Press Conference at NATO Headquarters

UNDER SECRETARY GROSSMAN: Hello. My name is Marc Grossman. I’m the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. I had the good fortune to visit NATO today as part of a long line of consultations with the Alliance. I come here today after Deputy Secretary Armitage, Deputy National Security Advisor Hadley, and the Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

So, I came to consult today with the Alliance about where we stand with Iraq. I did, however, before I began my presentation, take the opportunity to say how important this Alliance remains to the United States of America and I was very glad that so many Ambassadors had a chance to say how important it is to their countries as well. I also had a chance to thank NATO for the strong message in defense of Turkey over the past couple of weeks.

My presentation today was a consultation. I tried to focus on a couple of areas. We’re always asked questions about what would happen if – IF – there has to be a war, what will happen after the war in Iraq? And I tried to take the opportunity today to brief people on the state of American thinking in terms of reconstruction, humanitarian assistance, the kind of political future we see for Iraq. And obviously I was greatly benefited by the fact that President Bush made this such an important part of his speech last night in Washington.

I made that presentation and then we had a very good round of questions and answers afterwards. One of the questions that was asked of me was, “What NATO role?” And I want to just tell you that I answered that question in this way: I said that I did not come here to ask for anything, I came here with no plan, I came here simply to consult and give people the benefit of American thinking, if it is at all helpful to them. I said that some of the ideas that Secretary Wolfowitz put on the table on the 4^th of December are still there, but these are things now that NATO has to decide, these are not things for the United States to decide.

As I said, I think it was a very good discussion and I’m very grateful for the Secretary General allowing me the time, and for people to taking the time this morning to listen to me. And I’d be very glad to answer any questions anyone might have.

QUESTION: Mr. Grossman, what role do you think NATO should play in the post-Saddam process?

UNDER SECRETARY GROSSMAN: Well, as I just tried to say, I came here today to give people the benefit of our thinking, where we stand in the effort we’re making to plan for a possible humanitarian crisis, for the reconstruction of Iraq, the work we’re doing to have an Iraq that is democratic, multi-ethnic, at peace with its neighbors, with no weapons of mass destruction. So I tried to convey what we were doing if – IF – there has to be a conflict. As I said at the end of my statement, Paul Wolfowitz made some propositions here on the 4^th of December. One of the Ambassadors asked me if it was still on “my table.” And I said, “It’s not on my table. It’s really on your table.” So this is something that the Alliance needs to discuss. The Alliance needs to decide.

QUESTION: But sir could you please give us some ideas of the measures you were thinking about -- I mean in terms of soldiers, for instance, of money, some further information?

UNDER SECRETARY GROSSMAN: I apologize. I simply did not come here today to do that. What I came here to do today, in the extensive presentation that I made, was talk about where we stood in efforts to deal with the humanitarian crisis, where we stood in our efforts -- as the President talked about last night – in reconstruction of Iraq, and where we stood, very much, with the vision that we have of Iraq, both for working with people inside of Iraq and outside of Iraq. So none of the questions that you have just asked came up today. That was not our purpose today, and so it was not a matter of discussion today.

QUESTION: Sir, the Security Council is still very deeply divided on a second resolution now. Major member states of the Security Council are major member states of NATO. In your discussion here, did you feel anything, any reflection of this deep division on how to go about a second resolution and weapons inspections in Iraq?

UNDER SECRETARY GROSSMAN: I began my presentation by trying to give an update on where we stood at the United Nations and, obviously, other people made their points as well. I think that’s perfectly natural. The North Atlantic Council is not the Politburo. We’re all democracies. People have a right to speak out. And so yes, there was a conversation today about how best to proceed at the United Nations. I don’t think we broke any new ground, because this is not the Security Council, it’s the North Atlantic Council.

But we tried to make our point that from our perspective: it’s time now to decide; no more delay. And that’s why our President said he would welcome and support, and indeed we do support, this second resolution. We’ll see what happens when people get ready to vote on it. I think that the comments that Dr. Blix is making today, that the Iraqis still don’t seem to understand their requirement to disarm, ought to have some impact on people.

The other conversation we had in the Council was on the question of force. And I tried my very best to make the point that in our view, there is a logic to UN Security Council Resolution 1441. UN Security Council Resolution 1441 passed fifteen to nothing. And I believe the reason that there are inspectors today in Iraq is that the Iraqis recognize that the international community was unified. I also believe that if we were to remain unified about the threat of force that we would get Iraq to disarm. Other people have a different view. But that is my view. That is, if you wish to avoid a war and the United States of America certainly does wish that, then the international community needs to reunite around the need for a military option.

QUESTION: I’d like to know what the reaction was inside the Council when you talked about reconstruction, humanitarian help, more in the logic of war, when some members of this Council don’t seem to agree with the United States position so far of going so quickly into some action – like France and Germany – and we’ve seen it for ten days in NATO, things were very difficult. So how could you convince them today to follow your thinking and the American logic?

UNDER SECRETARY GROSSMAN: Well you’ll have to ask them if I did any convincing of them. I would say that the idea that we are rushing somehow is completely wrong. I don’t think twelve years is rushing. We’ve been waiting for Saddam Hussein to disarm for 4,222 days. I don’t call that rushing. And so that is not the argument that we made to the North Atlantic Council today. You’d have to ask other people about their opinions, but a number of the Ambassadors said, “We don’t want war. But if there has to be a war, it is right to do some prudent contingency planning in the areas of the humanitarian [assistance] and reconstruction.”

So I did not come here to say that war was inevitable. Indeed as I tried to answer your colleague’s question, I think the stronger we are, the possibility that there is no war is still out there. But, we are sensible people and I think you would severely criticize us if we had done no planning whatsoever for the possibility of a conflict and the possibility of a post-war Iraq. That is our responsibility to our publics and I think we are trying to carry it out seriously.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Did you make any efforts, or progress towards, mending fences with France, either yesterday in Paris or here today?

UNDER SECRETARY GROSSMAN: Well I was in Paris yesterday for a meeting of the Group of Eight. The French are this year the Presidency of the Group of Eight, so it was not a bilateral visit. The French Political Director was in the chair we had an extremely good G-8 meeting, which he – I will say – chaired extremely well. But this was not the topic of conversation there at the G8, although I did take the opportunity to discuss it, and you’d have to ask other people here today whether I’ve made any progress. We all agreed that war is not our objective. Where we had a conversation in the Council was how to achieve that objective and again as I tried to say previously, I believe the way to achieve that objective is to have a credible threat of military force and that is what we are trying to bring together.

QUESTION: How important do you think Turkey’s role will be in any war and how confident are you that the Turkish Parliament will vote in favor today of the stationing of U.S. troops in Turkey?

UNDER SECRETARY GROSSMAN: Again, sir, I think it’s important to step back. I think the most important thing the Turkish government can do now is, by being part of this military coalition, I think they increase the chances that we might not have to fight. In other words if Saddam looks around him and there are now United States forces in Turkey, I think that is another reason for him to disarm. It may not turn out to be the way it turns out, but I’d like to make sure that I don’t just answer the second part of your question.

In terms of the Turkish Parliament, totally up to them. Turkey is a democracy. The Turkish government has gone to the Turkish Parliament. We’ll see what they have to say. But it’s up to the Turkish Parliament at this point. I have no prediction one way or another.

Okay? Good, thank you all very much.