Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports
Target Terrorism: Are Germ and Chemical Attacks the Next Great Threat to Americans?
Aired October 01, 2001 - 19:00 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.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight on WOLF BLITZER REPORTS: Target: Terrorism. All eyes on Afghanistan as fighting intensifies between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. We will have reports from inside Afghanistan, from the Pakistani side of the border, and from the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House.
Silent and sinister: Are germ and chemical attacks the next great threat to Americans? I will talk to the man who may know more than anyone in Congress about how big a threat they really are.
The United Nations looks at terrorism. Should the U.S. go it alone or consider fighting under the U.N. flag? A CNN "CROSSFIRE" debate with Bill Press and Tucker Carlson. And perspective from CNN's Bruce Morton: Why is this war different, and how much will America have to sacrifice as it targets terrorism?
Good evening to our viewers in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer reporting tonight from Washington. We will get to the threat of chemical and biological warfare shortly, but first are the latest developments as the U.S. targets terrorism.
New York City is selling $1 billion in bonds to pay for the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Center. President Bush wants to offer federal aid to people who lost their jobs as a result of the terrorist attacks. The White House says that will be part of a proposal he will make to Congress tomorrow.
And today, Mayor Rudy Giuliani urged the United Nations to work to end the threat of global terrorism. He is the first New York mayor to address the U.N. in almost 50 years.
To the White House where sources tell CNN President Bush has made an important decision on Reagan National Airport, which has been closed since September 11. CNN senior White House correspondent John King is live with late details -- John.
JOHN KING, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, those sources telling us the president as soon as tomorrow and indeed likely tomorrow will announce a plan to reopen Reagan National Airport. The only airport in the United States still closed in the wake of the September 11 attacks.
According to our sources, the plan calls for stepped-up security at Reagan National even beyond the steps being taken at airports around country because of its proximity to the White House, Pentagon, to the U.S. Capitol and other key federal installations.
There will be armed federal sky marshals, we are told, on every flight into and out of National Airport. Additional security at the checkpoints in the airport and other security measures as well including flight patterns that will be determined quote "in the interest of national security."
The president, we are told, will make this announcement most likely tomorrow but it will still be days, perhaps even a week or two longer before the airport opens because those security measures need to be implemented and then double checked and approved by a number of federal agencies including the Secret Service -- Wolf.
BLITZER: John on another subject what is the latest on U.S. aid to the region? What is going on, on that front?
KING: Wolf, the president offering new humanitarian aide today, signing off now. The administration has authorized up to $100 million in aid to refugees, food and other medical supplies and the like. That a $75 million dollar increase over a decision the president made just Friday.
Our sources also telling us the administration continuing assistance to groups within Afghanistan. This, very secretive. Those groups opposing the Taliban regime. All this part of what the president says is progress so far in the campaign against terrorism more than two weeks into this fight. Some sense here at the White House the American people may be looking at progress. Obviously no major military actions today, but among the successes President Bush claimed today, he said so far the administration is having very good success in his view on cracking down on the financial support to the bin Laden organization.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Thus far we have frozen $6 million in bank accounts linked to terrorist activity. We have frozen 30 al Qaeda accounts in the United States and 20 overseas. And we are just beginning.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: And sensing perhaps the American people, the Congress and others might want to know more about what's going on in the campaign against terrorism, the White House tonight, Wolf, releasing a two-page statement on all the developments. Among facts in here it says 27 countries have granted U.S. military overflight rights, in the case there is a military action.
Twenty-nine thousand military personnel now deployed to the region, 4,407 subpoenas issued as part of the criminal investigation, and 30 countries helping in that criminal investigation as well -- Wolf.
KING: John King from the White House. Thank you very much. Meanwhile, the buildup for action continued today with the deployment of another U.S. aircraft carrier. CNN military affairs correspondent Jamie McIntyre is live at the Pentagon with those details -- Jamie.
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, the U.S. aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk departed from Japan today without its usual compliment of combat aircraft. Now the Kitty Hawk is not a nuclear carrier and in that sense it is a conventional ship. But it is on an unconventional mission.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): The USS Kitty Hawk pulled out of Yakoska, Japan Monday without a single plane a deck. That is not unusual. The combat planes usually join the carrier at sea, but not this time. Pentagon sources say military planners want to use the Kitty Hawk's deck as four and a half acres of sovereign U.S. territory from which commandos in special operations helicopters could be launched into Afghanistan.
RET. GEN. WESLEY CLARK, FORMER NATO SUPREME COMMANDER: We would be able to base troops and aircraft helicopters so forth on this. It would give us an alternative to having to ask a government like Pakistan to use their terrain.
MCINTYRE: The U.S. has employed the strategy before. In 1994 when hundreds of U.S. Army troops and their helicopters were staged aboard the carrier Eisenhower in preparation for the invasion of Haiti. That operation was led by Hugh Shelton who has just ended his term as joint chiefs chairman and won't be around for the war on terrorism.
RET. GEN. HUGH SHELTON, FORMER CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: Mr. Secretary, on this day as I leave office, I'm proud to report that America's military is ready.
MCINTYRE: Shelton's legacy includes his influence on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, whose review of military force and Pentagon strategy did not produce the radical change some expected. The report, rewritten after September 11 attacks, calls for a restored emphasis on defending the United States, and new capabilities to defeat adversaries who will rely on quote "asymmetric warfare."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: America prepares to face attack on its cities and industrial centers under a combined civilian defense program. Any community is vulnerable to possible bombings.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCINTYRE: In the 1950s the U.S. had 2,500 airplanes committed to homeland defense.
But after the Cold War, the mission was no longer a priority. RET. MAJ. GEN. DONALD SHEPPERD: We put it in our cheapest force, the air national guard, our cheapest airplane the F-16. We went from 20 alert sites to 14 to 7 at the time this took place. We had a thin veneer of air sovereignty.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MCINTYRE: But more fighter planes to shoot down civilian aircraft is not the answer the Pentagon looking for. Counterterrorism remains primarily a law enforcement role with the military in support. But there is new discussion about an old idea here, creating a command for the defense of America. And putting a four-star general in charge. Something that in the past the Pentagon was concerned would be a concern to civil libertarians -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Jamie, the move of the Kitty Hawk and the other aircraft carriers to the region, what does all this mean if anything for the need of bases on the ground in Saudi Arabia, perhaps elsewhere close by to Afghanistan?
MCINTYRE: Well you notice that the United States has said that both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have granted all of its requests. But neither has given permission for offensive strikes from its territory. This would allow the United States to conduct those strikes without the permission of any other country except for overflight rights, which have been granted and it would also provide added secrecy.
It's almost impossible base U.S. troops on the ground and keep it a secret. But if you can put it on a ship out at sea away from prying eyes, the U.S. may be able to launch an attack with complete surprise.
BLITZER: Jamie McIntyre from the Pentagon. Thank you very much.
The State Department made steps today to further its case against Osama bin Laden. CNN State Department correspondent Andrea Koppel joins us live with details of that. Andrea, what is evidence that they are assembling?
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, they are not telling us but they are beginning to tell various allies overseas, sources telling me that diplomatic be cables have begun to be sent out. They will be sent out probably over the next week or so. The first batch going to Great Britain, going to Canada, going to Australia, going to the U.S. embassies in those cities.
And the next step would be for U.S. diplomats then, to brief the host government on what the U.S. is presenting as its case. The first time now that it will be laying out evidence that directly links, in their words, Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network to the September 11 attacks. Now what will happen, this is the first batch. The second batch will go out I'm told, in about 48 hours and that will go to the next tier.
It will go to NATO allies. It will go to Japan, South Korea, to Singapore. At the same time, the head of counterterrorism here at State Department will be in Brussels, he left today, and he will be briefing the North Atlantic Council, the NATO body there on what the U.S. case is, some of the evidence.
But I'm also told, Wolf, that they are not going to be getting into the nitty gritty here. This is basically an outline of the U.S. case. The third step will be everyone else. I'm also told that Pakistan is going treated as a special case. In the words of one senior official, he said it will be delivered eyeball to eyeball. That is, the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Wendy Chamberlain, will be sitting down at some point with the Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf.
BLITZER: Andrea Koppel thank you very much.
A key part of U.S. strategy and perhaps trying to topple Afghanistan's ruling Taliban involves supporting the opposition to the regime. The Northern Alliance which controls about 10 percent of the country is receiving some strong U.S. backing. Earlier I spoke with CNN's Chris Burns, he is in Northern Afghanistan.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
Chris there have been some reports that the Northern Alliance has been scoring some inroads against the Taliban. What are you seeing and hearing on the ground?
CHRIS BURNS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: What we have been hearing this evening is the sound of artillery and gunfire along the front between here and Kabul. Some of that gunfire has been continuing through the evening tonight. In fact one of our CNN crews is out there filming. They say they see some explosions toward the Western end of that front. Anyone's guess exactly how far that is going.
But the main fighting has been in the north among a number of villages, one of them is called Qadis, where the Northern Alliance claims to have retaken that. However, the Taliban disputes that. The other village that has been talked about today is Namakau (ph) . That is where the Northern Alliance says they repelled a Taliban attack and killed four Taliban fighters -- Wolf.
BLITZER: As you know, Chris, on Sunday the exiled king of Afghanistan -- he has been in exile since the 1970s -- met with a U.S. congressional delegation. I understand he met today with a delegation from the Northern Alliance. What's happening on that front?
BURNS: Absolutely. You know, the nightmare scenario in if the Northern Alliance did manage to win and topple the Taliban in Kabul, there are fears of what would happen when they came to power alone. If you look back five years ago when there was factional fighting in which the Taliban forced the Northern Alliance out of the government and out of Kabul that was in part because of all that factional fighting.
So this effort in Rome by the king, Mohammed Zahir Shah, to put together some kind of a coalition is very significant, and would reassure the international community that once the Taliban is toppled, there will be a viable alternative. They did agree today to form some kind of two-year interim government after they toppled the Taliban. So that is seen as a hopeful sign -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Any indications of the defections from the ranks of the Taliban from your perspective?
BURNS: From the Northern Alliance side they say that there are quite a few defections on the Taliban side. They do claim in fact that during the fighting around Qadis in the last couple of days that 200 Taliban fighters have defected along with 19 other commanders. That is part of a pattern, they say, that has been going on the last few days. There have been defections from the Taliban.
However, it is very difficult from this side to confirm independently and the Northern Alliance has yet to show us materially, physically in 3-D any people that have gone over to the other side -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Chris Burns in Northern Afghanistan. Thank you very much. For weeks, the Defense Department has been mobilizing troops and equipment as it prepares for war. Is the U.S. ready? For more on that, we turn to CNN military analyst Retired General Wesley Clark. He joins us live from Little Rock, Arkansas. General Clark, first of all on the Northern Alliance, how reliable is that force and how much of the U.S. eggs if you will, should be put in to that basket?
RET. GEN. WESLEY CLARK, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: I think it is an option but it is also a force that has been beset by factional fighting over the years. It has been forced into a small area and it will certainly be energized by the prospect of U.S. and outside world support, significant support.
That having been said, it is still a force which is unproven in terms of its unity and its effectiveness especially with Massoud gone.
BLITZER: And so it would not necessarily be prudent to just assume that some extensive U.S. military economic support for the Northern Alliance, the so called United Front troops could get the job done by itself?
I don't think we are going to find a silver bullet in this operation anywhere, but I think use of the Northern Alliance is certainly one of the elements that could prove helpful to us.
BLITZER: All right, now the deployment of the Kitty Hawk towards the region without warplanes on the deck but getting ready for special operations forces soldiers, others who presumably would be on that deck. Explain to our viewers what that might mean.
CLARK: It could be used as a linkup point to bring troops out and helicopters out. And then you would have a force that would in essence have a floating base, but not a base for aircraft, but a base for ground troops. Now we already have Marine task forces in the area and we could have more. And they have their own amphib platforms that have small decks where they lift off of.
So this is presumably a way of augmenting that and ensuring that you can get more resources, helicopters and special operation troops or something into the fray if you need to, if you don't have a land base somewhere in the region.
BLITZER: How unusual is it to use an aircraft carrier for this purpose, not for jet fighters but for troops as a staging point, if you will?
CLARK: It is unusual. It's been done once before and when it was done before it was very successful. At that time it was a first. People were surprised by this. There was some internal questioning of it in some of the services, but it worked extremely well. I think it is one more arrow in the quiver, so to speak, today.
BLITZER: And as far as the Taliban military capability, if it comes down to military action against the Taliban with the U.S. and its coalition partners on the other side, what kind of battle are we anticipating?
CLARK: Well, I think the Northern Alliance would fight as they have been fighting. They have got artillery, they have got some heavy weapons, they would find positions, they would surround those positions and force the Taliban out. And then cause the Taliban to fall back on its lines of supply and communication. Obviously they would move toward the major cities, Kabul being a big target here.
What the United States and the coalition forces from the outside could do in addition to providing material assistance to the Northern Alliance would be perhaps to use air and missile strikes to further disorient, confuse and disrupt the Taliban to sort of accelerate its disintegration under the pressure of the Northern Alliance.
BLITZER: General Clark, thanks once again for joining us. We appreciate it.
And up next, questions about U.S. readiness for a chemical or biological attack have been repeatedly asked since last month's attacks. An exercise held last year offered some intriguing answers. We'll have details. Plus, the chairman of the House subcommittee on national security will join us for a discussion about U.S. preparation. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back. Since last month's terrorist attacks, many Americans have been wondering just how prepared the nation is for a different threat, a chemical or a biological attack.
CNN national correspondent Mike Boettcher examines just how ready the United States really is.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MIKE BOETTCHER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A simulated bomb explodes on a crowded dock in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. In this drill, actors play the part of the dead and injured, and the role of others who soon fall ill -- choking, coughing suffocating -- victims of an imaginary chemical attack.
In Denver, Colorado, another simulated attack: not a bomb, but a bug, a deadly disease planted by imaginary terrorists.
Both scenarios were part of an exercise conducted 16 months ago to test the U.S. capability to deal with a terrorist attack using what are called weapons of mass destruction. The drill even included coverage by a virtual television network to give participants a real- world feel...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... where the plague outbreak now stretches over a 170-mile area.
BOETTCHER: The exercise, code-named TOPOFF, the largest such drill in U.S. history, was largely ignored. However, since the September 11th attacks, U.S. government officials have begun to raise the awareness of Americans to the possibility of chemical or biological terrorism.
However, the lessons of TOPOFF are unknown. Almost a year and a half after the exercise, a final report on what was learned during the seven-day drill has not yet been released.
But CNN has learned that a draft after-action report on TOPOFF highlighted the need for improved nationwide public health surveillance. That is setting up a system able to identify dangerous patterns of illness, the first indicator of a bio-terror attack.
Also identified as a national priority need, teaching, equipping and exercising first responders and their commanders, who would be first on the scene of a chemical or biological attack.
Highlighted, too, the need to streamline decision-making.
Dr. Stephen Cantrill is associate director of emergency medicine at Denver Health Medical Center. He was a key TOPOFF participant, and said he learned his own lesson from the exercise: The already stretched U.S. health care system would be pressed to the breaking point, he believes, in the event of a weapons of mass destruction attack.
DR. STEPHEN CANTRILL, DENVER HEALTH MEDICAL CENTER: We would certainly do better today than we would have done, say, a year ago, but in terms of the resources required, they quickly outstrip anything we have any remote possibility of getting. So it would still be a devastating experience.
BOETTCHER: Preparedness for that day, if it comes, now not just a wild concept, but according to U.S. officials a national priority.
Mike Boettcher, CNN, Atlanta.
(END VIDEOTAPE) BLITZER: For more on the threat of biological and chemical attacks we're joined now by Congressman Christopher Shays, the Connecticut Republican, who's the chairman of the House Subcommittee on National Security, which has held numerous hearings on biological and chemical attacks. Thanks for joining us, Congressman Shays.
"TIME" magazine's cover this week -- you may have seen it -- the question on the cover, "How Real Is the Threat?" "Newsweek" has a similar cover, "How Scared Should You Be?"
Let's go through those two questions: How real is the threat?
REP. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS (R-CT), SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY: Well, it's not a question of if; it's a question of when, where and what magnitude. There will be attempts. A lot of the attempts will fail, because we'll deter them, we'll catch them, we'll discover them. If it's a chemical attack and it's in one place, we'll have a better ability to deal with it. If it's a biological and it's in many communities, then it starts to fail.
BLITZER: All right. So how scared should our viewers be out there?
SHAYS: I don't want our viewers to be scared. I want our country to be aware that we are fighting a war. And our big concern is we've got to end the terrorist organizations, put them down before they have a delivery system on biological and chemical, get radioactive material, or even a nuclear device. So we're in a race with the terrorists as we speak.
BLITZER: Well, is this a threat emanating from Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization or from other terrorist groups out there?
SHAYS: Well, he ran a university for terrorists, and he empowered people he trained to do their own things. He gave them the skills. He helped fund them. But he's kind of the centerpiece.
BLITZER: And is he the only one out there that the U.S. -- if the U.S. goes into Afghanistan and deals with al Qaeda, his group, is threat over with?
SHAYS: No. It's a good start, and we need to start with one country and get all the other countries to help us. And if other countries in the past have sponsored terrorists are willing to help us wipe him out in Afghanistan, that will be a good start.
BLITZER: The secretary of health and human services, Tommy Thompson, says that it's a serious problem, but it should be seen in its proper perspective, and the U.S. government is dealing with it. Listen to what Tommy Thompson says.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TOMMY THOMPSON, HHS SECRETARY: I'm here to tell you that I am very confident as secretary of health that if a terrorist attack hits us as far as bioterrorism, whether it be a virus or a bacteria, we are able to respond extremely quickly, and that we will be able to protect the Americans' health.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Do you agree with that assessment, that the U.S. already has that ability to respond quickly and protect the American public?
SHAYS: No. I mean, we're OK, getting better, but we have a long ways to go. And it just depends what kind of a biological agent and how far it spread, did we catch early enough or has it gone to a lot of towns. An attack in Atlanta airport could spread to 100 towns.
We would just be -- we wouldn't succeed.
BLITZER: Well, why do you think Tommy Thompson is sort of upbeat? Is he just trying to be reassuring to the American public?
SHAYS: Well, I think he's trying to be reassuring, but I think, if you tell the American people the truth, they'll have you do the right thing. We shouldn't be scared about it. The likelihood of one person being under that attack is very, very small. But attacks will occur, and hopefully, we'll shut them down before they start.
BLITZER: Now, when you say attacks will occur, on the basis of why do you assume it? Because there was some evidence that some of these terrorists were looking at crop-dusting aircraft.
SHAYS: Well, that's it, but I mean, we had three commissions come before our committee: the Gilmore Commission, the Hart-Rudman Commission, the Bremer Commission. All of them have said, you know, we haven't had a proper assessment of the threat, we don't have a strategy, and we aren't organized. And then they talked about the threat, and it's very real.
So this is not anything we're inventing. It's all out there for the public to know about. We just need to share it and have people deal with.
BLITZER: Now, you represent a district in Connecticut very close to New York City. If there was such a biological and chemical attack in New York City, presumably your district could be in danger as well.
SHAYS: Well, let me just say it this way: We monitor every day if there is any outbreak in any major city in the United States. So we'll get to it pretty quickly. The question is, has it spread to other cities? You know, how long has this outbreak occurred before we knew about it?
And so the bottom line is in a lot of instances we'll be able to catch it quick enough, but we can't be certain of it. And if it's smallpox and it's gone to a lot of places, we only have 12 million vaccine doses. We may need more.
BLITZER: So is the government right now doing everything possible to deal with this biological and chemical threat?
SHAYS: Right now, since September 11, absolutely.
BLITZER: Well, why did it take so long? You've been talking about this for years.
SHAYS: Well, you know, while we had those hearings what you were reporting on and what were other people. I mean, the word didn't get out. And so we -- we can all look at ourselves.
You know, we probably should have done a better job of talking about it. The commissions have all said you haven't done our recommendations. But we were focused on scandal in some cases and other issues. It just didn't show up on people's radar screens.
BLITZER: The historian Stephen Ambrose wrote in "The Wall Street Journal" today this, and I'll put it up on the screen: "The modern terrorists have at their disposable what amounts to a nearly unstoppable weapon -- in some ways, the ultimate weapon. It is the man willing to give up his life for his cause."
How do you stop that kind of weapon? If someone wants to come into this country carrying a disease, smallpox, which is not visible, and start spreading it, how do you stop that?
SHAYS: Well, that's what's so shocking about it. Nobody should have been as surprised about the attack, but the attack was shocking because there were 19 people who gave up their lives. They were like the smart bomb. They brought a bomb into the World Trade Center, but they were willing to go up with it.
If people are willing to go up, you know, to basically release a chemical or biological agent and not care what happens to themselves, you're going to see some, you know, some really horrific things happen.
BLITZER: Let's hope not. Christopher Shays, thanks for joining us. Appreciate it.
And when we return, the mayor of New York says it's time for the nations of the world to stand together. But will the United Nations heed his warnings? And on our "CROSSFIRE" debate, should the U.S. take on terrorism alone or should it stand among the ranks of the U.N.? Bill Press and Tucker Carlson join us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back. We'll get to our "CROSSFIRE" debate shortly, but here's a look at some of the latest developments. Two people charged with helping some of the suspected hijackers obtain false identification appeared at a Virginia court today. They were ordered held until pre-trial hearings scheduled for Wednesday. Authorities say the two did not know they were helping potential hijackers.
A source tells CNN one of the suspected hijackers may have tired to obtain crop dusters in Mexico and other countries south of the United States. Authorities say Mohamed Atta may have wanted to use the planes to spread deadly chemical agents.
And more than 100 members of U.S. Congress toured the site of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks. House Speaker Dennis Hastert called the destruction -- quote -- "an eye-opening experience."
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani addressed the United Nations today, and called on the world's leaders to stand united in the fight against terrorism. CNN's senior U.N. correspondent Richard Roth joins us now with more -- Richard?
RICHARD ROTH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, if the United States wasn't getting through its message to the world about anti-terrorism already, well, the General Assembly of the U.N. got a blunt reminder from a local politician they've heard from before.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ROTH (voice-over): New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani turned ambassador at large, ascending the world stage as the U.N. began talking about terrorism.
MAYOR RUDY GIULIANI (R), NEW YORK: The United Nations must hold accountable any country that supports or condones terrorism. Otherwise, you will fail in your primary mission as peace keeper.
ROTH: But the Blue Helmets, the U.N. peacekeepers, won't be in a military campaign against terrorism. The 189 U.N. countries realize this will primarily be the United States waging war in Afghanistan, and perhaps elsewhere.
A day after the U.S. was hit, the Security Council unanimously voted for a resolution which invoked the U.N. Charter's approval of a country's right to self-defense and declared there was a threat to international peace and security.
DAVID MALONE, INTERNATIONAL PEACE ACADEMY: Those are code words at the U.N. for a right to use force. It isn't spelled out 100 percent, but for anybody following U.N. affairs, this was the most sweeping resolution authorizing force that I have seen in U.N. history.
ROTH: A decade ago, the same Security Council gave Washington formal authorization for war against Iraq. Then, and now, the U.S. uses the U.N. as a place to expand its coalition of nations for both militarily and political purposes.
Late Friday, the U.S. quickly won approval of another resolution in the Security Council: it goes after the money. All U.N. countries are ordered to crack down on terrorist funding, freeze assets and stop cross-border movement of suspects.
SERGEV LAVROV, RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR TO U.K.: So this type of efforts need to be coordinated. And U.N. is a natural place where you can do this. ROTH: The goals are agreed upon, but there are some delicate holes in the U.N.'s terrorism war, namely, definitions of who is a terrorist.
SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK, BRITISH AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: There is common ground amongst all of us, on what constitutes terrorism. What looks, smells, and kills like terrorism is terrorism.
ROTH: In the heat of the disaster, the U.N. has signed on to war against terrorism, but coalitions at the U.N. can often weaken.
KOFI ANNAN, U.N. SECRETARY-GENERAL: Terrorism will be defeated if the international community summons the will to unite in a broad coalition, or it will not be defeated at all.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROTH: For now, there seems to be diplomatic harmony in the war on terrorism, but the tune could change once real military action begins -- Wolf?
BLITZER: Richard Roth of the U.N., thank you very much. And as the United Nations debates its involvement in the war on terrorism, some wonder should the United States go it alone? CNN's "CROSSFIRE" takes up that argument now. Here is Bill Press -- Bill.
BILL PRESS, CO-HOST, CNN'S "CROSSFIRE": All right, Wolf. Thank you indeed.
The question tonight is: What role, if any, should the United Nations play in this war against terrorism? Our guests tonight are Kim Holmes, who's vice president for international studies at the Heritage Foundation here in Washington, and David Scheffer, former U.S. ambassador at large for war crimes under the Clinton administration -- Tucker?
TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST, CNN'S "CROSSFIRE": Dave Scheffer, war has been declared on the United States, 6,000 Americans are dead. Why in the world does the U.S. need the permission of the United Nations to respond?
DAVID SCHEFFER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR FOR WAR CRIMES: It doesn't need the permission. What it has received is the allied support of the United Nations, in resolution after another. Even resolutions that were adopted before September 11th in the Security Council and the General Assembly, basically outlaw the Taliban regime, and they also isolate Osama bin Laden for specific action, for apprehension, for prosecution. So really, the U.N. has been our ally on this for quite some time now.
And those 6,000 deaths included not only American deaths, but also the deaths of more than 60 other countries. So there is a large international equity in this war.
CARLSON: Well, I'm glad you brought up the previous resolutions -- there have been 12, so far as I know, condemning terrorism. They haven't done a lot to stop terrorism, not surprising for the U.N. Where was the U.N., exactly, when Idi Amin was running Uganda in the '70s, or in Cambodia, 1975, or in Rwanda in 1994 -- nowhere. They didn't stop the killing. Why do you think they're going to have an effect here fighting terrorism?
SCHEFFER: Well, it's a question of effectiveness through the concerted action of the governments that are at the United Nations. The United Nations does not act, literally, as the U.N. It acts through the governments that are party to the United Nations. And on terrorism, really, the foundation has been set very, very effectively at the U.N., through those 12 instruments, our international conventions the governments sign up to as treaty parties.
There are also Security Council resolutions, though, that have set the foundation very, very well for action now.
PRESS: Kim, let me ask you if you looked at these horrendous attacks of September 11. They're clearly an attack against the United States. They're also an attack against humanity, and they were an attack, as Dave just pointed out, against some 59 other countries whose citizens were killed, either at the World Trade Center or here in Washington, at the Pentagon.
So wouldn't it be much more appropriate and much stronger if this war against terrorism were a global effort -- of course, primarily backed by the United States, but under the leadership of the United Nations, to show that all nations were together in this fight?
KIM HOLMES, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Bill, the problem is is that the United Nations has a terrible track record of actually trying to do anything militarily. Now, the time that we actually got involved directly in a U.N. operation, our forces in Somalia, it turned out to be a real disaster.
It's all right go to the United Nations to get resolutions of support to show diplomatic support and just sort of make statements about what our goals are, but when it comes to the operation of actually getting something done, we have to send U.S. troops in or work very closely with our allies, and form the coalition based upon specific things at specific times we need to do. If we go too broad, we'll get the lowest common denominator of our war aims, and we won't get anything done.
PRESS: But you're talking about building the coalition. I mean, the fact is the United Nations, it seems to me, is the best way to build a coalition. We want the support -- we don't want this to be Christianity versus Islam. We want the support of Arab states, moderate Arab states. And the United Nations, doesn't it give them some cover?
In fact, Iran and Syria said -- these two guys, you would never think they would join the United States -- they would join this effort it were under the United Nations. Doesn't that make it valuable
HOLMES: That's precisely the problem. Syria and Iran are probably part of the problem of the terrorism. Why do we want to have to go make compromises...
(CROSSTALK)
HOLMES: ... that they're part of the problem?
The thing is, is that what we need to do is to go to countries that we need military support for, military air flight rights and things like that, and go to those countries and work out the coalitions as we need them, instead of trying to form a broad coalition.
SCHEFFER: But, Kim, compromises are not being made at the United Nations right now. In fact, very strong efforts are made unifying countries to fight the war against terrorism. IT's a unifying body against this war. It's not a body of compromise at this time.
HOLMES: But the thing is, is that not a lot of people are actually clamoring for us to go to the United Nations and get some an operation of support...
SCHEFFER: But no one is asking either -- no one at the U.N. is even asking us to put the military under U.N. auspices, or under U.N. operation and control.
HOLMES: I don't have any trouble about the resolutions, but we should not be saying that we're going to fight under a U.N. flag, or going to have any kind of operational control...
CARLSON: Well, then I don't understand, Dave Scheffer. What exactly is the U.N.? Or, as you pointed out, that the governments in the U.N. going to do that the United States couldn't do directly in concert with those nations? Won't the U.N. make it take longer, make it less effective?
SCHEFFER: Just as in the Gulf War, the United States provides the envelope of legitimacy globally. It is the unifier that allows us...
CARLSON: Six thousand Americans were killed. How is...
(CROSSTALK)
SCHEFFER: And the U.n. agrees. This is an act of self-defense that we're embarked upon, and the U.N. just signed on to that under Chapter 7. The enforcement authority of the U.N. just signed on to our act of self-defense. That's a great legitimizer.
PRESS: You had a point you want to make.
HOLMES: Yeah. The problem was, in the Persian Gulf War, we wanted to have a broad coalition there. We went to the United Nations, we got a resolution that would only limit our operations to ousting Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.
When it came the time that we actually had the military capability to go all they way to Baghdad, no one said we can't go, the U.N. won't let us go, the coalition members won't let it go. And, sir, we still have Saddam Hussein where he is.
PRESS: That's the weakest excuse I've ever heard for George Bush and Colin Powell leaving Saddam Hussein in power, but I want to mention a different model, which is Kosovo. Slobodan Milosevic today is in the Hague. You have to say, by some standards, our No. 1 goal, the operation in Kosovo was a success. It was a NATO operation led by General Wesley Clark. United States, of course, and Britain put in most of the forces. But isn't that the model? It succeeded, and so many people supported it because it was under NATO.
HOLMES: Bill, the problem with Osama bin Laden is not just one person. It's an entire network of terrorists inside Afghanistan and internationally. There is absolutely no way that you could practically put together a U.N. operation or any kind of operation that can bring all those people to a court in the Hague. It just will not work.
SCHEFFER: But the alternative is, again, no one is talking about a U.N. operation, here. What they are talking about is the role the U.N. can play ultimately, in ensuring that justice is rendered against these terrorists, with having the cooperation of governments that are signing on to the war against terrorism through the U.N. If they had just signed on with the United States, then what Bill said, they're going to lose that cover that they need, so many of them.
CARLSON: Wait, see, you said, Mr. Scheffer, a moment ago, that the United States needs the U.N. to sign on to this because it will confer legitimacy -- is the word you used -- on our effort to fight terrorism. The implication is that U.S. efforts to fight terrorists, either in Afghanistan or elsewhere, would be illegitimate, unless the U.N. somehow says, OK, Belgium gives us a thumbs-up. Is that what you're saying?
SCHEFFER: No, not necessarily. But again, just as in the Gulf War, what the U.N. can do is it can fortify the legitimacy of what we have the right to do. But we live in a global system. We live under the U.N. Charter. It does say that you have the right of self- defense, and we clearly have that here. But play within the parameters of the U.N. Charter, and within the parameters of international law. And so far, we are doing that.
HOLMES: Bill, this was an attack on the United States, and the United Nations already passed a resolution almost two weeks ago, says that we have the right self-defense. That was the clause that they used. That means defending United States territory and its people.
PRESS: I thought it was very interesting this morning. "The New York Times" -- main article in "The New York Times" this morning, that said President Bush has approved $100 million in aid to the refugees in Afghanistan. Great move, OK?
And they also talked about some other things we're doing to try to get some of the Taliban people to defect and come over to our side, maybe dropping -- putting some food drops inside of Afghanistan, not just along the refugee camps, to help the people there. And then, here is what "The New York Times" said. It said that all these efforts have been shrouded in secrecy, to avoid giving the impression that Washington alone is determining the future of Afghanistan. That's what the Bush administration is doing. Why are they shrouding their efforts in secrecy? Why do they know it's wrong, to give the impression that it's Washington alone? Doesn't that scream for the need to do everything under the aegis of the U.N.?
HOLMES: If we tried to put a coalition under the aegis of the United Nations, together, to try to put together some kind of a regime in Afghanistan, before we have solved the military and security problem, we would be debating that problem for weeks, if not months -- perhaps even years.
It is simply impractical. There is a problem -- a military security problem in Afghanistan. The terrorist networks inside Afghanistan declared war on the United States. The regime of the Taliban is harboring those people. If there is -- the president said this is an act of war, and we should conduct ourselves as such.
CARLSON: This is something we're going to be debating for months and years to come here on CROSSFIRE. Kim Holmes, Dave Scheffer, thank you both very much. Wolf, that's it for CROSSFIRE this evening. Back to you.
BLITZER: Thank you very much, Tucker. Good debate.
And after the break, as the threat of war builds, tens of thousands flee Afghanistan. What hardships lay ahead? We'll go to the Afghan-Pakistan border next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back. With the threat of U.S. military strikes looming over Afghanistan, tens of thousands of Afghans are trying to flee the country. Earlier, I spoke with CNN's Nic Robertson in neighboring Pakistan for details on what's fast becoming a massive refugee crisis.
Nic, there have been some conflicting reports about whether the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan at Quetta has been reopened. Update us on that situation, as well as the overall refugee crisis that's exploding around you.
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, the border at the moment is closed to people who don't have the proper documentation. It is open to those businessmen and perhaps government officials who might have the proper documentation. With all the Pakistani embassies and consular offices in Afghanistan closed, it is impossible for the average refugee, if you will, to be able to get the proper papers to come into Pakistan. Pakistan is keeping the border firmly closed.
U.N. officials estimate there are perhaps 10- to 20,000 people stuck on the other side of the border. News today from World Food Program, who made the first delivery of food supplies into Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban, they took to it Kabul, 281 tons. They said that on the roads they did not see a lot of people headed for the border. Further than that, they say the reason they were able to make their delivery was because local trucks enabling them to carry the foodstuff into Afghanistan were available. And that is because in the early days these trucks were busy taking people out of cities into villages, and out of the cities towards the border.
Now those trucks are free, so the World Food Program believes that although there may be a big problem in the future, particularly if you don't get food in, for right now there are not huge numbers actually headed to the border this moment -- Wolf?
BLITZER: Is Pakistan being overwhelmed by Afghan refugees?
ROBERTSON: Absolutely. It has been in the past. It really has felt completely overwhelmed, really, for the last year. Well over 100,000 people flooded out of Afghanistan, escaping war and an ongoing fear, ongoing drought through the last winter, that Pakistanis couldn't cope. They were repatriating many people back to Afghanistan, and the reason being, they say, since the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the early 1980s, they took in some 3 1/2 million refugees, They still have two million of them here, and they just say that their economy is so poor, they're too stretched. They can't cope.
And certainly, that's why they keep the borders closed at this time. The fear is that if they open the borders, more people will come and seek refuge here, and they say they just cannot cope. And that is one of the reasons why the U.N. agencies are really stepping up efforts at this time, and making huge international appeals. Over half a billion dollars has been appealed for, for food and shelter, for what they fear could be the coming crisis.
BLITZER: You know, Nic, there has been a dramatic shift in U.S. attitudes towards Pakistan since September 11th. Now we're learning that the U.S. is helping to secure Pakistan's nuclear weaponry, if you will. What is the general stability that, from your vantage point, what is the general stability of the government in Pakistan right now?
ROBERTSON: Well, the government right now has to be feeling reasonably good, because the demonstrations that have been called out on the streets by the hard line Islamic clerics here sympathetic to the Taliban have not brought out the huge numbers that the government originally feared. In some cases, it's thousands, occasionally tens of thousands.
And although they burn effigies of President Bush and burn flags of the United States, they have not become really violent. It was a couple of weeks ago when three Pakistanis were killed during demonstrations. That hasn't been repeated. So the government, from that point of view, from a popular point of view, has not been threatened, and that can only encourage the government, and keep down any voices of dissent from those close advisers to President Musharraf. So far, he seems to be playing it right. So far, he seems to have the backing of his closest advisers, and that's the way that it that appears stay -- unless the situation changes, unless the clerics bring out more popular support and increase level of dissent -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Nic Robertson, along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, thank you very much.
And Bush administration officials say one of the best weapons against terrorism is commerce. Sixty years ago after Pearl Harbor, thrift was the order of the day. CNN's Bruce Morton has that story next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back. Following the September 11th attacks, the White House and others have been pressing consumers to spend. During World War II, the message from Washington was much different. CNN national correspondent Bruce Morton looks at commerce and sacrifice, then and now.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BRUCE MORTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The president says America is at war, but hey, get on with your normal lives.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Do your business around the country. Fly and enjoy America's great destination spots. Get down to Disneyworld in Florida. Take your families and enjoy life.
MORTON: Not during World War II, you didn't. For one thing, gasoline was rationed...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK, 3 gallons.
MORTON: ... if they had it.
Lots of things were rationed, lots of things were short. Seven ration stamps for a pound of hamburger, 12 for a pound of steak -- when there was steak, or sugar, or whatever.
Clothes were rationed, too. Some items, nylon stockings, for instance, were so scarce shoppers could get really physical about them.
Still, rationing in say, Britain, was much worse. Ann Cottrell Free was a young Washington reporter during the war.
ANN COTTRELL FREE, JOURNALIST: We laughed about it. It don't it was a big deal. I don't think anybody was sacrificed too much, and we were glad to do it. Doing it -- we knew what the cause was.
MORTON: Another difference? Americans saved. Kids collected, grown-ups collected, old scrap metal, old tires and other rubber stuff -- not many synthetics back then. Housewives were supposed to save cooking fat used in artillery shells. Some children tried on gas masks, windows went black, air raid warnings made sure the lights were out while others scanned the sky for enemy planes -- a real worry. Listen to how the newsreel announcer described one arms factory. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Somewhere in midwestern United States...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MORTON: What his story was about, though, was women -- with So many men in the service -- pouring into the work force, doing jobs they had never done before. Rosie the Riveter was real, and many Rosies stayed employed after the war.
If you had any money, you were supposed to buy war bonds, $25 maybe. Hollywood stars held rallies to boost sales. Kids could buy war stamps for a dime.
What was it like? Free remembers some cheating, more unity, and most strongly, stress.
FREE: You didn't have much joy of life in those days. You go ahead with your regular work, you dance, you love and all that, but your heart was heavy.
MORTON: Maybe in that way, then and now aren't so different, after
Bruce Morton, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: And I'll be back in just a moment with the latest developments, as America targets terrorism.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Before we go, here's a look at some of the latest developments. Sources tell CNN President Bush plans to reopen Reagan National Airport with additional security measures. The decision could be announced as early as tomorrow. The sources say security measures at Reagan National will go beyond new restrictions put in place around the country after the September attacks.
Rudy Giuliani today became the first New York mayor to address the U.N. in almost 50 years. He delivered a passionate speech urging member nations to join together to fight global terrorism.
And Iran is warning it will take action against American war planes if the U.S. invades its air space in an attack on neighboring Afghanistan. But Iran says it will continue to supply the anti- Taliban Northern Alliance.
That's all the time we have tonight. Please stay with CNN throughout the night for continuous coverage, as America targets terrorism. Up next, "THE POINT." Here's Greta Van Susteren with a preview -- Greta?
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, HOST, CNN'S "THE POINT": Wolf, we're tracking the terrorists. We're going to follow the money trail. We're going to talk to the new customs commissioner, plus, a doctor who is attended to the bin Laden family -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Thank you very much, Greta. We'll be watching. And please join me again tomorrow night, 7:00 p.m. Eastern, for a full hour of coverage. Until then, thanks very much for watching. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. "THE POINT WITH GRETA VAN SUSTEREN" begins right now.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
