Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company  
The New York Times
January 27, 2003, Monday, Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section A;  Page 8;  Column 1;  Foreign Desk 

LENGTH: 2051 words

HEADLINE: THREATS AND RESPONSES;
Powell on Iraq: 'We Reserve Our Sovereign Right to Take Military Action'

BYLINE:  By The New York Times 

DATELINE: DAVOS, Switzerland, Jan. 26

BODY:
Following are excerpts from a speech today by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, as transcribed by the Federal Document Clearing House, a private transcription service:

I've been here for just over a day, long enough to speak and meet with a number of you; long enough to hear directly and from others much of what has been said about the United States over the last two or three days; about whether America can be trusted to use its enormous political, economic and, above all, military power wisely and fairly.

I believe -- no, I know, with all of my heart -- that the United States can. I believe no less strongly that the United States has earned the trust of men, women and children around the world. Let's just go to Afghanistan. Ten thousand American soldiers are in that country helping to create conditions of security. A new government, a new representative government, is in place. We see new roads, new hospitals, new schools, where girls can attend and gain the skills they will need to lead productive, meaningful lives. . . .

The American troops who are there went there in peace, working alongside now thousands of troops from more than a dozen countries, and they're all working together to help train Afghan police and military forces that will take their place, and as soon as our troops are needed no longer, they will depart.

Afghanistan's leaders and Afghanistan's people know that they can trust America to do just this, to do the right thing. The people of Bosnia, the people of Kosovo, of Macedonia, they too know that they can trust us to do our jobs and then leave. . . .

The same holds true for the people of Kuwait. Twelve years ago, we helped liberate their country, and then we left. We did not seek any special benefits for ourselves. That is not the American way. . . .

More than half a century ago, the United States helped to rescue Europe from the tyranny of fascism that had led to World War II. We stayed to help Europe regain its vitality. We supported and continue to support a strong, united Europe and we congratulate Europeans on the recent enlargement of the European Union. . . .

Now, I am aware, as everyone in this room is aware, that Americans and Europeans do not always see things the same way in every instance. . . . This is hardly a new development.

Henry Kissinger, decades ago, wrote a book on the Atlantic alliance, and he called it "The Troubled Partnership." I am told that later Henry had second doubts about the title, when he found that some bookstores were placing it on a shelf reserved for books about marriage counseling.

But maybe the bookstore owners knew what they were doing, because problems with some of our friends across the Atlantic go back a long time, more than two centuries by my count. In fact, one or two of our friends we have been in marriage counseling with for over 225 years nonstop, and yet the marriage is intact, remains strong, and will weather any differences that come along, because of our mutual shared values. . . .

On occasion, our experiences, our interests, will lead us to see things in a different way. . . . When we feel strongly about something, we will lead. We will act, even if others are not prepared to join us, but the United States will always work, will always endeavor, to get others to join in a consensus. . . .

When we talk about trust, let me use that as a bridge to one of the major issues of the day, Iraq. Let me try to explain why we feel so strongly about Iraq, and why we are determined that the current situation cannot be allowed to continue.

We are where we are today with Iraq because Saddam Hussein and his regime have repeated violated the trust of the United Nations, his people, and his neighbors, to such an extent as to pose a grave danger to international peace and security.

The . . . Security Council recognized this situation and unanimously passed Resolution 1441, giving Iraq one last chance to disarm peacefully after 11 years of defying the world community.

Today, not a single nation, not one, trusts Saddam and his regime. And those who know him best, trust him least. His own citizens, whom he has terrorized and oppressed; his neighbors, whom he has threatened and invaded. Citizens and neighbors alike have been killed by his chemical weapons. That is why Resolution 1441 was carefully crafted to be far tougher and far more thorough than the many resolutions that preceded it. Fourteen-forty-one places the burden squarely on Iraq to provide accurate, full and complete information on its weapons of mass destruction. . . .

This is not about inspectors finding smoking guns. It is about Iraqis' failure -- Iraq's failure -- to tell the inspectors where to find its weapons of mass destruction.

The 12,200-page declaration Iraq submitted to the United Nations Security Council on Dec. 7 utterly failed to meet the requirements of the resolution, utterly failed to meet the requirements of being accurate, full and complete. . . .

This past week, United Nations Inspector Blix and International Atomic Agency Inspector ElBaradei went to Baghdad to deliver the message that Iraq's cooperation has been inadequate. Iraq's response did nothing to alter the fact that Baghdad still is not providing the inspectors with the information they need to do their job. . . .

The support of United States intelligence and the intelligence of other nations can take the inspectors only so far. Without Iraq's full and active cooperation, the 100-or-so inspectors would have to look under every roof and search the back of every truck in a country the size of California to find the munitions and programs for which Iraq has failed to account for.

After six weeks of inspections, the international community still needs to know the answers to key questions. For example, where is the evidence? Where is the evidence that Iraq has destroyed the tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and botulinum we know it had before it expelled the previous inspectors? This isn't an American determination.

This was the determination of the previous inspectors. Where is this material? What happened to it? It's not a trivial question. We're not talking about aspirin. We're talking about the most deadly things one can imagine that can kill thousands, millions of people. We cannot simply turn away and say never mind. . . .

What happened to nearly 30,000 munitions capable of carrying chemical agents? The inspectors can only account for 16 of them. Where are they? It's not a matter of ignoring the reality of the situation. Just think, all of these munitions, which perhaps only have a short range if fired out of an artillery weapon in Iraq, but imagine if one of these weapons was smuggled out of Iraq and found its way into the hands of a terrorist organization that could transport it anywhere in the world.

What happened? Please, what happened, to the three metric tons of growth material that Iraq imported, which can be used for perdition, early, in a very rapid fashion, deadly biological agents? Where are the mobile vans that are nothing more than biological weapons laboratories on wheels? Why is Iraq still trying to procure uranium and the special equipment needed to transform it into material for a nuclear weapon?

These questions are not academic. They're not trivial. They are questions of life and death, and they must be answered.

To those who say why not give the inspection process more time, I ask, how much more time does Iraq need to answer these questions? It is not a matter of time alone. It is a matter of telling the truth, and so far Saddam Hussein still responds with evasion and with lies.

Saddam should tell the truth and tell the truth now. The more we wait, the more chance there is for this dictator, with clear ties to terrorist groups, including al Qaeda, more time for him to pass a weapon, share technology, or use these weapons again. . . .

Tomorrow, Chief Inspectors Blix and ElBaradei will make their report to the United Nations Security Council. My government will study their report carefully. We'll study it with gravity, and we will exchange views on the findings that are presented with other members of the Council. We're in no great rush to judgment tomorrow or the day after, but clearly time is running out. There is no longer an excuse for Iraqi denial of its obligations. We must have Iraq participate in the disarmament or be disarmed. . . .

Saddam Hussein's hidden weapons of mass destruction are meant to intimidate Iraq's neighbors. These illegal weapons threaten international peace and security. These terrible weapons put millions of innocent people at risk.

There's more than that. Saddam's naked defiance also challenges the relevance and credibility of the Security Council and the world community. When all 15 members of the Council voted to pass U.N. Resolution 1441, they assumed a heavy responsibility to put their will behind their words.

Multilateralism cannot become an excuse for inaction. Saddam Hussein and others of his ilk would like nothing better to see the world community back away from this resolution instead of backing it with their solemn resolve. We will work through these issues patiently and deliberately with our friends and with our allies. These are serious matters before us. Let the Iraqi regime have no doubt, however, that if it does not disarm peacefully at this juncture, it will be disarmed down the road.

The United States believes that time is running out. We will not shrink from war if that is the only way to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. We continue to reserve our sovereign right to take military action against Iraq alone or in a coalition of the willing. . .

It is our hope, however, it is our will, that we can do this peacefully. It is our hope. We will it to happen that Iraq will participate in its disarmament. . . . But it is also our hope that the international community will stand behind the elements of 1441, and as a great coalition we will deal with this problem once and for all.

North Korea is another example of a country where trust is at issue. Over the past nine years, the international community engaged North Korea in good faith with nuclear agreements which we now know Pyongyang violated. At the same time, North Korea's policies have dragged its people into a dark, cold, hungry hell. . . .

And so in consultation with South Korea and Japan, the United States was ready last summer to pursue a bold approach with Pyongyang. The approach would have entailed political and economic steps to improve the lives of the North Korean people and move our relationship with the north toward normalcy. It was then that we discovered that the North had been pursuing a covert uranium enrichment program in egregious violation of its international obligations. When confronted with the bald facts, Pyongyang admitted what it had been doing.

The United States is wiling to talk to North Korea about how it will meet its obligations to completely dismantle its nuclear weapons program, but this is not just a matter between the United States and North Korea. Pyongyang's behavior affects the stability of both the immediate region and of the world, and that's why the I.A.E.A. Board of Governors deplored in the strongest terms North Korea's actions.

Once again, we are working with our allies and others in the region and across the international community to address, through diplomacy, our common concerns over North Korea's programs.

The United States has no intention of attacking North Korea. President Bush has said that repeatedly, and we are prepared to convey this in a way that makes it unmistakable to North Korea. At the same time, we keep all of our options on the table. Meanwhile, the United States has been the world's biggest donor of humanitarian assistance to North Korea, and we will continue to contribute to their humanitarian requirements and needs.

Let me be clear: the United States stands ready to build a different kind of relationship with North Korea once Pyongyang comes into verifiable compliance with its commitments. The North must be willing to act in a manner that builds trust. . . .
 

http://www.nytimes.com

GRAPHIC: Photo (Associated Press)

LOAD-DATE: January 27, 2003