Here is the full transcript of Hans Blix’s comments to the United Nations today.
There is far too much damning evidence of Iraq’s lies, games and lack of cooperation to list all of the quotes here that I would like to. Instead, I will bullet-note some items that are very easily referenced in the above-linked transcript.
By Blix’s account, Iraq continues to refuse to take its obligations of full disclosure seriously.
Resolution 1441 called for Iraq’s cooperation to be “immediate, unconditional and active.” Blix listed case after case which clearly shows that burden is not even coming close to being complied with.
Iraq refuses to allow U-2 spy plane flyovers, which directly violates 1441. The most significant thing that U-2s might accomplish is evidence of underground activities. hmmmm…
Iraq is only allowing helicopter flights if it accompanies inspectors. This also violates 1441. And (my thoughts; not necessarily Blix’s) could only serve to provide advanced warnings and undermine the success of inspections.
Iraq’s 12,000 page declaration is incomplete, old news - and contains some significant misstatements of truth as uncovered by weapons inspectors.
Among the most significant things Blix had to say in regard to that involved VX nerve agent:
Iraq has not accounted for 6,500 chemical bombs, featuring about 1,000 tons of chemicals.
Of the recent discovery of chemical warheads, Blix provided information that directly dispute’s Iraq’s assertion that they were old, forgotten-about munitions:
After the discovery of the chemical warheads, Iraqi officials indicated they would redouble their efforts to assist inspectors and comply with the U.N. resolutions. Since then, however, additional chemical warheads were found, and a mustard-gas precursor chemical,without the assistance of the Iraqis.
Iraq has provided virtually no evidence that it destroyed 8,500 liters of anthrax, as it says it has.
Blix’s words, bolding mine:
Iraq has basically admitted it is working on missiles that it is not allowed to have, with ranges it is not allowed to have, and continues to do so. Blix: “These missiles might well represent prima facie cases of proscribed systems.”
Blix talked frequently about wanting more time to continue investigations. But he is also quite clear on Iraq’s lack of cooperation. And that 1441 calls for full cooperation.
Also speaking to the U.N. Monday was Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Full transcript.
Among his statements:
Iraqi atomic scientists are refusing to partake in interviews as outlined in the U.N. resolution, without Iraqi officials present. Said El Baradei: “This has been a restricting factor.” (For those of you who have gotten off track, go back to the resolution wording calling for Iraq’s complete, unfettered cooperation.)
Let’s review:
Iraq was compelled by the U.N. to fully comply with inspections - and, more importantly, to cooperate; to be proactive in disclosures. By both Blix’s and El Baradei’s accounts (and it’s quite clear both are on the side of continued investigations) this has not occurred. Instead; Iraq cooperates when it knows nothing will be found in a particular circumstance; and thwarts efforts when something damning might be found (U2; scientist interviews)
Evidence exists that Iraq has lied, and covered up information regarding weapons of mass destruction. (removal of information and renumbering of pages; chemical warheads in relatively new bunkers)
The weapons inspectors aren’t there to run around trying to outfox the Iraqis and find weapons as Saddam Hussein tries to hide them and thwart their efforts. (Please tell me everyone on every side of this equation understands that. Right?)
So my questions to France, Russia and everybody on these boards who seems to think there is no evidence upon which military action could be justified at this point.
By the reports given at the U.N. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction they are not supposed to have; they have been caught lying and obfuscating; and there are vast areas regarding WOMD that remain unanswered, because they are not providing the information. Given that they have been caught lying and obfuscating, what position should be taken on the unresolved WOMD issues? That they are complying?!
Is Iraq in compliance with U.N. Resolution 1441? Why or why not? If not; what do you think should be done about it?
At what point are you fed up with Iraq’s lack of cooperation, games, lies and cover-ups? What’s your cut-off date? And what should happen then?
I have reached the conclusion that anyone who can stare in the face of facts like these and continue to say “no smoking gun” is not going to be moved off of their position. That sound you heard emanating from New York today was yourselves being marginalized, at least so far as the administrations of the U.S. and Great Britain are concerned.
Cut off date for inspections? Only when the team is assured and has independently verified to the best of their ability to do so (and to our ability to corroborate) that all known or suspected weapons have been declared and no proscribed WMD development program infrastructures remain.
Then, open and enthusiastic economic and social engagement between Iraq and western countries should be strategically pursued. -But why wait for a complete inspection signoff to begin stronger engagement? Why not add a few carrots to the stick we’re using to try and prompt cooperation?
Milo, I think very few believe no action is warranted; it’s the nature of that action which is in dispute. We need not back off much of our military presence or our readiness to employ it. However, a reluctance to unilaterally invade is hardly a denial of Iraqi recalcitrance.
It looks like Bush’s claims about nukes were false. It looks as if his claims about VX were false. His claims of mobile biological weapons manufacturing facilities are absurd on their own face. That leaves rockets. Lets see an ICBM, or at least something that could reach Israel, or some other nation we care about. 1 out of 4 might be enough to convince someone that invasion is the only remaining option.
I hate to admit it, but when Bush gets the troops positioned, I hope he takes Saddam out. I hope it goes quickly and I hope we have divine luck in establishing some kind of semi-pluralisitc government, not built on terror and a cult of personality.
Saddam has tried to build nukes and the super gun, has made chemical and biological weapons, invaded Iran and Kuwait, menaced Saudi, missiled Israel, oppressed minorities, tortured, starved, oppressed. Can’t say I’ll miss him, even if there is a war with some casualties.
In all seriousness, though, what were we thinking when we set this whole situation up back in the early 90s? How long were we supposed to keep Iraq in some quasi-sovereign mode, with inspectors buzzing around constantly and certain areas of the country that their own planes can’t fly thru? What was supposed to happen? Saddam would eventually put up his hands and say “I give up”? We are where we are today because we didn’t go in and finish the job the first time. I wish Bush would just come out and say that, and get on with it.
I’m afraid all I see at this point is a shrill rush to judgment by those who are already inclined to a view. I haven’t because I don’t yet need to: The US military machine isn’t ready, the UK won’t be for a month, British public opinion currently precludes Blair committing UK forces without a fresh UN mandate (if he wants to keep his job) and Blair is saying ‘Give Blix more time’. I’m okay with that, you can do a lot of rooting around in a month.
As best I know, the nuclear thing is utter bullshit and the scuds are next to useless without Chem / Bio’s to put in ‘em so. Therefore:
I would like[ I]very clear* statements from the UN / Blix on what condition they would expect to find the VX and all other Chem. / Bio in, as Ritter says it’s all sludge by now (having a 3 / 5 year shelf life), and
I would also like to hear very clearly from the UN / Blix on the likelihood of Saddam having the ability to produce any fresh Chem. / Bio’s since UNSCOM left in 1998.
At this point and in terms of a ‘material breach’ the public will buy, all that matters is evidence of the ability to produce fresh Chem / Bio’s.
Show me the evidence, show the UN the evidence and stay within International Law.
I favored stopping the hostilities because of the news coverage, possible regional unrest, and the UN mandate stuff. In hindsight, I think an unconditional surrender of the Iraqi Army would have produced a better result in the long run. I doubt Saddam could have held on.
Possible civil war and general unrest were the best cited rationales, IIRC. Kurdish rebellion and whatnot. Of course, much of the unrest in the region is a given and not due to external pressures.
I am developing a theory that wars which end in negotiated settlement, albeit theoretically beneficial, actually result in renewed hostilities and more death.
I am not now advocating killing the men, enslaving the women and children, or sewing the ground with salt. The Carthage model is outdated and ineffective in the modern world.
More along the lines of a total military surrender, humanitarian aid, a Marshall Plan, and independent self-government. Why can’t the Iraqis have some elements of a democracy? They already vote. Just add a few candidates.
If military power is ever to be used to good ends, it seems to me that defeating tyrants is one of those ends.
Powell: Not Much Time for Iraq to Disarm
53 minutes ago
By SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration rejected Iraq’s response to U.N. disarmament demands as inadequate Monday. Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) said Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) has “not much more time” to comply if he wants to avoid war.
Did you hear that whooshing sound overhead, Neurotik?
Powell is spinning in his public statements, but may not be saying the same things where it matters. C’mon, guys: Even if it’s what you want to hear, it can still be spin.
Is accusation of spinning some kind of trump card?
What’s Powell spinning? Is there some nugget of definitive, undisputed fact that all accept, and is being misrepresented by Powell? What are you getting at?
Strangely, in this case, saber-rattling by the Bush Administration is working. But for the apparent willingness - hell, eagerness - to use force, Saddam would still be barring inspectors and snubbing the UN.
Maybe Saddam will capitulate and turn over all sorts of new stuff over the next few we…da…hours.