| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Blix: Iraqis have no credibility |
| 2003-02-24 |
| Edited for length; this is part of Time Magazine's interview with Blixie. Worth the read. TIME: How much longer should inspections take before you'd decide whether Iraq is cooperating or not? Dr Hans Blix: If they were to cooperate as required under (Resolution) 1441, actively and without qualifications and immediately, it should not take a very long time. Now in 1991, one expected that that would be a couple of months at the most. And thereafter the period of monitoring would ensue. Much has been destroyed since then, so it should still be possible within a number of months, I think, to be sure that at least the major part had been eradicated. There will always be — and I'm being careful to say that — a residue of uncertainty. We used to take the examples of computer programs, even a prototype of a centrifuge, these are small pieces and you cannot be sure that you catch those. But larger things, industrial-scale activities, yes, I think within a number of months. Me: So Dr. Blix, do you think twelve years is long enough? TIME: You told the Security Council on Feb. 14 that the period of disarmament can still be short with immediate, active, and unconditional cooperation. But is there immediate, active, and unconditional cooperation, or isn't there? Blix: I described the degree of cooperation and the degree of uncertainty. If (Iraq's recently appointed) commission (to seek documents demanded by the inspectors) comes up with a lot of documents that we've been looking for, and if they are authentic, if they are from the time, well, that is interesting. That could help us to resolve a lot of things. Me: Dr. Blix, do you think that the people who refer to you as Inspector Clouseau know what they're talking about? Blix: "If they don't, if they say "sorry, we have chased all around the country and confirmed there aren't any." Well, it may be true or it may not be true. I would have thought that having such detailed information about who took part in the transportation and destruction of particular types of biological weapons . . . I would be surprised if they haven't kept some records also of quantities, etc. Me: Dr. Blix, would a fair summation of that answer be, 'we have no idea what we're doing?' 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 we put it in. Is that what they say? Blix: Yes. That's right. Exactly. That's what they say. It was not a hole in the ground, they poured it in the ground. They did the same thing with the VX. Me: Dr. Blix, are you as gullible as you look? TIME: Do you believe them? Me: Hell no! Blix: Well, I'd like to see evidence of it. See, I don't work by gut feelings. I have to be the lawyer. Some people say, jump at this. It's unaccounted for, so where is it? I say, where is it? It's unaccounted for. I'd like to see evidence. Where did it go? I'd like to interview the people. If they are scripted, we might learn something from it. If they have contemporary documents, we can read from that and establish whether the documents are authentic. Great, Blixie's the ideal combination of a lawyer and a store clerk. TIME: So, the credible threat of force is necessary to get even minimal compliance from Iraq? Me: Is that a trick question? Blix: Just as Kofi Annan says, diplomacy may need to be backed up by force. Inspections may need to be backed up by pressure. Yes. I don't think there would have been any inspection but for outside pressure, including (the buildup of) U.S. forces. Finally, he got one right. TIME: What will it take for you to say enough? Enough. You're dribbling this out. Blix: Well, we've only been TIME: So you'd like to Blix: I'd like to go on, yes. And on, and on, and on. |
| Posted by:Steve White |