|
|
| NEWSMAKER: AMBASSADOR BUTLER
November 6, 1997NEWSHOUR TRANSCRIPT |
|---|
For the fourth straight day, Iraq barred U.N. inspectors from examining weapon sites. During the halt in inspections, Iraq has reportedly tampered with the sites' surveillance cameras and removed sensitive equipment. Elizabeth Farnsworth talks about Saddam Hussein's latest moves with U.N. Amb. Richard Butler, the man who leads the U.N. Special Commission in Iraq.
A RealAudio version of this segment is available.
NEWSHOUR LINKS:
November 3, 1996
U.N. Ambassador Richardson discusses tensions between the U.S. and Iraq.
September 10, 1996
A discussion with two Iraq experts in the U.S.
September 4, 1996
A group of experts discuss Saddam Hussein's decision to send troops in the Kurdish Safe Haven.
Online Forum: 1996:
The plight of the Kurds in Northern Iraq.
Browse the NewsHour's coverage of the Middle East.
OUTSIDE LINKS
United Nations
International Atmoic Energy Agency
Iraq-ArabNet
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Under U.N. resolutions adopted after the 1991 Gulf War inspecting and dismantling Iraqi weapons of mass destruction has been the job of a U.N. Special Commission in Iraq known as UNSCOM. Now heading that commission is Australian diplomat Richard Butler. Thank you for being with us.
RICHARD BUTLER: A pleasure.
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: You reported to the Security Council yesterday that in the absence of monitoring this week, in the absence of inspections, Iraq has moved equipment and tampered with cameras. Is that continuing?
RICHARD BUTLER: Well, not today. Today I sent our inspectors out to look at those sites, those places where they have moved equipment and tampered, but they wouldn't let us in. I've issued instructions for us to go back tomorrow, but we will see. But they did move equipment. They did prevent us from seeing things that it is our right to see and that they have agreed in the past. We should be able to see, so this is clearly disturbing.
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Help us understand what they might be doing and why they might be doing it. In your letter yesterday you wrote that moving equipment or damaging cameras could be very significant because, for example, it would take only a matter of hours to adapt fermenters to produce seed stocks of biological warfare agents. Explain that.
RICHARD BUTLER: Well, that's right. We have photographs from cameras that were still operating that show the kind of before and after photographs. Yesterday, as it were, there were two fermenters in place, i.e., small pieces of equipment in which you could ferment the seed stock to make biological weapons. And then the next day our photographs showed that they had been removed.
Questioning Iraqi actions.
Now, if those fermenters were set to work, they could create the seed stock, which after 48 hours could be put into a larger container, where they could then proceed to make--anthrax--a very serious biological substance, which could then in turn another two or three days later be filled into a warhead and made into a biological weapon. We're very concerned about that--before and after. Why were they there before? Why aren't they there afterward? Why did they move them? For what purpose? Let's see them. But they wouldn't let us in today to see that site, so we don't know.
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: I don't know if he was referring to that site specifically, but Iraq's foreign minister today, as you know, informed the Security Council that, yes, they had moved some equipment because they were afraid of a military attack and whatever was moved would be moved back, and you'd be able to check it then, and he said, yes, one camera had been destroyed because they were testing an engine for a missile that was not prescribed. How do you respond to that letter that he wrote?
RICHARD BUTLER: Well, in the first instance I won't comment on the stated reason for moving the site. You know, that's a political matter which I'll leave to him and to the Security Council. But as far as moving the equipment is concerned, that's wrong. That's illegal. They should not have done it. He says they will return it. But we're in a circumstance where because Iraq decided on the 29th of October to exclude American inspectors and to impede our work, as every day goes by we're in a situation where we don't know what they're doing. They've obliged us to look away, to turn our back. But what we've been able to see is that they've used that time--at least to move equipment. My point is where have they moved it, for what purpose? They give their stated political reasons--so be it--but we still need to know to what purpose are they putting that equipment in the intervening time. As I said, a week could be enough to start off production and mainly complete production of a biological weapon. We need to know what the facts are.
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Ambassador, is that why you think this happened in the first place? Do you think Iraq blocked American inspectors from entering because they wanted to precipitate this sort of opportunity for themselves?
RICHARD BUTLER: Well, I'm not sure that it's as simple as that. Everyone is asking the question why did Iraq take those decisions on the train last of October that were directed against American members of my staff but which, of course, precipitated the much larger practice because we can't accept that any one nationality would be separated or discriminated against in that way. Why did they do it?
Two theories.
There are two theories out there. One is a political theory. The other is a real technical practical theory that says that we were getting closer to finding the last vestiges of their weapons of mass destruction, and they wanted to prevent us from doing that. I'm not sure which theory is the right one, but I do know from within my responsibility that this blockage that they have caused in the last ten days or so is serious, and there's this example of the movement of equipment--the shutting off of cameras demonstrate. This has opened up a possibility where we might lose it. We might lose some of our database. We might lose some knowledge of what they've been doing with this equipment, and as every day goes by, with blockage, it becomes more serious.
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: You reported last month to the U.N. Security Council that there was a pattern of blocking investigations; that this is--in other words, this has been happening for some time. What do you see in the blocking of investigations and in the other movement by the Iraqis. Is there a particular biological program, for example, biological warfare program they seem to be trying to hide?
Amb. Butler: "We've made good progress in the last few months in missiles and chemical weapons. But I also reported that biology was what I called...it's a black hole."
RICHARD BUTLER: Well, let me say you've overstated slightly what I reported to the council, and I'm not just trying to be argumentative with you. I really prefer to have the facts. And the fact is that we reported some very good progress with them, and I'm happy to reaffirm that now. We've made good progress in the last few months in missiles and chemical
weapons. But I also reported that biology was what I called--and I said this to the deputy prime minister of Iraq to his face--it's a black hole. They've never really told us the truth of the biological program. And that's a matter of serious concern. So to the council I reported some good things and what you referred to as some blockages. Towards the end of the reporting period they did block some of our inspections; they threatened one of our helicopters, and of course, I had to report that. Then they blew up; they did what they did on the 29th of October, and you have to ask why, especially as there had been some progress. And I think one of the possible reasons why they did that was maybe because we were getting closer to putting the finger on their very serious biological capability.
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Is Iraq in material breach of the cease-fire?
RICHARD BUTLER: Well, this is an interesting question. Strictly speaking, only the Security Council can form that judgment, a bit like a court, a bit like a verdict. As the senior official dealing with this I said to the council a few days ago that I thought it would be a fair legal opinion that they were in material breach. And that's all I can do. I can express that view. And I did express it. But whether or not the council will accept that view or decide for itself otherwise; that they are or are not in material breach, is something that only they can do. But I did present to them the view that I thought they probably would.
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Would you explain the consequences of the Security Council accepting that view.
RICHARD BUTLER: Well, material breach is the legal term, but it's more than that. It's quite serious. It comes from the basic international law, the law of treaties, which says that, you know, if there is a treaty that states have entered into and one of them or more than one behaves in a way that breaches the fundamental precepts of the treaty, then they're in material breach of it.
Under those circumstances the convention under the law of treaty says that other parties can take all manner of action, and in the case of the Iraq situation, where what we're basically dealing with is a cease-fire agreement after the Gulf War and in disarmament obligations on Iraq, if they were--if the council judged--I can't judge that, but if the council judged that they were in material breach, then the council would be free to take the whole range of actions available to it, whether it was sanctioned or military action or whatever. I'm not trying in any way to talk up
military action. I'm just telling you the facts. The council would be free to decide on whatever course of action it was thought most appropriate.
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Well, Mr. Ambassador, thank you very much for being with us.
RICHARD BUTLER: Thank you.
 |
        |
|
| 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. | ||
| ||
