hisham, let me begin with you and this terror alert now that Americans are in the midst of. We're at orange alert, which is high alert, and U.S. intelligence sources are now saying that it may be linked to the Hajj, the holy pilgrimage for Muslims going to Mecca. Do you believe this is true? Is this what you're hearing?
HISHAM MELHEM, AS-SAFIR: Well, I have no information to corroborate this new changes here in Washington. People in the Middle East were very upset, because it was linked somehow to the Hajj, which is a very religious event every year in the Muslim world. So the way it was presented was not necessarily the best way to do it.
LIN: I'm wondering, though, what you think of how this terror alert was played out in the newspapers and radio and television across the Arab world.
MELHEM: It was a major story. I wrote a story about it. I read the report. It's one of those major stories today. Every time the president of the United States if he's worried about Saddam or international terror or the fight against international terror, this is serious business for everybody. I mean, the United States is about to embark on a major, radical transformation of the political map in the Middle East, and everybody's concerned about that, because what is likely to take place is nothing short of establishing a new (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in the region, and everybody around Iraq will be affected one way or the other, just as they were affected by the war on terror. So there is a great deal of concern, because of the uncertainty about the future and because what is likely to happen is going to set a major precedent.
LIN: Yes, Julian, I'm wondering, what do you make of the developments in Baghdad over the weekend, the chief U.N. weapons inspectors are saying -- they're not calling it a breakthrough, but they are seeing more cooperation from the Iraqis. Is this going to be enough for a positive report to the U.N. Security Council on Friday, and do you think it's enough to avert war?
JULIAN BORGER, THE GUARDIAN: Whether it's enough for a positive report, I think a lot is going to depend on Dr. Blix. I think Mr. ElBaradei has made it quite clear that he is willing to give at least a positive spin on what comes out of Baghdad in an effort to avoid a war. Dr. Blix, obviously, last time, was very negative, and his words and his choice of words are going to be crucial on Friday, when they report to the Security Council. Whether it will be enough to avert a war, I very much doubt it. I get the very much the impression here in Washington that this administration is dead set on ousting Saddam Hussein. I can't see anything that Dr. Blix or Dr. ElBaradei will say that will put them off.
LIN: Philippe, what are your listeners listening for, then, on the report on Friday, because if the chief weapons inspectors come back to the Security Council and still find Saddam Hussein not complying with the Resolution 1441, what are your listeners saying that France should do? Should France abstain, should France vote against a second resolution going to war?
PHILIPPE BOLOPION, RADIO FRANCE INTERNATIONAL: Well, it's going to depend very much on what Hans Blix is precisely saying. If he's really saying that the Iraqis are not cooperating at all, I think people in France are going to think about the next step very seriously.
Now, if he says most probably, like in the past, that the cooperation is not perfect, that they are still some gray areas, but still the inspections are working and they get good access, then people are going to think it's worth going through the inspections, it's worth trying to disarm Saddam Hussein through inspections, even if it's not a perfect process, you know, let's even beef it up, let's have more inspectors in the realm. It's probably a better way than war to disarm Iraq. It was a better way in '91, between '91 and '98, as you know there were much more weapons destroyed than during the first Gulf War.
LIN: Why is it that your listeners, though, were not convinced by the presentation that Secretary of State Colin Powell gave before the U.N. Security Council, the evidence that he had, the audiotapes, the photographs of noncompliance inside of Baghdad?
BOLOPION: Well, it's very difficult to say. You know, lots of it was very staged. I mean, lots of it, for example, the links between terrorism and Iraq, people were very surprised by this information. Everything was not very reliable. We read press release saying that the CIA was not comfortable with a lot of this information.
At the same time, I don't think they dismissed everything. I think that some of the pictures showing that Iraq might have tried to sanitize some sites before the inspectors arrived are certainly worth investigating. They are not going to take the U.S. word on that, but I'm sure the inspectors are going to try to find on the ground if some of these information were reliable.
LIN: Gentlemen, stay right there. We're going to take a quick break but come back and pick up on the point that if there is a second resolution and it goes to a vote, how will these different countries vote? Should they abstain? What will the reaction be in the Arab world? We're going to be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: The reason we just can't stand by and let Iraq ignore the will of the international community is because that we are allowing him to keep his weapons of mass destruction and develop more, and these are dangerous weapons. They are a threat to the people in the region, they are a threat to the world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LIN: Well, you have heard from the Bush administration about their argument towards war but we want to get a more international perspective, so we put together an international roundtable.
In case you're just joining us, I want to reintroduce my guests. First and foremost, Julian Borger from the British newspaper "The Guardian;" and then we have Hisham Melhem from the Lebanese newspaper "As-Safir" and also joining us today Philippe Bolopion from Radio France Internationale for the French perspective.
Thank you very much, gentlemen, once again for being here. Hisham, if I could start with you again, Syria and Pakistan are both two Muslim countries who are voting members of the Security Council. They actually voted in support of Resolution 1441. Do you think that they will vote to authorize an attack against Iraq if there is a second resolution?
MELHEM: It's very difficult to see Syria voting for a military option against Iraq. In the case of Pakistan, probably they will abstain. I doubt that they will vote against it.
The Syrians cannot approve of it because of a variety of reasons, political and economic. They've had a good relationship with the Iraqis. They will find it extremely difficult to justify sanctioning a war against an Arab government, especially a government with which they've been having economic and political support.
The Syrians will be reflecting the views of the public opinion in the region even those segments of public opinion who believe that what exists in Baghdad is a monstrous, repulsive, obnoxious bloody regime. At that same time, they believe that the United States could not make the case at this -- until now that it represents a clear and present danger to its neighbors as well as to the United States.
So, that's why people are very uncertain about the future. They are not -- probably a U.N. sanctioned resolution will help the governments of the region to deal with the war and its impact, but as far as the people are concerned, they see that their governments have failed them in terms of development, in terms of protecting them, and they see another war against Iraq as leading to greater chaos and uncertainty in the region.
So, there is a sense of helplessness, anger, resentment, directed in all directions against the existing governments, against the United States, and that's why it's a very dicey situation.
And I'm not sure the administration really understands fully the implications of such a radical departure, because they are really (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the whole situation in the region and people in the region, especially the political classes understand that a new regime in Iraq that is friendly to the United States will enhance America's abilities to isolate and pressure Iran and Syria, to marginalize Saudi Arabia, to influence the oil policy in the region, to change the terms of (UNINTELLIGIBLE) of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
So, this is really a major change that is about to take place in a very pivotal country and that's why they are concerned.
LIN: Hisham, let me get a couple more opinions her. Julian, do you think that the United States will act unilaterally if it can not get consensus on the U.N. Security Council for a war resolution?
BORGER: Yes. I think the U.S. is certainly prepared to do that. I think the interesting question is Tony Blair and Britain? I think in those circumstances, Tony Blair would be in a very difficult position because he's way, way ahead of public opinion in Britain over the Iraq issue and if he doesn't have a U.N. Security Council resolution behind him, he has a serious political problem if he is to follow George Bush into war.
LIN: Philippe, what happens then? Do you think France would abstain or vote against a war resolution and, if so, how would the French people feel if the United States did act unilaterally?
BOLOPION: Well, first for the French voter it's difficult to say right now. I don't think they would use a veto but right now they wouldn't need it because the U.S. to pass a resolution would need the support of at least nine of the 15 countries of the Security Council. For now they have perhaps five votes maximum, so we are not there yet.
Now, the question to know how France would feel if the U.S. was going to go to war even without any Security Council resolution, I think it would feel like most of the rest of the world. It would feel that it's a blow to international law. It's a blow to the way we are conducting, you know, international relations for the last ten or 20 years. It would be bad for the U.S. It would be bad for the U.N. Security Council and the whole U.N. I don't think anyone is really thinking of that as being a positive development.
LIN: Philippe Bolopion, thank you very much from Radio France Internationale. Julian Borger, thank you very much from "The Guardian," and Hisham Melhem from "As-Safir" the Lebanese newspaper, I appreciate you joining us today.
MELHEM: Thank you.
BOLOPION: Thank you.
BORGER: 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
Bolopion>
