*EPF311 01/29/2003
Transcript: Wolfowitz Sees "Enormous Body of Information" on Iraqi Weapons
(Discusses State of the Union address with foreign journalists) (1510)

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz says there is "an enormous body of information" indicating that Iraq continues to hold weapons of mass destruction.

Speaking January 28 to a group of foreign journalists following President Bush's State of the Union address to Congress, Wolfowitz added that there has been an Iraqi pattern of "non-cooperation, intimidation, hiding and concealing" in the face of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 calling on the Iraqi regime to divulge details of its weapons programs.

Asked about the president's announcement that the United States will call for a February 5 meeting of the Security Council to examine the Iraqi weapons issue, Wolfowitz said Resolution 1441 obliges the United States to do so, and "if we're going to come to a conclusion that force is necessary, it's not a conclusion we're going to come to lightly, it's not a conclusion we'll come to by ourselves."

Wolfowitz and Tucker Eskew, Director of the White House's new Office of Global Communications, met with the journalists in the Old Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House to watch President Bush deliver the State of the Union address and to answer their questions.

The State Department's Foreign Press Center and Eskew's office hosted the event.

Media represented were:

Radio SAWA (U.S. International Broadcasting -- Arabic service)
Radio FARDA (Voice of America Iranian service)
Al-Jazeera Television (Qatar's 24-hour satellite news channel)
Australian Broadcasting Corp. (ABC)
British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC)
Jawa Pos (Indonesian newspaper)
Le Figaro (French newspaper)
Nile News (Egyptian satellite news)
NTV (Russian TV)
Kyodo News Service (Japanese wire service)
Radio France International
al Quds (Palestinian newspaper)
Itar/Tass (Russian news agency)

Following is a transcript of the interview Wolfowitz conducted with the journalists:

(begin transcript)

(begin transcript)

Q: The President called Iran an oppressive regime. Can you elaborate on that?

Wolfowitz: Each of these countries is different. I think if you read the President's speech, I think it's very clear that we see in Iran that we something we don't see in the other two countries ... a desire to live in freedom, to have a different kind of government, I think, a government that would ultimately be better for the security of everybody in that region. And I think a lot of our hopes rest on, ultimately, that aspiration.

Q: What is the point of the February 5th meeting at the Security Council now? Is that just a date to reveal U.S. intelligence?

Wolfowitz: What Resolution 1441 obliges us to do is come back to the United Nations and it's clear that if we're going to come to a conclusion that force is necessary, it's not a conclusion we're going to come to lightly, it's not a conclusion we'll come to by ourselves. And there are a number of international bodies -- and the Security Council is obviously the premier one -- in which we will make our case and talk to our partners, and if there's any last chance at getting Iraq to change -- not Iraq, but the Iraqi regime -- to change this fundamental pattern of behavior that the president talked about, it probably will only come through a clear demonstration of the international community.

Q: Mr. Secretary, what kind of evidence are you ready to show?

Wolfowitz: Look, there's a lot of evidence. A lot of it has been there already. It's astonishing that Saddam Hussein didn't even bother to respond to what the United Nations said he had five years ago. These are huge quantities of the most deadly biological weapons we know -- anthrax, botulinum toxin -- he's failed in any way to account for things we know about through a variety of sources. Some of these we probably will be able to talk about, but some of them come from people who've risked their lives to tell us. Secretary Powell's going to have to decide next week what things we can say, what things we can't say. But there is unfortunately just an enormous body of information that indicates very clearly that Iraq has weapons, they haven't given them up. And they're engaged in a pattern of non-cooperation, intimidation, hiding and concealing things that is the complete opposite of what a country does when it wants to really get rid of weapons like this.

Q: What about a deadline. How much time?

Wolfowitz: You know, that's a decision for our president to make. He hasn't made it yet, and I don't think, as I said, that he's going to make it by himself. He's consulting closely with many coalition partners. Some of whom, such as Mr. Blair, are very out in the open and public, some others prefer to be consulted with quietly. But, we're talking with a great many governments about what to do. I don't think there is a deadline, at least as of now, but very clearly we're talking about -- we have said repeatedly, Secretary Powell has said that time is running out -- this is not something we can afford to live with for another twelve years.

Q: A matter of weeks or months?

Wolfowitz: I can't give you timeframes. It's a matter of real urgency.

Q: So this was not a declaration of war?

Wolfowitz: Absolutely not. I was asked that question by one of the Middle Eastern networks. Because they hear the president speak to the troops to raise their morale, and I think that to some people this sounds like a declaration of war. It's anything but. I think that sometimes people don't understand what the relationship is between the president and the military in a democratic country. But these are his people. They're his troops. He made it clear in his speech that the last thing he wants to do is send them into combat where they may be killed. But they are our real hope for peace. We recognize that the decision that has to be made here if we're going to avoid the need to use force is for Saddam Hussein to fundamentally change his pattern of behavior. And the only thing that may convince him is looking at those ships and looking at those airplanes and looking at the resolve of the American soldiers.

Q: Last Saturday, an Iraqi attempted to defect to the inspectors in Iraq and then they delivered him to the Iraqi police. Were you aware of this incident, and is there any mechanism to protect people who want to provide information against the regime? Did you follow this incident?

Wolfowitz: I followed it from the news, as you did. I think it's a further testimony to what any Iraqi confronts if they try to cooperate or provide information. It was kind of a graphic demonstration of what we hear over and over again from a variety of sources inside, that Saddam has issued the most cold-blooded orders that anyone who cooperates with inspectors will be killed, their families will be killed. And this is a man who is known to make good on those kinds of horrible threats. So, the clearest sign of a change in the Iraqi attitudes, and the most important sign of a change in Iraqi attitudes, would be to create an environment in which the scientists within this program were talking freely, were comfortable talking freely, and instead we haven't had a single interview in circumstances that were confidential and free.

Q: If and when you decide to go, will you give advance warning to your allies, including Russia, that they need to take action -- take their people out?

Wolfowitz: That is one concern that many countries have about having some idea in advance if there were going to be a decision. And that's obviously something only the president can decide, but it's certainly on his mind. There are a lot of people who are concerned, who would like some warning. At the same time, I think you understand that there are military considerations that go with that too.

Q: The president today again emphasized a diplomatic solution vis-��-vis North Korean issue. He emphasized a kind of multilateral regional approach. What could be the next step for the U.S.?

Wolfowitz: Well, you know, we're still in the early stages of putting together a diplomatic approach to North Korea. People say repeatedly -- well, why do you treat Iraq and North Korea differently -- well, I would start with the fact that we have 17 U.N. resolutions that apply to Iraq and number 17 was said to be the last, final chance to come clean. We haven't yet even taken the North Korean issue to the United Nations. The International Atomic Energy Agency gave North Korea one last chance to comply before it refers it to the Security Council. So we're in a much earlier stage with North Korea of trying to put together that kind of diplomatic approach. As with Iraq, our hope would be to resolve this terrible problem without the use of force.

(end transcript)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

Return to Public File Main Page

Return to Public Table of Contents