Disarmament Diplomacy

Issue No. 55, March 2001

US Secretary of State Congressional Testimony

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Opening Statement at Senate Foreign Relations Committee Budget Hearing, March 8, 2001; remarks as delivered, US State Department transcript.

"...[L]et me start with Iraq. Iraq and the situation in Iraq was the principal purpose of my trip throughout the Persian Gulf and Middle East area the week before last. When we took over on the 20th of January, I discovered that we had an Iraq policy that was in disarray, and the sanctions part of that policy was not just in disarray; it was falling apart. We were losing support for the sanctions regime that had served so well over the last ten years, with all of the ups and downs and with all of the difficulties that are associated with that regime, it was falling apart. It had been successful. Saddam Hussein has not been able to rebuild his army, notwithstanding claims that he has. He has fewer tanks in his inventory today than he had 10 years ago. Even though we know he is working on weapons of mass destruction, we know he has things squirreled away, at the same time we have not seen that capacity emerge to present a full-fledged threat to us. So I think credit has to be given to the United Nations and to the Perm 5 and to the nations in the region for putting in place a regime that has kept him pretty much in check. What I found on the 20^th of January, however, was that regime was collapsing. More and more nations were saying let's just get rid of the sanctions, let's not worry about inspectors, let's just forget it. There was all kinds of leakage from the frontline states, whether it was through Syria, through Jordan, through Turkey, or down through the Persian Gulf with the smuggling of oil. And so what I felt we had to do was to start taking a look at these sanctions, remember what they were oriented on in the first place, and remember that with respect to the sanctions - let's call that basket one - that's what the United Nations does. It has nothing to do with regime change. That's US policy. ... [L]et's put [US policy] in basket two, the no-fly zone, or in basket three[,] Iraqi opposition activities.

My immediate concern was basket one, the UN basket and how it was falling apart. And it seemed to me the first thing we had to do was to change the nature of the debate. We were being accused and we were taking on the burden of hurting Iraqi people, hurting Iraqi children, and we needed to turn that around. The purpose of these sanctions was to go after weapons of mass destruction. That's what they were put in place for in the first instance back at the end of the Gulf War. So let's start talking about how the Iraqi regime is threatening children, their own children and the children of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and Syria and all over the region, how they were in danger [because] of what Saddam Hussein was doing, and take away the argument he was using against us. In order to make sure that that carried forward, we then had to take a look at the sanctions themselves. Were they being used to go after weapons of mass destruction and was that the way they were connected to our original goals, or, increasingly, were those sanctions starting to look as if they were hurting the Iraqi people? And it seems to me one approach to this was to go to those sanctions and eliminate those items in the sanctions regime that really were of civilian use and benefited people, and focus them exclusively on weapons of mass destruction and items that could be directed toward the development of weapons of mass destruction.

I carried that message around the region and I found that our Arab friends in the region, as well as members of the Perm 5 in the United Nations, as well as a number of my colleagues in NATO, found this to be a very attractive approach and that we should continue down this line. And so we are continuing down this line that says let's see if there is a better way to use these sanctions to go after weapons of mass destruction and take away the argument we have given him that we are somehow hurting the Iraqi people. He is hurting the Iraqi people, not us. There is more than enough money available to the regime now to take care of the needs they have. No more money comes in as a result of a change to this new kind of sanctions policy, but there is greater flexibility for the regime if they choose to use that flexibility to take care of the needs of its people.

How do we get out of this regime ultimately? The inspectors have to go back in. If he wants to get out of this, if he wants to regain control of the Oil-for-Food escrow accounts, the only way that can happen is for the inspectors to go back in. But rather than us begging him to let the inspectors in, the burden is now on him. We control the money; we will continue to restrict weapons of mass destruction; you no longer have an argument, Mr. Iraqi Regime, that we are hurting your people. You let the inspectors in and we can start to get out of this. If the inspectors get in, do their job, we're satisfied with their first look at things, maybe we can suspend the sanctions. And then at some point way in the future, when we're absolutely satisfied there are no such weapons around, then maybe we can consider lifting. But that is a long way in the future. So this wasn't an effort to ease the sanctions; this was an effort to rescue the sanctions policy that was collapsing. We discovered that we were in an airplane that was heading to a crash, and what we have done and what we are trying to do is to pull it out of that dive and put it on an altitude that's sustainable, bring the coalition back together. As part of this approach to the problem, we would also make sure that the Iraqi regime understood that we reserve the right to strike militarily any activity out there, any facility we find that is inconsistent with their obligations to get rid of such weapons of mass destruction.

That takes care of the UN piece. On the no-fly zone, we're reviewing our policies to see if we are operating those in the most effective way possible. And with respect to the Iraqi opposition activities, we are supporting those. Our principal avenue of support is with the Iraqi National Congress, and last week I released more money, of the money that had been made available to us by the Congress, released more of that money for their activities. And we're looking at what more we can support and what other opposition activities are available that we might bring into this strategy of regime change. And so I think it is a comprehensive, full review to bring the coalition back together, put the burden on the Iraqi regime, keep focused on what is important - weapons of mass destruction - and keep him isolated and make sure that he is contained. And hopefully, the day will come when circumstances will allow, permit, or it will happen within Iraq, we see a regime change that will be better for the world. ...

With respect to the President's meeting with [South Korean President] Kim Dae Jung yesterday, I think it was a very good meeting. They had a good exchange of views. The President expressed his support for President Kim Dae Jung's efforts to open North Korea. It is a regime that is despotic; it is broken. We have no illusions about this regime. We have no illusions about the nature of the gentleman who runs North Korea. He is a despot, but he is also sitting on a failed society that has to somehow begin opening if it is not to collapse. Once it's opened, it may well collapse anyway. And so we support what President Kim Dae Jung is doing. At the same time, we have expressed in the strongest possible terms - and President Bush did it in the strongest possible terms yesterday - our concerns about their efforts toward development of weapons of mass destruction and the proliferation of such weapons and missiles and other materials to other nations, not only in the region but around the world. ...

And as we look at the elements of the negotiation that the previous administration had left behind, there are some things there that are very promising. What was not there was a monitoring and verification regime of the kind that we would have to have in order to move forward in negotiations with such a regime. And so what the President was saying yesterday is that we are going to take our time, we're going to put together a comprehensive policy, and in due course, at a time and at a pace of our choosing, we will decide and determine how best to engage with the North Korean regime. ..."