TOUGH CROWD February 18, 1998 The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer Transcript

---

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Defense Secretary William Cohen and National Security Adviser Sandy Berger faced a tough crowd at a town hall meeting in Ohio, where many participants voiced concerns over a possible war with Iraq. Jim Lehrer explores some of the issues raised with four career diplomats.

---

A RealAudio version of this segment is available. RealAudio excerpts from the Ohio town hall meeting on Iraq. NEWSHOUR LINKS: February 17, 1998 Analysis of the U.S. military arsenal in the Middle East. February 16, 1998 How significant a threat does Saddam Hussein's country really pose? February 11, 1998 Ambassador Richardson discusses the ongoing crisis with Iraq. February 10, 1998 Members of Congress discuss the U.S. government's support of military action against Iraq. February 9, 1998 Regional commentators give local perspectives on the growing crisis with Iraq. February 4, 1998 Secretary of State Madeleine Albright tries to marshal support for a possible attack on Iraq. January 30, 1998 The U.S. tries rallying support for military action against Iraq. January 14, 1998 Iraq's U.N. Ambassador, Nizar Hamdoon, defends his country's actions. January 13, 1998 Amb. Butler discusses the latest disagreement with Iraq. December 18, 1997 Amb. Butler discusses Iraq's continued defiance of U.N. inspections. December 1, 1997 Margaret Warner leads a discussion on the proposals to ease the impact of international sanctions on Iraq. November 25, 1997 Is Saddam Hussein illegally hiding weapons throughout Iraq? Online Forum: What's the best way to deal with Iraq? November 20, 1997 U.N. Ambassador Richardson on the possible resolution of the Iraq crisis. November 17, 1997 Arab perspectives on the Iraqi crisis. November 14, 1997 Sandy Berger the National Security Adviser, discusses the Iraqi crisis. November 13, 1997 Newsmaker interview with Deputy PM Aziz who defends his country's expulsion of U.N. weapons inspectors. November 12, 1997 U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson discusses the Security Council's vote to impose stricter sanctions on Iraq. November 11, 1997 Four foreign policy experts debate how best to deal with Saddam Hussein. November 10, 1997 Defense Sec. Cohen discusses the situation with Iraq. November 6, 1997 The chief U.N. arms inspector discusses Saddam's latest moves. November 3, 1997 U.N. Ambassador Richardson discusses tensions between the U.S. and Iraq. October 9, 1997 Sec. Cohen issues a stern warning to Saddam Hussein. Online Forum: 1996: The plight of the Kurds in Northern Iraq. Browse the NewsHour's coverage of the Middle East. OUTSIDE LINKS United Nations

JIM LEHRER: Some further perspectives now from Richard Helms, director of Central Intelligence in the Johnson and Nixon administrations and former Ambassador to Iran; Edward Djerejian, assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs in the Bush administration; Robert Pelletreau, who held the same post in the first Clinton term and William Maynes, a former assistant secretary of state in the Carter administration.

Well, the President's folks may have gotten more than they bargained for in Columbus, but, that aside, let's go to some of the issues they raised. Ambassador Helms, the double standard issue. As Judy Woodruff asked in that question to Secretary Albright, there are other nations with weapons of mass destruction. Is Iraq being singled out unfairly?

It's not how many weapons of mass destruction you have, it's how you use them.

RICHARD HELMS: I don't think that's the issue. Almost all countries have weapons of mass destruction. They've had some since World War I--not world War II--World War I, so these things have been around. We've had them in the United States; we've had them in large quantities, and they're all over the world. And the reason that these are so dangerous is that they're very easy to package, very small in quantity, and have a high ability to kill people. So it's a question of how you use them. Now, in the Middle East, in the Wall Street Journal this morning, I believe it was, they had a little checklist of all the weapons that the countries out there have, and most of them have these so-called weapons of mass destruction. And you know this term "mass destruction" is very real; it's become almost a mantra in this country. In the learned publications it's now referred to as WMD weapons, which is hard to believe.

JIM LEHRER: Weapons of--

RICHARD HELMS: Five years ago you would never had heard of that.

JIM LEHRER: --mass destruction.

RICHARD HELMS: So we have been participating in the build-up of this thing, and the question is: who is Saddam Hussein going to use his weapons of mass destruction on? Who is he going to attack? Our friends in the Middle East--is it Iran--he's already had an eight year war with Iran and there doesn't seem to be any indication. Yes, it is real. He knows very well that Israel could bomb off the face of the earth in half a day. So there's a very real question here as to whether that's really the issue, or whether the issue is the fact that the United Nations Security Council can't get Saddam Hussein to do what we want him to do. And I think that's very different from--

JIM LEHRER: The weapons of mass destruction is kind of a cover for trying to get Saddam Hussein to do--because the danger is not there you don't believe?

RICHARD HELMS: Well, I think that the danger is theoretically there. It's not very real, I don't think.

JIM LEHRER: Ambassador Pelletreau, not a real danger?

ROBERT PELLETREAU: I believe there is a real danger. Saddam Hussein is the only leader in recent times that he's actually used these weapons. He's used these weapons against his own people, and he's used these weapons in a war with a neighbor. There's no reason to believe he won't use them again. The U.N. inspectors found that he had been developing seven different types of biological weapons. This is a very frightening development.

JIM LEHRER: But what about the ambassador's point, who would he use them against?

ROBERT PELLETREAU: Well, I think you begin with the record of who he's used them against in the past. He has given up none of his ambitions to be the dominant force in the Gulf. If he were allowed to resume his weapons of mass destruction rearming his arms, it would not be long, in my view, before he'd be back on the border of Kuwait, even threatening Kuwait, or threatening with intimidation others of his neighbors, and having a biological weapon in your hands that you're willing to use is a heck of a strong intimidation weapon.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Djerejian, where do you come down on this?

EDWARD DJEREJIAN: Well, where I come down on this, Jim, is that we have to be very clear in terms of our strategic objectives, and I think the open forum today displayed that much more work needs to be done in educating public opinion and doing the work on Congress. The strategic objective, as has been noted by Dick Helms and Bob Pelletreau, is certainly the inspection and destruction of the weapons of mass destruction. Those U.N. Security Council resolutions focus on that requirement and the sanctions are placed on Iraq certainly in part that he eliminate his weapons of mass destruction and allow the UNSCOM regime to do its work. Unfortunately, over the last year we have had a little ambiguity in terms of the objectives of the United States. In other words, is it to get Saddam, or is his compliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions? And I think the United States should stand tall on this, be clear in the strategic objective of his compliance with the United Nations Security Council resolutions, that once he complies with the destruction, the inspection and destruction of WMD and the other two major relevant resolutions, we will lift the sanctions. Then I think we can keep a coalition together.

JIM LEHRER: What about the point that was raised in Columbus, and Amb. Helms confirmed, that everybody has these weapons, it isn't just Iraq who has these weapons, why Iraq?

If many countries have WMDs, why target Iraq?

EDWARD DJEREJIAN: Well, first of all, he invaded a neighboring country. He was repelled--that aggression was repelled. He was shown his capacity to use chemical weapons against his own population in 1988, in Halabja. He has shown his capacity to use the weapons of mass destruction against Iranians. This is a leader who has actually deployed CW weapons and BW weapons; therefore, there's a record there, and, therefore, I think there's a very coherent international effort in place that should be carried out that he be denied this capacity again.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Maynes, how do you read the threat, real threat that Saddam Hussein might use these weapons?

WILLIAM MAYNES: Well, I think right now, after all that's happened and with the kinds of forces that we've got around Iraq, Iraq is deterred, as Richard Helms said. I think the reason that Iraq is being singled out is after the end of the Cold War, the United States has declared that non-proliferation is its main security concern, and Iraq is an object lesson, in effect, for this policy. He has now imposed on it the most comprehensive sanctions in world history. If those fail, that is going to say something about our effort to try to control these weapons not only in Iraq but in many of these other countries.

JIM LEHRER: Take us down the scenario where that would happen, if we don't do something.

WILLIAM MAYNES: Well, if we can't, you know, already, in effect, the policy has been defied in Pakistan, for example, where we tried to stop it and were able to get weapons. It's been defied in India. It's been defied in Israel. It's been defied in all the countries around Iraq, but this was during the Cold War period, mainly. Now, in this new period we have decided that non-proliferation is the chief security concern of the United States. We're putting tremendous pressure on the weapons and others to try to prevent the dispersion of technology. And here is Iraq, which has had a unique regime placed on it to control these weapons, if this breaks down, I think there's a fear among some of those who are particularly supportive of the non-proliferation efforts of the United States in the post-war period, that the whole policy will be weakened and collapse. And it's not just Iraq; we will have a harder time persuading many other countries that they can't go ahead with this.

JIM LEHRER: Does that make sense to you, Mr. Ambassador?

"President Kennedy came forward and said he wanted to get rid of Castro... Where is Castro? Right where he used to be. It isn't so easy to get rid of these fellas.."

RICHARD HELMS: It makes sense, but it seems to me it leads in one clear direction, and that is the whole issue here is to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Now I'd like to point out there's a little bit of history in the United States. President Kennedy came forward and said he wanted to get rid of Castro. And he organized his entire administration to get rid of Castro. I've been reading about this recently, and it was quite a major effort. Where is Castro? Right where he used to be. It isn't so easy to get rid of these fellas. But if you don't get rid of Saddam Hussein, you simply are tiptoeing along, you know, on this nonproliferation issue without getting anywhere really.

JIM LEHRER: So if Saddam Hussein was not the head of Iraq, we wouldn't have a problem with Iraq having weapons of mass--WMDs, is what you're saying?

RICHARD HELMS: I don't believe so.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree, Mr.--Ambassador--Pelletreau?

ROBERT PELLETREAU: I think this whole crisis goes back to the unfinished business of the Gulf War. It isn't whether Saddam Hussein was leading Iraq; it was that Iraq at that time invaded and occupied another country. As part of the cease-fire resolutions coming out of that conflict Iraq agreed to take certain measures, and it never carried them out. Instead, we find that they have gone far further than we thought in their efforts to develop chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons, and now they are defining the very measure that was aimed at trying to control that particularly dangerous aspect.

JIM LEHRER: But do you agree that the real issue is Saddam Hussein?

ROBERT PELLETREAU: No, I don't. I think the real issue is the threat that Iraq poses to its region, to its neighbors, and potentially far larger.

JIM LEHRER: Ed Djerejian.

EDWARD DJEREJIAN: Well, again, I think we have to be clear on our strategic objectives and the basis upon which we built an international coalition, and that is total compliance with the United Nations Security Council resolutions. And I think we must not--

JIM LEHRER: With or without Saddam Hussein?

EDWARD DJEREJIAN: Exactly. Because if we move the goal post and say that the strategic objective of the United States is the removal of Saddam Hussein, well, our military and political capabilities and our ability to put together an international coalition on that basis will need much reworking and much effort, and a greater strategic effort, so what I am saying is let's be clear on the strategic objectives; let's be clear on the compliance by Saddam Hussein of the U.N. Security Council resolutions; let's stick to that; let's try to keep the coalition as coherent as we can and not enough work has been done in the last two years on that; and let's also support even on a symbolic basis but really support the Iraqi opposition so that we're signaling that in the future we would like to see in Baghdad a government that is much more broadly representative of the Iraqi people. Let's keep clear on the strategic objectives so that we can have much more support both domestically and internationally by fulfilling our objectives.

JIM LEHRER: Let me change the signals slightly here, beginning with you, Mr. Djerejian. Kofi Annan is going off to Baghdad tomorrow to try to make a deal. They're going to meet on Saturday and apparently come back on Monday--try to work out an arrangement to avoid this military strike that everybody has been talking about--you're a professional diplomat, as all of have you have been--spent your lives in diplomacy. Does that look like a "going jenny" to you, Mr. Djerejian?

EDWARD DJEREJIAN: Thank you for the question, Jim. I think there is a--if you will-- a last chance for diplomacy. In my view, the bottom line from which I think the United States cannot withdraw one inch is the total ability of the UNSCOM inspection regime to do its work. Now, if a diplomatic solution is found, for example, to bring in observers from countries on the United Nations Security Council or from the UNSCOM countries, they come as observers but in no way detract from the unfettered ability of the UNSCOM inspectors to do their work, and if that's a face-saving device in which Saddam can pull back on and we can avoid military action, I think that should be welcome. But I hope that we're taking the lead in seeking some of these compromise solutions and not just leaving it to others.

JIM LEHRER: Do you, Amb. Pelletreau, see some wiggle room for both sides on this? One of them has said you've got to let--there's got to be free and unfettered access to the inspectors. Iraq has said, "never will happen."

ROBERT PELLETREAU: Kofi Annan is the latest of a long string of emissaries that have been making their way to Baghdad during this crisis to try to persuade the Iraqis that the only way out of this box they have found themselves in is compliance with Security Council resolutions. He's gone with guidance from the five permanent members of the Security Council, and it's quite a gesture. It's quite a gesture to send the secretary-general of the United States to a country. And Iraq could--they could find in that gesture enough to accept the proposals that the secretary-general is personally bringing.

Is it still possible to back off from a military strike?

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Maynes, some people are suggesting that we have now--the United States has so many ships and so many planes and so much rhetoric on the line that there's no way to back off a military strike now.

WILLIAM MAYNES: Well, you can argue that, but you could also argue that a strike, even if we find that we have to launch one, would exert such an enormous diplomatic and political price for us that we would hesitate to turn down a reasonable deal. For example, the president of Egypt just issued a public statement saying that depending on how this unfolded, his position in power might be threatened. Now, that--you know, that captures the mind.

JIM LEHRER: Meaning there would be such a reaction--

WILLIAM MAYNES: He said he could not stand up against the will of the Egyptian people with--

JIM LEHRER: Who would side with the Iraqis.

WILLIAM MAYNES: Well, it would depend on how the war unfolded, but that was the statement. I think right now there is more room for compromise, certainly, than there was when Perez De Cuellar went out, and--

JIM LEHRER: He was Kofi Annan's predecessor.

WILLIAM MAYNES: That's right. And he basically repeated the ultimatum that was being given to the Iraqis. Now when you look at the words carefully that are being used, our ambassador to the U.N. has endorsed this message, or this trip, and he said we reserve the right not to agree. Well, that already implies that there is some possibility of some real negotiations in Baghdad.

JIM LEHRER: Amb. Helms, do you smell a deal?

RICHARD HELMS: No, I don't particularly smell a deal, but I did want to make one comment about something Amb. Pelletreau said. I don't see this idea of bringing in another Iraqi government from outside and having Saddam Hussein sort of slink out into the bull rush, I think that's--that's a loser, and I think we might as well forget about it.

JIM LEHRER: So that leaves us with--

RICHARD HELMS: Getting rid of Saddam Hussein.

JIM LEHRER: All right. And now we're going to get rid of this segment because we're out of time. Thank you all four very much.

REGIONS TOPICS RECENT PROGRAMS ABOUT US FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS / FEEDS:

Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station.
PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.