Hans Blix: "War Is Not Inevitable"

Mr. Blix, a week ago you reported that the weapons inspections were going smoothly. How is the situation at the moment?

We have over 100 Inspectors there, we have eight helicopters, we have a plane that flies daily between Larnaka, where we have an office in Cyprus and Baghdad, and we have a great many expeditions going out every day. So the procedure there is a muscular apparatus in place that is much bigger than UNSCOM ever had, and it is going all over the country.

On Feb. 8 you will be back in Iraq. Did Saddam Hussein agree for surveillance flights and private interviews with Iraqi scientists to take place?

No, I do not have that yet. We discussed that with them in Baghdad last time. The resolution clearly says we should be able to have surveillance planes similar to what UNSCOM had in the past. So I don't think it should be a difficult issue. Similarly, private interviews is also something that's in the resolutions. The bigger issue is how can they clarify the open issues? Is there any anthrax left? Or if they have any VX left, or if they have any Scud missiles left. We are not claiming that they have since we have not seen any. However, we have examined the evidence that is on the table, and that is not enough to exclude the possibility.

Does the U.S. government provide you with a sufficient amount of evidence or is it still holding back information?

Well, we get evidence or intelligence from different sources, and I would say the more sources, the better, including German [sources], because we don't want to be hooked up to any particular source and perhaps be pulled by our noses wherever it is. The best intelligence we can have relates to sites. If someone proves to us that some Iraqi company tried to buy one thing or another in Germany or Switzerland then I'd say, 'Well, that's interesting,' but we'd want to know where it would go in Iraq.

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said recently that under the current inspection regime, even if it's not perfect, Iraq is better contained than ever before. Do you agree with that?

Yes. The American side says this is not very meaningful. However, when we look at other places like North Korea and so forth, containment is a policy. If you can have a presence such as we have, you can go to any installation, and they are actually helpful when it comes to access. There's no difficulty in getting access. Then you visit their big industries, go to military establishments, presidential sites,
anyplace in Iraq. It is significant. There can be some shortcomings in it, some weaknesses. You may not be able to find all the cavities, the underground bunkers or what have you. They could also have mobile things that you could not discover. But, nevertheless, it is a significant presence that should deter Iraq from making or keeping weapons of mass destruction.

But can Iraq ever be completely contained? Can one ever be sure that Iraq is not reproducing or proliferating weapons of mass destruction?

Well, I think a problem would be that one could get sort of fatigued in the Security Council. So long as we have the money and we have the resources, we can be there with inspectors who go everywhere. But if the pressure and the support are not sufficient in the Security Council, then it could be that the Iraqis would begin to squeeze the inspectors again and deny them their rights. The containment of the Russian communism in the past was a sustained operation, and for containment to work in Iraq would also need to be a sustained operation. However, the resolutions envisage a continued presence, not as intrusive as the current investigations, but there is no end set in the resolutions for the monitoring.

Your colleague Mohammed ElBaradei told the Security Council in his statement that if the inspections could continue for a couple of more months he could be fairly sure whether Iraq has atomic weapons or not. Can you tell me how much time you need to make a similar assessment in terms of biological and chemical weapons?


There is a big difference between the nuclear dossier and the other dossiers. In the first place, Iraq never had a nuclear weapon. And when I was at the IEA (International Energy Agency) together with Mr. ElBaradei, we insured that the Iraqis, under our supervision, destroyed the nuclear infrastructure they had built up to enrich uranium. For the IEA looking at the nuclear dossier there are a few questions -- not disarmament questions, but there are a few questions they would like to clarify.

I think that having had only two months of operations in Iraq, it is a little early to call it a day and say that this does not work.

As far as your work is concerned, are we in the final phase?

We are the servants of the Security Council and not of any individual member. And the United States is an important member of the Security Council, and we will take the orders, whatever they are, from the Council. But we are not finished yet. On Wednesday, we're going to hear from [U.S. Secretary of State] Colin Powell and next week we are going to report again to the Council, so we are not yet at the end of that road.

On next Wednesday, do you expect to hear and to see something you already know? Or might there even be a surprise in it for you?

I do not think he will come and indicate any sites that we should visit because that would then tell the Iraqis, here is a site that they should "sanitized," as they call it. However, if he indicates that satellite images have identified one thing or another or that they've heard on telephone conversations through their eavesdropping, yeah, that's also interesting. If it can be shown clearly that they have been procuring chemicals that can be used for chemical weapons, yes, that certainly is interesting for us all.

You have said it's not up to you to make a decision on war, but given the impatience that the United States and the United Kingdom have shown in recent days, have the chances increased for an end of your inspection and the beginning of a war?

I don't think the race is run yet. I think there is still some time. For us, of course, we go by the resolution and the resolution instructs us on how to go, so that's it. But even if I look at the matter politically, I think there is still time. If the Iraqis really were to change and be positive on presenting documentation or evidence, I think that would have a great impact.

So war is not inevitable?

Not yet, I think. That's not my reading.

From your point of view, do you see anything in Iraq at the moment that could justify military action?

Well, that's not really for me to say. I'm there to perform the inspections, but it's known to everybody that the Iraqi armed forces are not at all of the size they were in 1990 or 1991. That is clear, but that's really for the members of the Council to decide.

Do you see your mission as a mission for peace?

Of course, I would prefer that one can achieve a sure disarmament and verify disarmament by Iraq by peaceful means, which means by inspections rather than by arms. There is a stark difference between these options. Take inspections. It costs perhaps $80 million per year and we have perhaps 200-300 people engaged in it. There are some shortcomings, we may not be able to see everything in basements or things that are mobile and there is a question of whether you would have a sustained political support in the future. The other option, the military, is one that takes 250,000 men and would cost a $100 billion dollars,. There are shortcomings to that option, too. Now it is for the governments to decide which way they will go.