|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
| THE SANCTIONS DEBATE | |
 December 22, 1998 
|
||
 |
|
|
|
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Now what next in Iraq. A sharp debate is underway at the U.N. over economic sanctions and arms inspections in Iraq now that the bombing is over. The Clinton administration's point man on the issue is Under Secretary of State Thomas Pickering. He was in New York yesterday, where he spoke with Russian diplomats and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. Ambassador Pickering joins us now from the State Department. Thank you for being with us.
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What was your purpose in going up to the U.N. yesterday? AMBASSADOR THOMAS PICKERING: My purpose in going up to the U.N. was to consult with delegations and particularly the Russian delegation, and to speak with the Secretary General and to get a vision of their perspective on the situation in Iraq. |
||||||||||||||||
|
Calls for "a new chapter". |
|||||||||||||||||
|
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Is a major rethinking underway? Newspaper and
wire stories indicate that three of the five permanent members of the
U.N. Security Council are pushing for some significant changes in policy.
And let me just quote French Foreign Minister Vedrine, who said "It's
time for a new chapter in the U.N.'s management of the Iraqi issue because
UNSCOM's probably done all it can to discover hidden weapons." AMBASSADOR THOMAS PICKERING: Well, we've been looking at the situation, along with others, and there are differing views, but we hope that they can be brought together. Our view is clearly that the threat of the use of force and the potential for the use of force needs to remain out there if Iraq reconstructs its weapons of mass destruction and threatens its neighbors. Iraq, of course, now has a choice. It can keep sanctions on forever, defy the United Nations, and then we will have to be there to protect those red lines and to use our intelligence to make sure they don't. Or Iraq can once again accept UNSCOM back. We don't believe it should go back. Certainly it shouldn't go back until they pass some tests that indicate they're going to cooperate with it. Another pchunk in UNSCOM is not in our interest. But there is no way that sanctions can come off without UNSCOM verifying that they have disarmed, the principle test for the removal of sanctions. If they want a comprehensive review - and they have talked about that - they clearly then will have to cooperate with the United Nations, comply with the resolutions, disclose and disarm as UNSCOM and the resolutions require.
AMBASSADOR THOMAS PICKERING: Well, I want to be very careful. The U.S. is not trying to get the arms inspectors back. The U.S. recognized that in this case Iraq has a choice - sanctions forever - the use of force to keep them from crossing red lines is one choice. The possibility of cooperating with the United Nations has always been there. If they choose to cooperate and show that by concrete actions, then it's possible for UNSCOM to go back. Certainly we would support that. I suspect the other members of the Security Council would. And then they can move on down the road of disarmament, disclosing, complying, and moving toward the question of lifting sanctions. |
 |
||||||||||||||||
| Alternatives to UNSCOM. | |||||||||||||||||
|
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Is there any other form that the weapons inspections could take, besides UNSCOM, in your view?
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The Russians and others are said to be asking for the dismissal of UNSCOM's director, Richard Butler. Would the U.S. oppose that? AMBASSADOR THOMAS PICKERING: Well, as the Secretary of State has made clear - and I repeated again today - we support Mr. Butler. We believe he ought to remain in place. |
|||||||||||||||||
| Is there a solution? | |||||||||||||||||
|
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Bottom line, it sounds like there's no way out of this because you're saying that there can be no end to the sanctions unless Iraq cooperates with UNSCOM, and Iraq is saying it won't cooperate with UNSCOM. Am I missing something? AMBASSADOR THOMAS PICKERING: No. Elizabeth, that's not just the U.S. position. That's the position taken by all 15 members of the Security Council resolutions, including Russia, France, and China. That's what the Security Council resolutions say. That's what they and we are committed to carry out. We are at this stage attempting to do that. If Iraq doesn't cooperate, then we can have sanctions on perpetuity. As I said, if Iraq chooses to cooperate, then it must come back into compliance with the Security Council resolutions. The resolutions are supported by the United States but by others. They're not a choice of the United States that somehow exclusively we're applying here, but it is the will of the international community is expressed in the Security Council.
AMBASSADOR THOMAS PICKERING: Well, I think each in their own way is thinking about the problem in some of those terms. And one of the values of talking to them, one of the values perhaps of my discussions yesterday was to make it clear that the United States is sticking by their resolutions. And we don't overthrow resolutions unilaterally. It would be a serious mistake to do that and to change where the Security Council is. In fact, France and China and Russia are all permanent members of the Security Council. It would be a mistake to see the Security Council undermined from within, to see its authorities undermined, particularly in response to the very, very important question of Iraq and the threats that Iraq poses to the region. |
 |
||||||||||||||||
| The pressure from France, Russia and China. | |||||||||||||||||
|
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What was your take on these events as of yesterday and today? How much more pressure do you think there will be in the Security Council from France, Russia, and others for these changes?
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Ambassador, what exactly is U.S. policy now? Is it containing Iraq or getting rid of Saddam Hussein? AMBASSADOR THOMAS PICKERING: Our policy has been made very clear. The Secretary said for the foreseeable future following the military activities, which were to degrade his weapons of mass destruction and his ability to threaten his neighbors. We would move to a policy of containment. That is the centerpiece of the United Nations policy. Down the road and over the long-term we are consulting with the opposition, talking to them about the future. We would like to see Saddam Hussein gone. It is working with and through people who are opposed to him, that that can be worked out. |
|||||||||||||||||
| Is the U.S. setting realistic goals? | |||||||||||||||||
|
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: I wish you would respond to something that Zbigniew Brzezinksi, former National Security Adviser, said on our show last night. He said that the U.S. needed more realistic goals in Iraq. He said the U.S. can't find all the weapons; there's no way to prove that all these weapons have been destroyed and can't remove Saddam Hussein without killing him or invading. Those are unrealistic and unattainable goals, he said. How do you respond to that? AMBASSADOR THOMAS PICKERING: I believe that we're in this process for the long-term, that patience in achieving our goals is very, very significant. The United Nations, the world community has given Saddam some very stark choices. He will have to decide how he moves with respect to those. We have our doubts about the fact that Saddam will ever comply. It's been very clear, and we have made clear that as a result of those doubts, we are working with others to see him gone. It's a longer-term possibility. It's a longer-term question. But we believe that we must continue at this. There are some foreign policy issues that aren't going to be solved overnight or in a day. And I know that Zbig knows and understands that and even despite the fact that there is impatience, that there is no magic silver bullet to solve all of this in the next few days. It is important that we remain firm and determined in this, as we were, for example, during the Cold War on the question of containment.
AMBASSADOR THOMAS PICKERING: I believe it's a serious threat, particularly to the region, and it has world ramifications. Much of the economy of many countries in the world is still based in the need for petroleum. The region is one of the greatest suppliers of petroleum for the region. Saddam's moves in 1990 certainly threatened that. He's been at war against his other neighbor, Iran. He is a man that we find it very difficult to believe - to be convinced that he would turn the corner and reform. He is still working, we believe, to acquire or preserve as much as he can of his structure of weapons of mass destruction. He does prove in our - in our view - to have been a very, very serious threat to the neighborhood. And that's a very important neighborhood in terms of where world economies are, and, therefore, I don't believe we have exaggerated it. ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Ambassador, do you believe the bombing advanced the situation, the U.S. situation vis-à-vis Iraq at all? It seems just in this conversation that we are stuck in some ways where we were before. We've talked about this many times on the show before with you or other members of the State Department but some fewer munitions factories and barracks?
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Ambassador Thomas Pickering, thank you very much for being with us. AMBASSADOR THOMAS PICKERING: Thank you very much. |
 |
||||||||||||||||
 |
    
|
|
| 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. | ||
| ||
AMBASSADOR
THOMAS PICKERING: Good evening, Elizabeth. It's nice to be with you.
ELIZABETH
FARNSWORTH: Is there any chance UNSCOM could get back in? Tariq Aziz
and others in Iraq have said that there's just absolutely no chance
they can get back in. What is U.S. policy for trying to get the arms
inspectors back in? 
AMBASSADOR
THOMAS PICKERING: We're very satisfied with UNSCOM. I said that again
today. We believe it is a highly professional international body that
does its work in the best of all possible ways clearly without a political
commitment on one side. The other it reports to the Security Council.
We believe that that kind of an effective body needs to remain there.
We have told - that is, the United Nations Security Council -- has told
UNSCOM that it should design the verification system and carry it out
- that it thinks it's best to do the job. And we have supported that,
so UNSCOM is really in its technical expertise and its professionalism
the body the Security Council has relied upon to design and carry out
the system that's best. If UNSCOM believes that there are improvements
to be made - and it has been making improvements all along the line.
I don't think the United States would stand in the way of that. But
to have somebody else come in and substitute a new system because the
Iraqis are complaining is a real travesty. 
ELIZABETH
FARNSWORTH: But am I wrong, or are the news articles today wrong in
indicating that Russia, France, and others are trying to find a way
to break through what I just expressed as what I seem to think was a
dead end? 
AMBASSADOR
THOMAS PICKERING: Well, I believe in all of the Security Council discussions.
There are differences of view. They get worked out. I think that there
are efforts here that can go on in the consultations. The Secretary
of State spoke again today with the Russian foreign minister. It was
a good conversation. She's been in touch with the French foreign minister,
with the British. We expect here to continue those consultations. Let
us see how this process can work ahead. The Council has a very strong
reason to defend its resolutions against attacks from the outside. It
has a very strong - I think - reason to remain united, as it was in
the lead up to the American strikes. 
ELIZABETH
FARNSWORTH: He also said - Mr. Brzezinski also said that the United
States has lost its sense of balance and proportion regarding Iraq,
a nation of 22 million people, and he said, "It's a problem and a nuisance,
but it's not a major world threat and shouldn't be treated like that."
AMBASSADOR
THOMAS PICKERING: No. I believe in a couple of very important ways this
particular effort made an extremely serious difference. One, of course,
and you've alluded to that in your question, is that a large portion
of the establishment that he was either preserving or rebuilding to
construct or to be ready to construct weapons of mass destruction has
been taken out and the military reports of that I believe are serious,
substantial, and convincing. Secondly, we have made it very clear that
if he transgresses, that if he crosses the line, that he can expect
a firm and determined response from the United States to support the
processes that have been engaged in here by the Security Council. It
is extremely important, however, that we judge these strikes primarily
on the basis of their military accomplishment and the fact that we are
determined not to see him present a new threat to the region, as we
have said.