PRESS BRIEFING BY SPECIAL COMMISSION ON DISARMAMENT OF IRAQ

Press Briefing

PRESS BRIEFING BY SPECIAL COMMISSION ON DISARMAMENT OF IRAQ

At a Headquarter press briefing this afternoon, Richard Butler, Executive Chairman of the United Nations Special Commission, set up under Security Council resolution 687 (1991) to monitor the disarmament of Iraq, announced that all the Commission's operations in Iraq would be temporarily suspended.

Referring to a letter sent today by the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz, to the President of the Security Council, which called for the removal of the Commission's personnel of United States origin from Iraq, Mr. Butler said he had taken the administrative decision to suspend operations, because no country had the right to dictate the nationality of the operational staff.

The briefing was also attended by Charles Duelfer, Deputy Executive Chairman of the Commission.

It was not acceptable to permit a circumstance where one Member State would seek to exercise a right of decision or veto over the persons who, in good faith and, it was hoped, with high professionalism, carried out the work of the United Nations, he said. His action was a first step in response to the letter from Iraq, and he emphasized that the suspension was temporary. It was hoped that normal operations could be resumed without delay.

In the meanwhile, Commission staff in Iraq would be able to catch up with office work at the Baghdad monitoring and verification centre, he said. Staff would continue to be rotated in and out of the country in the normal way. With respect to Iraq's demand that the staff of United States nationality be withdrawn from the country within a seven-day period, beginning at 5 p.m. New York time, he had not yet taken a decision. He had been assured that there was no threat to their safety at present and would be acting through diplomatic channels to reinforce that assurance. A decision would be taken within the next seven days.

There had been a plan for members of the Commission to hold consultations in New York on Friday, 31 October, with a group of visiting Iraqi officials, regarding their weapons of mass destruction, he said. Those consultations would now be cancelled. He was also due to have travelled to Iraq next week for consultations, and had suspended that trip as well. The Security Council would take up the issue this afternoon.

How essential to the Commission's work was the participation of the United States personnel? a correspondent asked. Mr. Butler said all staff had been recruited on the basis of their professional abilities and their willingness to serve the purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and

mandate of the Commission. The removal of any of the staff -- which was not large -- would be harmful. What was more important: the chance of losing the opportunity to continue the Commission's work in Iraq or losing the American personnel? the correspondent asked. Mr. Butler said he would not talk about such choices. The Commission had a big job to do, and the staff was already stretched. Many times he had received reports from staff in Iraq who had worked until 1 a.m.

Mr. Butler said he wanted to continue the work as soon as possible, but was not prepared to let Iraq say which person from which country could participate. Who would be next? Today, it was the United States -- would it be the United Kingdom tomorrow? Iraq was party to an agreement with the Security Council which specifically stated that it was obliged to accept whatever staff the Commission hired to do the job.

Asked about the safety of the staff in Baghdad, Mr. Butler said they would be working at the monitoring and verification centre and sleeping in hotels and other places of residence. They should attend work in the normal way, but there would be no field operations for the time being.

What would have to happen for the suspension of operations to be lifted? a correspondent asked. "I'm not sure", Mr. Butler said. The Security Council would be deliberating on the situation in the afternoon. "The only thing I'm sure about is what cannot happen: what cannot happen is that the United Nations be told by one Member State which of its personnel is or isn't acceptable."

During the coming seven-day period, were there any Americans due to be rotated in or out? a correspondent asked. There were, Mr. Butler replied, but he would not give details on the numbers involved. The numbers were never large, and those rotations would go ahead. Contrary to Mr. Aziz's letter, in which a picture was painted of the Commission as a kind of ant heap of Americans, the largest portion of staff in UNSCOM Iraq was Chilean -- "by a very long way", as they ran the helicopters. He did not want to go further into personnel numbers, because he was primarily concerned about the safety of the staff -- although he had received assurances they would be safe.

Asked how severely the monitoring process would be affected by the suspension of operations, Mr. Butler said that, although he could not quantify the damage, he was not happy. It was an ongoing process, and it should not be interrupted. Asked if the Security Council had supported his decision to suspend operations, Mr. Butler said that it would be meeting later in the afternoon to consider the matter. "It's my responsibility." He wanted to make clear it had been an administrative decision.

What percentage of Commission personnel was American? a correspondent asked. The Commission used about 1,000 people a year, many of whom were on short-term assignments, Mr. Butler said. The total number of full-time staff

UNSCOM Press Briefing - 3 - 29 October 1997

was about 160, of whom some 60 were in New York and 100 in Baghdad. Of the 100 in Baghdad, only 10 were Americans. He had no idea how many of the 1,000 people in a year were from the United States.

Had there been any event which could have justified Iraq's current behaviour? a correspondent asked. There was not, Mr. Butler said. As recently as a month ago, he had held discussions with Mr. Aziz in which the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister had sought to personalize problems with regard to the Commission's activities, saying they were made worse because the Chief Inspector was an American. There had been similar experiences with other Iraqi officials, and in each case he had told them, "Since I took up this job, I have emphasized that UNSCOM rises or falls on the basis of its professionalism, competence, integrity and objectivity. We are not in the business of miscounting missiles or missing out on some chemical munitions."

It was very important to be right, and it followed, therefore, that the staff must be objective, Mr. Butler said. They understood that, and he had made it clear to Mr. Aziz. "I am nationality-blind in that sense. If they are doing their job right, then they're in; if not, then I'll ask them to leave."

Mr. Butler's most recent meeting with correspondents at Headquarters had been just after a trip, from which had emerged rather optimistically, a correspondent said. Asked what his assessment was now, Mr. Butler said his report to the Council last week had demonstrated that, over the past four or five months, significant progress had been made in the disarmament of Iraq. The report also mentioned that there had been difficulties, and that was what had apparently been focused on -- a glass that was half-full was being seen as half-empty.

A correspondent asked if the assurances for the safety of the Commission's American personnel had been given by Mr. Aziz's office or other quarters in Baghdad. They had come "through Iraqi sources", Mr. Butler said. It was not a small issue, and he had already taken it up at very senior levels, and would pursue it later in the day through diplomatic channels.

Asked whether some members of the Council might not agree with his decision, he said de did not know.

A correspondent asked about the American U2 plane that Iraq had demanded be removed. Mr. Butler said he was still looking at that issue. The description of its operation in Mr. Aziz's letter was excessive. The aircraft operated for the Commission according to its directions, and its film product belonged to the Commission. It did not belong to the Government that provided the physical air frame. To say it carried out spy work for the United States with the Commission serving as a cover was something he utterly rejected.

UNSCOM Press Briefing - 4 - 29 October 1997

Asked why he had not simply rejected the demand, Mr. Butler said he would have to talk with the owners of the plane. Asked if that was the first time since the operation had been fully in place that it had been suspended, Mr. Butler said it was. What would happen if the Iraqi completely stopped cooperating and kicked out the Commission and its operations? a correspondent asked. Mr. Butler said that was a highly theoretical question about which he would rather not speculate. "I relentlessly believe that people on the whole would be better off if they didn't take foolish decisions."

Asked what would happen to the Iraqi officials who had come for the talks which were to have been held on Friday, Mr. Butler said they had arrived last night, as a result of his own representations to the United States authorities to give them visas. "Sadly, they will have made their trip for nothing as far as I'm concerned."

A correspondent asked how he saw the impact of the Security Council vote last week and if that had adversely affected Iraq's attitude. That was part of seeing a half-full glass as half-empty, Mr. Butler replied.

A correspondent asked Mr. Duelfer, who is an American, if he had encountered any problems in his work in Iraq because of his nationality. The Iraqis on the ground seemed to be pretty blind to nationality and treated all Commission inspectors in the same way, Mr. Duelfer said. Mr. Butler added that since the passage of Security Council resolution 1134 (1997) on 23 October, the daily conduct of Iraq towards Commission personnel on the ground had been perfect.

The Iraqis were talking about their frustration, which had resulted in the letter from Mr. Aziz, a correspondent said. Asked if he understood why they had taken this step, Mr. Butler said he did not understand completely, but he wished that he did and would continue to search for the answer. The costs of actions such as this were very high, and their benefits were highly dubious. It was not rational.

"I do detect in their policy a contradiction, which is: on the one hand, to want to be rid of sanctions, but, on the other, to want to keep some weapons of mass destruction", he went on to say. "These two things are antithetical." The choice he urged Iraq to take was to get rid of sanctions through disarmament. The quicker they did that, the quicker they could have a normal life.

* *** *