An Old Rumsfeld interview

This interview if from March 4th 2003. So it's not current news. Butit is an intersting retrospective.

Before we officially "went into"Iraq.

Sometimes it's good to read a persons own words. Judge them on thevery blather that comes from their mouthes. Sure, you run the riskof "impuning [their] integrity" when you really listen to what theysay. But I'm willing to take that risk.

Transcript: Donald Rumsfeld interviewThe BBC's David Dimbleby has interviewed US Defence Secretary DonaldRumsfeld in Washington. Here is a transcript of the interview:

David Dimbleby: Mr Rumsfeld, does the stepping up of attacks on Iraqipositions in the no-fly zone mean, in your view, that war is nowpretty much inevitable?

Donald Rumsfeld: No, I don't see the connection really. In fact, I'mnot even positive that there has been a particular step-up in thenumber of attacks. What - we do, the United Kingdom and the UnitedStates, have what we call response options. And when there's somesort of an indication of aggressiveness in the northern or southernno fly zone, then we tend to respond and deal with some aspect,generally, of the air defence system.

DD: Has Saddam done anything in these last few weeks to make youthink war is less likely?

DR: Not really. I think the key is whether or not one comes todevelop a conviction that he's co-operating. In other words, itisn't 'Do the inspectors find things', because they're notdiscoverers or finders. It's really, is this - during this period ofinspections, is he demonstrating that he has, in fact, thrown in thetowel and is going to cooperate?

DD: Doesn't the destruction of al-Samoud missiles daily suggest thathe has done that?

DR: Well, I suppose to some it might. On the other hand, every singlething that he does that anyone could cite as co-operative was aftersome long period of denying, a refusal to do it, and ultimately awillingness to do part of it. And it is such a reluctant process thatit would take so many years to ever really believe you've done thetask of disarming.

DD: But even so, if you've got the inspectors there, if you've gotHans Blix talking about this as a very significant bit ofdisarmament, haven't you got him by the tail, so that as long as theinspectors are there, as long as Blix is there, he can't really domuch damage to anyone?

DR: Well, I think that the way to think about that is that there wereinspectors there before, and he continued with his weapons of massdestruction programmes. And the way he did it is he's learned how tolive in a, so to speak, in an inspections environment.

DD: But you're not saying with all your troops there, with theoverflying you have, with the satellite information, that he couldseriously go on creating weapons of mass destruction, though?

DR: Oh, sure. He does things underground. He's very skilful at denialand deception. There's no doubt in my mind but that he has weapons,chemical and biological weapons, and has been working on nuclearweapons.

DD: The Deputy Weapons Inspector, Perricos, says that "the presenceof inspectors in the country" - I quote him - "is preventing anyprohibited activities from being regenerated." You think he's wrong?

DR: I would think that it's a very hard statement for him to makebecause he doesn't have access to the underground systems and thetunnelling and the skill that they have in deceiving. I mean, if youthink of the number of Iraqi minders, people, tenders, they go alongwith the inspectors.If you think of the fact that we've not been able to get peopleoutside the country with their families so that they could talkhonestly. If you think about the declaration that was submitted,which everyone agreed was fraudulent. It is - it would be difficultfor me to make that statement.

DD: You're sceptical about the inspectors and their role altogether?

DR: Well, I wouldn't say altogether. I think inspections can work.They can work with a co-operative country, like they did with SouthAfrica or Kazakhstan, or any other country that decided that it wasin their interest to disarm. And what they really were looking forwas not someone to come in and discover things, but they were lookingfor someone to come in and prove to the world that they had, in fact,disarmed. That's a very different thing. So there's a good role forinspectors, and I think during this period people have to make ajudgment about that.

DD: But, frankly, can you see, from your point of view, anydisarmament in Iraq that would satisfy you if it had happened withoutSaddam going, or, in effect, does Saddam have to go, from your pointof view?

DR: Well, my point of view is not very important.

DD: Why not?

DR: Because it's the president of the United States that's going tomake those judgments, and certainly not me. My task is quitedifferent. [US Secretary of State] Colin Powell is the one workingwith the inspectors, and the Central Intelligence Agency is co-operating with it, as are other intelligence agencies in the world.And at some point, they will then make a judgment as to whether ornot he's co-operating.

DD: So what do you make of the countries I mean, let's take France,for example, who are very strong on this point, that the inspectorsshould be given more time because they're yielding results. There area lot of people around the world who believe that's the truth. Youtake the opposite view. You say it's not really yielding anything.They say it's yielding, give it more time. What's your reaction?

DR: I think these are tough issues, and people can differ on them.And what we in the United States have decided is that we should givethem more time. And that's what's been going on.

DD: How much more time?

DR: It's been months. It's been months since the United States tookthis issue to the United Nations. If you think back, the UnitedNations has had this for 11 years, 12 years. And everyone seemed verycomfortable with the fact that these kinds of dual-use technologiesand capabilities were flowing back and forth across his border withno one bothering to stop them, and until the president of the UnitedStates said, wait a minute, this isn't right; this is dangerous.And then there was a unanimous Security Council resolution. I thinkit was back in October, if I'm not mistaken. And he said let'sgive 'em time. But the idea that he was in a box, as they used tosay, that he was contained, just wasn't a fact. He was proceedingapace.And if you think of the idea of containment with respect to the oldSoviet Union, time was on our side because they had a system that wascoming apart in the centre. In this case, the time is really not onthe international community's side, because these weapons programshave been proceeding.

DD: But, of course, people would say that you are one of those peoplewho always thought Saddam had to go anyway and said as much fiveyears ago and that really events have played into your hands with 11September. You never had any intention, if you got into the positionyou're in now, of seeing Saddam remain in power in Iraq.

DR: I think that over a period of 12 years, or if you want to go backa few years, eight years, an awful lot of people in the world didcome to the conclusion that he, as a regime leader, was an unlikelycandidate to decide that it was in his country's interest and hisinterest to voluntarily disarm. And that's the reason that in 1998the Congress of the United States, Republicans and Democrats alike,passed legislation calling for a regime change.

DD: So what do you say to what the French are putting forward? Youneed more time, things are working. I mean, the French ForeignMinister yesterday, for instance, and I know your view of France isthat it's old Europe and you don't really count it or rank it veryhigh. But he said, you can't -

DR: I don't know that you ought to be putting words in my mouth.

DD: Well, you called them old Europe; I didn't.

DR: What I did was, I was asked a question about Europe being opposedto the US position. And my response was that there were a couple ofcountries that were opposed and that a large number of countries weresupportive. The eight countries had already signed, and 10 countrieslater signed, and I said the centre of gravity is shifting in Europe.I was thinking of Nato when I said old Europe. I was thinking oldNato, because the next sentence, old Nato is at 15, the new Nato isat 26 countries, and the centre of gravity has shifted. It was notdisparaging of any of those countries. Those countries are allieswith us in Nato.

DD: So were you surprised they got so upset by it? I mean -

DR: Well, I was.

DD: [French President] Mr Chirac was extremely upset by this.

DR: Yeah, I was surprised, to be very honest. It was - I mean, Iserved as ambassador to Nato. I've got a great many friends in bothof those countries, and I think that it is more an indication of asensitivity that surprised me.

DD: Well, they're sensitive because you don't take their argumentseriously.

DR: Well, of course we do. If the people said there should be moretime, the president has given them more time.

DD: Well, let's just go back to the French Foreign Minister and whathe said yesterday. You can't say "I want Saddam to disarm", and atthe same time when he is disarming saying they're not doing what theyshould. I mean, a lot of people in Europe, and I suspect a lot ofpeople in this country from what one hears, think that is the caseand think that you are piling on the pressure because whateverhappens you want - you don't want war, but you want to get rid ofSaddam, and that's really what's behind it.

DR: Well, I suppose anyone can decide what they think is behind itand what motives are. The president of the United States is veryclear on what his intent is. What his words say is what he means. Andhe said it very clearly, and he's provided leadership on this. And hehas said to the international community and to our Congress that hereally believes it's important that Iraq be disarmed. It is not thejob of the Secretary of Defence to be involved in those issues. I'mnot. You keep saying, you, but I suppose you mean you, the UnitedStates.

DD: No, I see you as part of the senior part of the administration aswell as Secretary of Defence, indeed.

DR: I am, sure. But the job of a Secretary of Defence is quitedifferent than making those judgments. Those judgments are judgmentsthe president makes, and I work for the president. And I happen toagree with his statements, and I support him.

DD: Are people who want to defer war appeasers?

DR: No, I've never used that word. I think these are very toughissues. I think that the 21st Century is a different century. We'rein a different security environment. And people have got to thinkthrough what it means, what this new security environment means. AndI think probably one of the differences is that the United States wasthe country that was attacked on September 11.And so there is a great deal of support for the president's position.It wasn't some of the European countries that was attacked onSeptember 11, and their publics and their leadership look at thissomewhat differently. It seems to me that that's to be expected whenyou take very difficult issues about the fact that we could have aSeptember 11 where not 3,000 people were killed, but maybe 30,000could be killed, or 300,000 could be killed. And then the questionis, well, what do you do about that, and those are big ideas. They'rebig concerns. And people need time to discuss them. So using wordslike you used, and I did not -

DD: The Prime Minister of Britain used the words, not me, aboutappeasers. I mean he used it in the context of the way that peopletreated Hitler, and he said the appeasers may have been well-intentioned, but they were wrong.

DR: Well, there's no question but that people in that period who werelooking for a peaceful way with Adolf Hitler were proven wrong.

DD: Can we come to -

DR: At great expense.

DD: Can we come to where things stand at the moment? Theadministration is now seeking backing for a second resolution. It'salso saying that if it doesn't get the second resolution, it's goingto ignore the UN Is this a credible position to hold?

DR: You're asking me is the president's position credible, and Iwould say yes, not surprisingly. It seems to me that what he saidwhen he went in to the United Nations was that he thought it wasimportant that the world engaged this issue because it's a big issue,an important issue, and it's an issue that we're going to be facedwith in this century.He also said that, needless to say, member states reserve the rightof self-defence, and, therefore, he wanted to bring it into theUnited Nations and have them address this, but that by doing so hedid not want anyone to believe that he would, as a country, make aconscious decision that he would forego the right of any member stateto self-defence.

DD: In what way is Iraq a threat to the United States that wouldallow it to act in self-defence of American interests?

DR: The issue that's before the world, it seems to me, is thepervasiveness of weapons of mass destruction and the spread of these,the proliferation of these technologies, chemical and biologicalweapons, increasingly nuclear weapons. We could in 10 years havedouble the number of nuclear powers in the world.The situation with Iraq is that we're at the end of the string. We'vetried diplomacy for 12 years. We've tried economic sanctions, andthey have not worked. The effort on the part of the internationalcommunity to prevent him from having those things that enable him todevelop those capabilities failed. And he was not contained, and hewas not in a box. And even limited military action in the north andthe south has really not done it.The critical issue is the relationship between weapons of terroriststates, which Iraq is, by everyone's agreement -

DD: America took it off the list of terror states 20 years ago.

DR: I don't know that. I accept -

DD: When you - when you - sorry. When you visited Iraq and negotiatedwith Saddam Hussein, when America wanted Saddam Hussein for its ownpurposes, America took Iraq off the list of terrorist states and,indeed, supplied it with the wherewithal to make the chemical weaponsthey're now trying to remove.

DR: I've read that type of thing, but I don't know where you get yourinformation, and I don't believe it's correct. They may have beentaken off. I was a private businessman. I was asked for a few monthsto assist after the 241 Marines were killed in Beirut, Lebanon. And Idid meet with Saddam Hussein. I did not give him or sell him or bringhim any chemical weapons or any biological weapons, as some of theEuropean press likes to print. It's just factually not true.Now, whether or not the United States at some point, when I was notpart of the government, decided to take him off a terrorist list, youmay be right. In fact, I -

DD: Are you saying you don't know, you didn't know when you wentthere whether he was on the list of terror states or not? You weretrying to reopen -

DR: I believe he was.

DD: - a relationship between the United States and Iraq.

DR: That's right. And I believe he was on the list of terroriststates when I went there.

DD: We're being diverted a bit here, but let's just go into this,because it's another of the causes of a lack of credibility, or acredibility gap that you particularly have to fill, that you werethere and met the man.

DR: I was there with the President and Secretary Shultz to meet withhim and to see it was one of the few Middle Eastern countries thathad not re-established relationships with the United States after theearlier Middle East war.

DD: But you aren't saying that you weren't aware that he was usingchemical weapons, because the Secretary of State at the time had saidthey were using them.

DR: I was certainly aware of that. I didn't say I wasn't aware ofthat. I said I was not aware that the United States gave him, as yousuggested, or I gave him, and that I had some burden to bear. That'sjust utter nonsense.

DD: I'm not suggesting you had a burden to bear. I was saying thatthere was one of the reasons you lacked -

DR: You said you particularly.

DD: No, you went and talked to the man.

DR: I did.

DD: But what I'm suggesting is that the United States in the worldoutside, over and over again people say, well, now they're trying toget rid of the weapons, as Jesse Jackson put it when he was at HydePark Corner a week ago, for which the United States has the receipts.I mean, that's the problem, that you created this monster, evil, asyou know -

DR: You who?

DD: You, the United States, not you personally.

DR: Well, first of all, you're wrong. If you look at the record ofthe European countries, and the other technologically advancedcountries of the world and the relationships with Iraq, I thinkyou'll find that the United States ranks relatively low in terms oftrading with Iraq and assisting Iraq with respect to weapons. I thinkthat's correct. I don't have the data, but I think you'll find that'sthe case. And I think, furthermore, that if at some point a groundtruth is achieved, it will be embarrassing to countries that havebeen providing Saddam Hussein's regime with a great deal of thosetechnologies.

DD: Can I come back to UN and the second resolution? Is one of thereasons for that, or indeed perhaps the sole reason for that to keepTony Blair on side, the British Prime Minister, in the difficultiesthat he has politically at home?

DR: Well, again, you're out of my lane in terms of the subjectmatter. But I don't doubt for a minute but that the fine job andleadership that Prime Minster Blair has been providing on thissubject in the world is something that's very much on PresidentBush's mind. And when you're working with other countries, as he is,he obviously wants to work in a way that's helpful to the leaders ofother countries who are trying to work together on it. I keep readingthat the United States is unilateralist and that we're 'Going italone'. There will be more countries, with or without a second UNresolution, involved in a coalition of the willing, if force has tobe used, than there were in the 1991 Gulf War, in my judgement.

DD: Assuming war does come, will it be short, as the British DefenceSecretary suggested at the weekend?

DR: I don't know. I don't know. I think there're so many unknowns inwar, and so many dangers, and so many things that can go wrong, one -you know, one would hope so. And certainly there's no question butthat Saddam Hussein is a repressive regime, and one has to believethat people would rather not be repressed, and that therefore therewill be people who, as was the case in 1991, who surrendered and whocame over to the other side, and who were relieved and felt liberatedrather than having some reason to want to fight for the SaddamHussein regime. I think that's the hope.

DD: Is Saddam Hussein's death or capture a war aim?

DR: A war aim? My aim would be that there would not be a war, that,in fact, there would be some way that it could be avoided, and that'sstill my hope. Now, how might that happen? One would be that he woulddecide to co-operate, which he hasn't thus far. A second would bethat he would decide to leave the country. A third would be thatthere could be a coup against him.Now, any one of those would be preferable if the alternative to himwas somebody who wanted to co-operate and see that the country wasdisarmed, who didn't want to have weapons of mass destruction, whodidn't want to threaten its neighbours, who didn't want to usechemicals on its own people, or its neighbours, didn't want to fireballistic missiles into four of his neighbouring countries, and whodid want to liberate the people of Iraq and allow some sort ofrepresentation and the end of repression.

DD: Is there a danger, do you think, that Saddam Hussein will usethese very weapons of mass destruction that you think he still has inthe event of war?

DR: Certainly there's a danger. He could use them on coalitionforces. He could use them on neighbouring countries. He could usethem on his own people and try to blame it on the coalition.

DD: How damaging to the war plans is Turkey's refusal to let theirbases be used?

DR: There are workarounds. We'll be fine. Turkey is a democracy, it'sa moderate Muslim country, it's a friend, it's an ally in Nato, andthey're going through a democratic process, and we accept that. Myguess is that when all is said and done we'll have some degree of co-operation from them, as we do from many of the states in that region.

DD: Can I come to the question which seems to me to be at the heartof all this, of the credibility of the United States' position, whichclearly exercises the British Prime Minister, the American Presidentand the administration, and one hears a lot of doubt cast onAmerica's motives for this. Do you think you'd win more backing inthe outside world if you'd spent a fraction of the time on theIsraeli-Palestinian problem as you've spent on Iraq?

DR: Well, probably. I think that the president and Secretary Powellhave worked on the Palestinian, Arab-Israeli problem a good deal inthe past two years. They have the president's made several speecheson the subject, Secretary Powell has been involved, there've beenspecial envoys involved. That is a problem that's a tough one, andit's been a tough one my entire adult lifetime, and that it has notbeen solved in the last 20 months ought not to be a surprise toanybody. The president cares about it; he is concerned about it; hehas addressed it. And I think that had there been success there,there would have been, possibly, greater support.On the other hand, the implication of your question is that there isnot great support, and there is great support. There are a very largenumber of nations that will be participating in a coalition of thewilling in the event Saddam Hussein refuses to co-operate and forcehas to be used.

DD: And yet America is seen as applying double standards in this,isn't it? I mean, using the UN against Iraq, for instance, and thenyou yourself saying - repeating two or three times, in the context ofIsrael and the UN resolutions there, that the occupied territories onthe West Bank are so-called occupied territories. That's the kind ofthing that makes people think, well, actually America is not seriousabout this, they're so pro-Israel that they're not.

DR: Interesting -

DD: Well, you said that.

DR: Well, first of all, I did not repeat it two or three times.You're just factually wrong.

DD: You said it twice in the same series of remarks. You used theexpression "so-called".

DR: Fair enough. I was in a meeting, and I was asked a question, andthe phrase came out.

DD: But is it what you think that they're so-called occupied, or doyou think they're occupied and should be given up?

DR: I think that that's what a negotiation is going to solve. I mean,that is what the negotiation is about. Obviously Israel has offeredto give back a major portion of the occupied territories. We knowthat. The agreement was there. It could have been solved if Arafathad accepted it. He didn't.

DD: But your use of the word "so-called".

DR: If it bothered you, then don't use it.

DD: It's not me it bothers. It's the other Arab states it bothers.

DR: Well, don't you agree that the purpose of a negotiation is todecide those things? It seems to me that's fairly reasonable. Israelhas offered to give up a major percentage of the occupiedterritories.

DD: Let me ask you about America's position in all this. Thepresident has talked about the axis of evil. If there is a waragainst Iraq, if it's prosecuted successfully, do you, as DefenceSecretary, then have plans for further military action, for instanceagainst Iran, perhaps?

DR: No, my hope is that Iran will - first of all, the Pentagon has tohave plans that the president asks it to have. But that is not what'shappening. My hope there is that, in the case of Iran, that thepeople of Iran - I don't think that they're terribly enamoured of thesmall group clerics that are running that country. And there arestirrings in the women and the young people. And I would suspect thatat some point those stirrings will end up changing that system insome way.

DD: A regime change will happen there. But I want to ask you this.Are you saying you have -

DR: Don't put those words in my mouth.

DD: Alright. Are you suggesting a regime change?

DR: No, I'm suggesting exactly what I said, that the women and youngpeople in that country that are uncomfortable with the rule of thesmall handful of clerics are stirring, and that at some point myguess is they will accomplish some sort of a change in how thatsystem works.

DD: Do you have any plans for any further military activity apartfrom in Iraq in the Middle East?

DR: First of all, we don't discuss military plans. And, second, plansare plans. Our obligation in any ministry of defence in the world isto look at potential threats and capabilities that can threaten yourcountry and develop appropriate contingencies. That's what we do.That's our job.You're asking a question that should be asked the president - does hehas anything specific that he intends to do in the event force has tobe used in Iraq? And that's a question for the president to answer.But I can say this, he does intend to, very definitely, continue topursue the global war on terrorism, which, in fact, he has beendoing. We've got 90 nations in a coalition - it's probably thelargest coalition in the history of mankind - that are participatingin a variety of different ways to try to track down terroristnetworks and stop them from killing innocent men, women and children.And that's a good thing to be doing. And there are a number of placesin the Middle East where those terrorists are finding havens. Iran isone of the countries.

DD: You say -

DR: And Iraq is one of the countries.

DD: So Iran should be in your sights on those grounds?

DR: I wouldn't use words like the hot button words like that, "inyour sights". I think that that's not the case. I like the way Ianswered your question just fine.

DD: You say that's a good thing. Aren't people, though, right to besuspicious who aren't Americans of one country, in effect, shapingthe world to suit itself, to suit its own values?

DR: No. No. Well, first of all, now you're back to one country, asthough the United States is acting unilaterally. In the global war onterrorism there are 90 nations. Never in the history of mankind havethere been that many countries working together on exactly the same -

DD: I'm only thinking about what the president said. "The course ofthis nation does not depend on the decisions of others" - i.e. it'strue you have a number now, America will nevertheless go it alone ifnecessary. He said it.

DR: Yeah. If any leader of any country were to say anything otherthan that they recognise their responsibility as the leader of thosecountries to defend those countries, they probably wouldn't be inoffice. There's no question but that the obligation of the presidentunder our Constitution is to defend our country.

DD: "Some of the history of the world and civilization was written byothers, the rest will be written by us." There is a sort of Americanempire seeming to burgeon here in the language that's being used.

DR: Interesting. I don't find it that way. Let me give you an exampleof why I don't find it that way. If you think of how powerful andlethal biological weapons are, nuclear weapons are, they can killhundreds of thousands or millions of people. I mean, smallpox put inthree locations in a country can kill a million people in a matter ofmonths. Now, that's a serious problem for the world. There's nothingthe United States can do about that alone. We have to work with othercountries. It takes the co-operation of other countries. Otherpublics have got to engage this issue, other governments have toengage this issue. Look at the problem with North Korea. The UnitedStates can't solve that alone. It takes the co-operation of a lot ofcountries if we're going to stop the proliferation of those weapons.

DD: One last question. America is obviously having some difficulty inEurope getting support, and -

DR: Some difficulty? Wait a minute now -

DD: Oh, no. Oh, no -

DR: The overwhelming majority of the countries in Europe aresupportive.DD: One of your key allies, the Spanish Prime Minister, Aznar, sayswe need a lot of Powell -

DR: I saw that.

DD: - and very little Rumsfeld.

DR: Yeah.

DD: Are you saying things the rest of the administration won't speakout about? Are you part of the problem of the United States gettingthe kind of backing it needs?

DR: Well, I doubt it. Certainly the president doesn't think so. Mywords are very similar to what he says and what Colin Powell says.

DD: Mr Rumsfeld, thank you very much.

DR: Thank you.Iraq Crisis: An Interview with Donald Rumsfeld was broadcast on BBCTwo at 2100 GMT on 4 March 2003.