REMARKS BY JOHN D. NEGROPONTE
UNITED STATES PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE
TO THE UNITED NATIONS

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT

February 24, 2003

Excerpts

. . .

Reporter: Mr. Ambassador, if Saddam Hussein carries through on his threat, which will be aired by Dan Rather later this evening, not to destroy the Al Samouds. We have a deadline coming up of Saturday. What will be the U.S. position if that deadline passes, Saddam carries through on his threats and those missiles are still in the same status next week that they are now? (inaudible)

Ambassador Negroponte: Well, I - he shouldn't have those missiles in the first place. They were developed in violation of disarmament obligations undertaken, or imposed upon, Iraq all the way back in 1991. But let me just add, as the President said in Crawford, Texas on Saturday, those missiles are just the tip of the iceberg. We're talking about some missiles that have a capability, or would have a capability, to deliver weapons of mass destruction, but we're not talking about the WMD themselves. The biological weapons, the chemical weapons, the nuclear programs, and all the other concerns that have been enumerated on numerous occasions. So, even if he were to destroy those missiles, it would just be a very, very small part of what is actually required and called for by the situation.

Reporter: What happens if the Blix deadline comes and goes? That's going to be in the next few days.

Ambassador Negroponte: I'm not going to enter into that conjecture. But it seems to me that he would do well to comply with that demand on the part of UNMOVIC. All I'm saying is, that even if he were to comply with that request, it doesn't come anywhere near to fulfilling all that is required of the government of Iraq. Yes? Over there. Over there.

Reporter: Politically, how important is the Blix report for you to convince other Council members to get on board?

Ambassador Negroponte: Well, I think we've tabled a very reasonable resolution. We've taken, it's not exactly as if we've rushed to judgment on this. The President brought this issue to the United Nations on September 12. It took us seven weeks to negotiate Resolution 1441. And we think that now, after more than 90 days, it's become amply apparent that Iraq does not intend to comply with the provisions of 1441. And we think that this is a draft resolution that is deserving, fully deserving, of the support of the other members of the Council. I don't want to prejudge what their position is going to be -- that is the process we're about to enter into over the next days. But, as others may have already pointed out to you, we will have consultations on Thursday on this resolution. And in this process, we would hope and expect that other Council members would share our view that this resolution deserves the Council support. Yes, sir?

Reporter: What is the date for the U.S. invasion?

Ambassador Negroponte: The --

Reporter: Mr. Ambassador -

Ambassador Negroponte: Yes, sir?

Reporter: You've said you have (inaudible). Are you not willing to wait until Dr. Blix comes back before the Council either March 5 or March 6, March 7, and then have a vote the following week? Or do you want it earlier than that?

Ambassador Negroponte: I think we fully expect to hear from Dr. Blix next week. And as Ambassador Greenstock told the Council today, and it's certainly our position, that a reasonable amount of time needs to be allowed for not only delegations here to consider this draft, but to refer it to their capitals, get instructions and also to allow for communication between ministers of the 15 Security Council members. So, we're talking about a reasonable amount of time, but we're certainly not talking about seven weeks, as it took to negotiate Resolution 1441. This resolution is very straightforward, very simple, and it simply does not require that kind of time in order to be satisfactorily negotiated. Yes, sir?

Reporter: (in Spanish) Mr. Ambassador, is there some relation, in time, between (inaudible) and military imperatives in the gulf (inaudible) window?

Ambassador Negroponte: (in Spanish) I can't comment on military questions, but I would say that the diplomatic window is now closing and urge the passage of this resolution. We think this is a very reasonable draft that merits the favorable consideration of council members.

Reporter: Mr. Ambassador, you say you do not agree with the French resolution of 120 days - that is not your timeframe?

Ambassador Negroponte: Well, I'm not going to get into a discussion of specific time periods now but I would say time is short. The time for diplomatic action is narrowing rapidly and I would by way of comment on the French, Russian, German proposal say that as far as we're concerned, this is much more process than substance. We don't see it as contributing to the disarmament of Iraq and we view that paper with deep skepticism. I'll take one last question. Yes, sir?

Reporter: I'm curious, why is the time running out? Why is the window now - what happens in 60 days? What happens after that that can't be corrected?

Ambassador Negroponte: Well, I think we have been fairly clear all along. If you want to go back to Secretary Powell's briefing of the Council on the 5 of February, Iraq has mobilized an entire organization whose sole purpose in life is to frustrate the inspection process. They have a major effort at denial and deception. They have not been forthcoming; they have not been truthful. We have laid out the many different reasons why we have reached the conclusion, the inescapable conclusion in our view, that Iraq is simply not serious about disarmament and it is that conclusion that has lead us to join our British colleagues and our Spanish colleagues in tabling this resolution today. Very last question.

Reporter: Now that this resolution is tabled, what if anything, can Iraq do to avert the serious consequences that your resolution now talks about?

Ambassador Negroponte: Well, the only thing I can think of is to have an absolutely drastic change in attitude towards the issue of disarmament and all that that entails. But again, I would emphasize that it would have to be a major, drastic, dramatic change in the attitude that that government has displayed towards the issue of disarming itself of weapons of mass destruction and nothing that we have seen in the preceding weeks and months would encourage us to believe that that could happen. Thank you very much.