Hans Blix interview

[Chewbacca]

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030303/wblix.html

excerpt (page one of three):

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.

[Ronn_Bman]

Page 2 of 3: 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.

[Ronn_Bman]

Page 3 of 3: 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. [i]

[ 02-26-2003, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]