All Eyes on The Inspector
An interview with the U.N. diplomat. He talks about
Iraqi credibility, the necessity of a military threat
and wrangling within the Security Council
Posted Sunday, February 23, 2003; 10:31 a.m. EST
TIME: In a perfect world, how long should inspections
proceed before you know whether Iraq is cooperating?
Blix: It should not take a very long time. There will
always be a residue of uncertainty, but for the larger
things, industrial-scale activities, I think within a
number of months.
TIME: Do you think Iraq is becoming more cooperative?
Blix: There is clearly a difference between the tone
[of my report to the U.N.] on Jan. 27 and the one I
had [in the second report] Feb. 14. I am supposed to
give an accurate description of the reality I see. And
if the reality changes, I damn well ought to register
that. By the 14th of February, we had been to Baghdad,
and there were a number of things that ... did not
bring us close to disarmament but opened up the
potential opportunity for progress.
TIME: What exactly was this potential progress?
Blix: They [initially] said, We destroyed all the
biological weapons in the summer of 1991�but the
documentation was destroyed, and we cannot tell you
anything more about it. Now they said, Well, maybe
there is a way of finding out underground. I said that
our people were not very hopeful about it, but
nevertheless we would [pursue] it. They claim they had
drilled in the ground and there was rock underneath,
and they thought we might still find traces of it.
TIME: Any other hopeful developments?
Blix: We [received] a letter that gave us the names of
persons who had taken part in the destruction of
biological weapons in the summer of 1991. These are
people who are still alive and who [could be]
interviewed about it. Since then we have had further
names from the missile sector and from the chemical.
I'm not rushing to conclusions that this is going to
give results. They could be scripted. They could all
tell us the same story.
TIME: Have you begun to interview the people on those
lists?
Blix: No, but we are planning for how it will be done.
TIME: Is credible threat of force necessary to get
even minimal compliance?
Blix: Just as Kofi Annan says, diplomacy may need to
be backed up by force. Inspections may need to be
backed up by pressure.
TIME: So the buildup of U.S. forces actually has
helped you?
Blix: I don't think there would have been any
inspection but for outside pressure, including U.S.
forces.
TIME: Are the members of the U.N. Security Council
depending on you too much to make up their minds?
Blix: No, I don't think so. The way I read the U.S.
and perhaps the U.K. now, they are more intent on
looking at the cooperation rather than the degree of
disarmament. It seems to me that the U.S. and U.K. are
looking at: Is there a change of heart?
TIME: You said Feb. 14 that many proscribed items,
including tons of chemical agent, were unaccounted
for. You said there were significant outstanding
issues, including the whereabouts of previously
identified stores of anthrax and VX poisons and
long-range missiles. Isn't it reasonable to conclude
that the Iraqis aren't cooperating?
Blix: Is non-delivery of documents that they deny
having noncooperation? They deny they have these
documents, and [others] say they are not giving the
documents. Well, I don't have evidence that they have
them.
TIME: So when you say to them, what happened to the
anthrax? They say, well, there was a hole in the
ground in the desert and we put it in?
Blix: Yes. It was not a hole in the ground; they
poured it in the ground. They did the same with the
VX.
TIME: Do you believe them?
Blix: I'd like to see evidence of it. I don't work by
gut feelings. I have to be the lawyer. Some people
say, Jump at this. I'd like to see evidence. I'd like
to interview the people. If they have contemporary
documents, we can establish whether the documents are
authentic.
TIME: How could there be no documents? Hasn't the
Iraqi regime in the past had a Prussian-like
efficiency in terms of keeping records?
Blix: Well, they've been one of the best-organized
regimes in the Arab world. But then, if they destroyed
their documents with that efficiency, there might be
relatively little left. But when they've had need of
something to show, then they have been able to do so.
TIME: So this is all a bit odd.
Blix: Yes, it's a bit odd.
TIME: What will you do if in the end you don't get
documents as evidence?
Blix: I would not say they are guilty. I do not say
they have them. I say that I will not recommend to the
Security Council to have any confidence.
TIME: There are also questions about whether the
quantities of weapons that Iraq originally declared
represent the full amount anyway.
Blix: You're hinting at their lack of credibility. Of
course they have no credibility. If they had any, they
certainly lost it in 1991. I don't see that they have
acquired any credibility. There has to be solid
evidence of everything, and if there is not evidence,
or you can't find it, I simply say, Sorry, I don't
find any evidence, and I cannot guarantee or recommend
any confidence.
TIME: Then it would be up to the Security Council to
take your findings and ...
Blix: That's right. In the last resort, this is a
political decision.
TIME: Do you give private briefings to members of the
Bush administration?
Well, I meet Condoleezza Rice sometimes. I see Colin
Powell sometimes.
TIME: Do you feel any pressure from the U.S.
administration to give it a heads-up or to tailor your
reports?
Blix: It's a very civilized discussion. Some of the
things that are said afterward in the media bear very
little resemblance to what has been said.
TIME: What about timing?
Blix: The Bush Administration's urgent timetable is
driven by concerns that impending warm weather could
derail its military plans. I've asked. I've been told
that it's less easy, but it can be done. It's not a
decisive factor.
TIME: To whom have you asked the question?
Blix: That would be indiscreet.
TIME: Was there anything about the Feb. 14 Security
Council meeting that surprised you?
Blix: Not really. I registered very carefully what the
French Foreign Minister was saying, and he said that
he didn't exclude the use of force. And he said that
essentially it was a question of time.
TIME: Are you suggesting that the gulf between the
U.S. and France is not really so wide?
Blix: Maybe not. I read the declaration of the
European Union the other day, which also says that
inspections should continue but essentially cannot go
on forever. So at some point I think the French are
ready to say that if we don't succeed by inspection,
it's time to go to the use of force.
TIME: Do you think an additional three months of
inspections is reasonable? Would six months be too
long?
Blix: If they cooperate fully and spontaneously, then
the time should be short. If it's a moderate amount of
cooperation, inch by inch, the verification will take
some time. Would we be able to do that by the middle
of March or even April 1? No, it would take longer
than that. My predecessors talked about two years. I
would be more optimistic than that. It's a question of
months.
TIME: That's if the Iraqis cooperate, right?
Blix: Yes. If they stonewall, well, I think it would
be hard. If all these guys who are on the [lists] now
are interviewed and they all have the same story�Yes,
we were there; we saw how it poured down, etc.; Sorry,
we have looked at all the documents, and we don't find
any more�well, then we are stuck. And I'll report it.
TIME: What would make you say, Enough?
Blix: If the Council asks me point-blank, Do you think
it's meaningful to continue? A month [from now], I
don't know what will happen in that period. If it
turns out that every witness is scripted, if they
don't find any documents and we're just sort of
swimming in the same spot, that would presumably be a
negative.
TIME: Do you think Saddam is personally guiding the
Iraqi moves on a day-to-day basis?
Blix: I'm sure.
TIME: Is there evidence that informs that judgment?
Blix: What is the definition of a totalitarian state?
TIME: Do you sense that you're being watched when
you're inside Iraq?
Blix: No, but I assume so.
TIME: Do you think Iraqi officials are getting advance
notice as to where the inspectors want to go?
Blix: We have no evidence to show that they knew in
advance where we were going, except a relatively short
time. When you go out of Baghdad in any direction, of
course they can say, They're going north, or
northeast, etc. Of course we are very much aware of
the risk of being infiltrated. This room [at the U.N.]
is not a secure environment. They may very well be
listening, or the CIA may be listening.
TIME: Regarding the inspectors' interviews with Iraqi
scientists, wouldn't it take a man of incredible
courage or insanity to say something incriminating
that might get back to the regime?
Blix: It's not quite as black and white as that. Of
course I'm conscious of [the possibility] they'd say,
Oh, you said the wrong thing here. [Then] you go and
get hanged the next day. But even interviews with
minders present have given a lot of information. Our
people are scientists. There is a limit to how much
you can lie between two people who are competent in
the field. The Iraqis certainly misused this. The
minders would interrupt. They'd say, No, you're wrong;
you remember wrongly there. That's why we say it
should be private interviews. But it's very hard to
get to that under conditions that give full
credibility.
TIME: What is the best possible outcome of your work?
Blix: The best possible, of course, is that we have
people who will speak their mind, that we find
contemporary documents, that we visit more and more
sites in the country and find them without weapons.
TIME: And Saddam Hussein stays in power?
Blix: The Security Council resolutions do not demand
that there be a change of government, and I think
President Bush has said it two ways. Either you change
the regime, or it changes its attitude. There would be
a change anyway. Fine with me.
TIME: Would it be useful if the U.S. and its allies
said, you must give us information on this, this and
this by a specific date. If not, we're invading?
Blix: Maybe so. I would say that an ultimatum or a
timeline is a way of exerting a very strong pressure.
Such a thing without an outside pressure of force is
not very useful. But with the maintenance of what you
have, yes, I think that shows that they cannot drag it
on forever.
TIME: What information should be required?
Blix: There are lots of things that are perhaps of not
that great importance. But if you take anthrax, VX,
the missiles and a few others, sarin�there are a
number of them.
TIME: So you would be comfortable with specific
questions and a specific time frame?
Blix: Yes, I'm not uncomfortable with it. As a
diplomat, I can't say I'm comfortable.
TIME: Do you think Iraq is keeping the world from
paying sufficient attention to North Korea?
Blix: I think we have to be able to drive and chew gum
simultaneously.
=====
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq:
Your enemy is not surrounding your country � your enemy is ruling your
country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be
the day of your liberation." -George W. Bush 1/29/03
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
