22 March 2002

Iraq's Questions to UN Seen as Effort to Distract

State Department Deputy Spokesman Philip Reeker described a list of 19 questions about weapons inspections given by the Iraqi delegation to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan March 7 as an attempt to distract attention away from its noncompliance with UN Security Council Resolutions 624 and 1284.

Speaking at the daily State Department press briefing March 22, Reeker said the list of questions are another example of Iraq "engaging in polemics" on the issue of allowing international inspectors to return to the country in order to verify the absence of weapons of mass destruction.

"Recent Iraqi statements have proposed specific time frames and other conditions to be negotiated before inspectors can return to Iraq. Let me just underscore that Iraq cannot set or demand such conditions. What Iraq must do is meet its obligations under United Nations Security Council resolutions, admit the U.N. weapons inspectors and cooperate fully with them. It's as simple as that," said Reeker.

Reeker said that the resolutions "prescribe exactly what Iraq has to do" for the inspection regime to evolve into a "permanent, on-site monitoring and a verification regime," as called for under the UN Security Council resolutions 624 and 1284.

Following is an excerpt from the March 22 State Department briefing:

Question: I'm sure you are aware of the 20 questions that the Iraqis gave to the United Nations earlier this week.

Mr. Reeker: I thought it was 19, but anyway --

Question: Anyway, 19, 20 questions. Is the United States participating in the response to these questions? Have you seen the questions? And what position do you take on whether they should be answered or how they should be answered?

Mr. Reeker: I haven't personally seen the questions. I think the bottom line is that the UN Security Council resolutions, 624, 1284, prescribe exactly what Iraq has to do before the inspection regime evolves into permanent on-site monitoring and a verification regime that is quite well laid out.

The questions, so-called, that you refer to, given by the Iraqis to the Secretary General earlier this month, are an attempt once again by the Iraqis to distract the UN's attention away from Iraq's noncompliance with its obligations under UN Security Council resolutions. Recent Iraqi statements have proposed specific time frames and other conditions to be negotiated before inspectors can return to Iraq. Let me just underscore that Iraq cannot set or demand such conditions. What Iraq must do is meet its obligations under United Nations Security Council resolutions, admit the UN weapons inspectors, and cooperate fully with them. It's as simple as that.

Question: Okay. Now, one US official was quoted as saying that some of these require technical answers and should be answered. Could you confirm that in public that you are at least taking these questions seriously and will look at them for --

Mr. Reeker: You could certainly talk to Dr. Blix, Hans Blix, and his inspectors, the UNMOVIC mission about that if there was anything technical involved there. There is a process that is very much laid out in the security resolutions. The International Atomic Energy Agency may have an aspect on that as well.

But largely, Iraq is engaging in polemics in this situation. It is another example of that. Our policy and that of the UN Security Council remains that Iraq must comply fully with its obligations under UN Security Council resolutions, in particular with regard to the return of the UN weapons inspectors.

Question: Can I have another Iraq question while I'm on it? This has been passed on to me. Could you explain how the State Department now sees the interaction between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and your plans for Iraq? Is the reengagement, as you don't like to say, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is that affecting in any way your thinking about Iraq? Is action on Iraq in any way contingent on progress in the Israeli-Palestinian mediation?

Mr. Reeker: I think President Bush has been quite clear about our concerns about Iraq, about their programs and attempts to develop weapons of mass destruction, their support for terrorism, and just exactly how we view Iraq and why Iraq's compliance with UN Security Council resolutions, as a start, is so important in terms of security for the region. And that affects everyone in the region, and in fact everyone in the world, because Saddam Hussein has clearly shown that he is a threat to his own people, to his neighbors, and through his support for terrorism and his desire to develop weapons of mass destruction, is threat to all of us.

That is why we focus on Iraq. That is why we consult and talk with others about Iraq, why we have been very forthright in stating our views quite clearly of that regime, the despotic regime that has cost so much for his own people and threatened the rest of us, and why we will continue to focus on that. And I don't think that hinges on any other particular factor. There is lots of analysis and punditry out there that takes place. I leave that to you guys, frankly, to do that, and we will continue to do exactly what the President and Secretary Powell have described in terms of --

Question: You don't see any interaction --

Mr. Reeker: I am not about to try to do an analysis from here, Jonathan, of global interaction. I think we remain very aware of aspects of different issues and how they relate to each other, but we are quite clear in what we see as threats, things we have to take seriously, and we will continue to be very straightforward about that.