done that, one would think that you would care about—at least I would hope our country would decide to care sufficiently aboutthe Iraqi people and the neighbors there, that the government that replaced that regime would be a government that would have a single country and would not threaten its neighbors, would not have weapons of mass destruction, and would provide reasonable opportunities for the ethnic minorities that exist in that country, not repress them. Senator CLELAND. My time is up, Mr. Chairman. Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, in the first 5 years of the weapons inspections in the 1990s, UNSCOM had considerable success in detecting and dismantling Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, including numerous sites. For example, there were three clandestine uranium enrichment programs and a biological weapons facility south of Baghdad. Obviously, later in the decade, the inspections became increasingly ineffective and eventually ceased. But at one point, over a number of years, the inspectors did make considerable progress. Your testimony today seems to dismiss altogether the use of inspections. While all of us are understandably skeptical, given Iraq's history, the knowledge that he will otherwise be obliterated gives Saddam a powerful incentive to comply. Shouldn't we at least pursue unfettered rigorous inspections before resorting to military force? Secretary RUMSFELD. Senator, I don't read my testimony to be dismissive of the use of inspections. I think I said that there is a place for inspections in our world. Unless there's a government that is willing to allow unfettered inspections, has made a decision to disarm, and offers assistance to that process because their goal is to tell the world that they have, in fact, done that, then inspections are very difficult. Now, you're quite right. In the early period of UNSCOM, there were significant successes in a number of instances because of defectors helping them and cuing them as to where to go to look. However, UNSCOM also announced-I believe it was UNSCOM, before UNMOVIC-that they could not account for enormous volumes of chemical and biological weapons. In their report, as they demonstrated their successes, they simultaneously demonstrated their failures and said, "We can't find them. We don't know where they are. We can't find defectors to tell us where they are, and there's no way on the earth that the Iraqi regime is going to be able to demonstrate where they are." So it was a mixed picture. I quite agree there's a role for inspections in our world, but it seem to me that we've gone through 11 years, and one has to approach it, as you suggest, with a good deal of caution. I should add that the Iraqis have not offered unfettered inspections. Senator COLLINS. You have stated previously that there are al Qaeda terrorists hiding in Iraq. I have two questions to follow up on those statements. One, is there evidence that Saddam Hussein or other high Iraqi officials are actually sheltering members of al Qaeda? Second, is there evidence, any evidence, that Saddam has conspired or is conspiring with members of al Qaeda? Secretary RUMSFELD. I'd be happy to give you that information in the closed session, which is supposed to follow this one, but there is no question that there are al Qaeda in Iraq in more than one location-there have been for a good long period-and the implication or suggestion that a vicious, repressive dictatorship that watches almost everything that happens in this country could not be unaware of al Qaeda operatives functioning in their country. Senator COLLINS. The State Department, just last year, issued a report listing the nations that are supporting terrorism. The State Department said that, once again, Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2001. What differentiates the activities of the regime in Iraq from those in Iran, given that the State Department has placed Iran ahead of Iraq as far as its support of terrorism and, in addition, we know that Iran also is pursuing weapons of mass destruction? Secretary RUMSFELD. You're quite right, Senator, that both countries have active chemical, biological, and nuclear programs. There's also no question that the State Department report is correct; the Iranians are currently harboring reasonably large numbers of al Qaeda, and they're trying to keep that information from the bulk of their population. The al Qaeda are functioning in that country, both transiting and located and operating. Second, Iran is, without question, sending money and weapons and people down to Damascus, Syria, down to Beirut, Lebanon to engage in terrorist acts in that region, including against Israel. What's the difference? One difference is that there are 16 resolutions of the United Nations that Iraq has violated. The international community has been told by Iraq that it's irrelevant. A second thing that's different is that as much as I would like to see it, I do not believe that it's likely that in Iraq you would have the people able to overthrow the government. In the case of Iran, that country spun on a dime and went from the Shah of Iran to the ayatollahs some years back. If one looks at what's taking place there today, particularly since President Bush's speech, "The Axis of Evil," where he spoke to the Iranian people and demonstrated the world's concern about how they're being treated, they're being ruled by a small clique of clerics, which the women and the young people in that country don't like, and they have an awareness of what's taking place in the rest of the world. I do worry about their weapon programs. I do worry about their proliferation. I also think there is at least a chance that that country could change its regime from inside, and it would be a wonderful thing for the Iranian people and the world if it did. Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Collins. Senator Reed. Senator REED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We have been in conflict and confrontation with Iraq for over 10 years. It's been a process of thrust and parry. As you point out in your testimony, they have been quite adroit maneuvering, particu larly diplomatically. It seems to me that their strategy, today, is to invite, as quickly as possible, inspectors into Iraq, to cooperate, although I would concede-and I think you would agree that the cooperation would be self-serving, cynical, and transient. But that poses a real problem to anyone contemplating operations against Iraq, that such operations might be in the context of the presence of U.N. inspectors in Iraq, who might even concede or admit or perceive cooperation. I want to ask two questions. First, are you familiar with the authorization language that was sent up to us this afternoon by the White House? Secretary RUMSFELD. No, I'm not. Someone handed it to me when I walked up here. Senator REED. Let me read it. Secretary RUMSFELD. You mean the resolution? Senator REED. I'll read it to you. "The President is authorized to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the United Nations Security Council Resolutions referenced above, defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region.' [The information referred to follows:] THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON September 19, 2002 Dear Speaker Hastert, Leader Daschle, Leader Lott, and Leader Gephardt, As a follow-up to your discussion yesterday morning with the President, we enclose a suggested form of resolution with respect to Iraq. We stand ready to meet with you or your staffs to discuss our proposal. As the President indicated to you, it is our hope that we can reach early agreement on the proposal at the leadership level to allow you to proceed to consider the resolution in your respective chambers as soon as possible. Joint Resolution To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. Whereas Congress in 1998 concluded that Iraq was then in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations and thereby threatened the vital interests of the United States and international peace and security, stated the reasons for that conclusion, and urged the President to take appropriate action to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations (Public Law 105-235); Whereas Iraq remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations, thereby continuing to threaten the national security interests of the United States and international peace and security, Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population, including the Kurdish peoples, thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council; Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens; Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat that Iraq will transfer weapons of mass destruction to intemational terrorist organizations; Whereas the United States has the inherent right, as acknowledged in the United Nations Charter, to use force in order to defend itself; Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the high risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists |