PRESS BRIEFING BY EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN OF SPECIAL COMMISSION ON IRAQI DISARMAMENT

Press Briefing

PRESS BRIEFING BY EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN OF SPECIAL COMMISSION ON IRAQI DISARMAMENT

The Executive Chairman of the United Nations Special Commission set up under Security Council resolution 687 (1991) to monitor the disposal of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (UNSCOM), Richard Butler, began a Headquarters briefing this afternoon by announcing that he would take questions, since he was due to resume his briefing of the Security Council shortly. He drew attention to his letter of 17 December to the President of the Council (document S/1997/987), in which he reported on his recent visit to Iraq.

Asked if there was any significance to the so-called tours of the presidential sites being given to journalists in Iraq today, Mr. Butler said that he had not yet seen any videotape from this morning. He had not known about the tours and had learned about them through the media. The third category of sites designated by Iraq in talks with UNSCOM was called "presidential and sovereign sites". A couple of Council members yesterday sought clarification on that designation, asking whether "presidential sites" meant "palaces". They also inquired about their number and what kinds of buildings or places the category included.

Mr. Butler said that, according to Iraq, its sovereignty could also apply to certain ministries and other government buildings and areas. A presidential residence could encompass an area far larger than the residence itself and be considered a presidential site. So, it was not just the palaces. While he did not know exactly how many other buildings were involved, he gathered that Iraq hoped to include in that category quite a substantial number of such places. The "absolute position" it argued in Baghdad was that UNSCOM would never be permitted to inspect any of them. That was a matter of fundamental concern.

What makes you so sure the sovereign sites contained forbidden weapons, or documents related to them? a correspondent asked. Mr. Butler said that question made an assumption which he could not validate. At issue was something far more important -- namely, that Iraq's proposal would establish sanctuaries where UNSCOM could never go. One did not need special grounds for believing that there were prohibited items in those places to object to the principle itself. The establishment of such sanctuaries would create a very large number of sites where prohibited items could be hidden. That was utterly contradictory to the Council's position that UNSCOM should be able to go anywhere at any time for the purposes of arms control and disarmament verification. In addition, there was evidence or reason to believe that prohibited items had been or still might be in places subsumed by the category, "presidential and sovereign sites".

How did one square the contradiction between Security Council resolution affirming UNSCOM's right of access to wherever it wanted to go with Iraq's

legitimate claims to dignity and sovereignty? a correspondent asked. Mr. Butler said discussion of that question was one of the main reasons he had been sent to Baghdad. That issue had also been considered at some length yesterday in the Council. Several participants spoke of the concepts of international law relating to the sovereignty and integrity of all States, as well as to the need for all States to implement their legitimate obligations under international law. The Council's resolutions concerning Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction fell within the category of legitimate international legal obligations. The view that emerged yesterday in the Council was that no State's sovereignty could be considered sufficient grounds for failing to carry out those obligations, whether Iraq's obligation to disarm or that of other States to apply the sanctions.

Mr. Butler said he had sought clarification of Baghdad's view on which sites it proposed should be considered be off-limits to UNSCOM, in the form of a list of sites, or a map or a better definition of why such sites should be considered off-limits. More importantly, he sought to understand whether there would be ways in which those places would not be off-limits and could be inspected in a manner which took account of their special character. However, that issue had been overwhelmed by the magnitude of the category, by the number of places which were being proposed as presidential or sovereign sites. He needed to learn more about that before the Council could make a viable decision on how to reconcile the two apparently conflicting notions of sovereignty and international obligation.

Had the Executive Chairman been able to assess any damaging effect of the interim period when there were no inspectors in Iraq? a correspondent asked. Mr. Butler said that his assessment, although fairly advanced, was not yet complete. The removal of dual-use equipment was illegal and should not have occurred. However, with perhaps a few exceptions, he had not seen particular evidence of its misuse. Nevertheless, "the jury is still out on that". There were one or two specific instances of ambiguity which were still being analysed.

A correspondent drew attention to the Executive Chairman's reference to evidence of prohibited items in some of the so-called presidential sites. Asked if that matter had been raised during discussions with the Iraqis, Mr. Butler said the point had not been specifically raised. One of the situations he had faced in those talks was the fairly categorical statement by Iraq that it had no more weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqis had issued a general statement as well as specific statements relating to missile warheads and to chemical and biological weapons. The common element in each of those statements had been that "it was all over; we destroyed all our weapons of mass destruction as early as 1991". The Iraqis maintained that there was no information to volunteer since they had already destroyed everything. That position was not acceptable to the Special Commission because it was not credible and because it sought to avoid Iraq's fundamental obligation to

Butler Briefing - 3 - 19 December 1997

provide the information required by UNSCOM to verify and destroy those weapons. "That conversation did not go a long way."

A correspondent asked whether Mr. Butler had raised that issue in the Council yesterday. Was he was suggesting that dual-use equipment and prohibited items had been moved into the presidential palace sites when UNSCOM was out of the country? Mr. Butler said he had reported to the Council on Iraq's stance that all proscribed weapons had already been destroyed. Iraq had immediately filed a commentary on his report, stating that during their talks, Iraq had indicated its willingness to answer any questions and to cooperate with the Special Commission in the future. Mr. Butler stood by his recollection of the talks. With respect to the movement of dual-use equipment, he had not reported to the Council his belief that prohibited items had been moved into the palaces during the period in question. He had no grounds for saying that and had therefore not reported it.

To a follow-up question on the movement of prohibited items, Mr. Butler said that if the category of presidential and sovereign sites was as large as he thought, then it included places to which UNSCOM had reason to go. It did have information suggesting that the investigators might find prohibited items in some of those places. The fact that attempts to inspect some of those places had from time to time been blocked did little to reduce the idea that they might contain prohibited items. The Special Commission was now being told that the principle of sovereignty was the reason it had been barred from inspecting those places.

Asked if he was worried that the current situation represented "the end of the road" for UNSCOM, Mr. Butler said he was not.

* *** *