Copyright 2003
American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
ABC News Transcripts
SHOW: NIGHTLINE (11:35 AM ET) - ABC
February 13, 2003 Thursday
LENGTH: 3711 words
HEADLINE: NIGHTLINE INTRODUCTION
BODY:
graphics: February 13 2003
GEORGE W. BUSH, US PRESIDENT
America will act decisively and America will act victoriously with the world's
greatest military.
TED KOPPEL, ABC NEWS
(Voice Over) The president is prepared to go it alone.
GEORGE W. BUSH
The decision is this for the United Nations, when you say something, does it
mean anything?
TED KOPPEL
(Voice Over) France, Germany and Russia are supposed to be allies and friends.
CHARLES, FRENCH WRITER
They feel the Americans are making a mistake. And therefore, the French don't
want to go along with this mistake. And as friends and as allies, they think
they're in the right of telling it so to the Americans.
TED KOPPEL
(Voice Over) But they don't support this war against Iraq.
PHILLIP GORDON, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
It's a terrible dilemma for the French and Germans because, you know, should
they really support a war that they think is a bad idea? But the fact is, they
can't stop it.
graphics: Shoulder to Shoulder
TED KOPPEL
(Voice Over) Tonight, "Shoulder to Shoulder", what happened to the
coalition?
graphics: ABC NEWS: Nightline
ANNOUNCER
From ABC News, this is "Nightline." Reporting from Washington, Ted
Koppel.
TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) If you were going to put the issue to a popular vote, it's not
altogether clear that any country in Europe, not even Great Britain, supports
the prospect of going to war against Iraq. That popular opinion will be much in
evidence this weekend, as massive anti-war demonstrations are scheduled in
Britain and throughout much of the rest of Europe. But popular opinion is one
thing, government support is another. For all the domestic opposition that he
faces, Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair is committed to sending some 40,000
troops to the Gulf. The Turkish government, also facing strong opposition at
home, is on the verge of permitting as many as 40,000 US troops to launch an
attack into northern Iraq from their territory. The Turks have been asking for
assistance from NATO, particularly patriot anti- missile batteries. And there's
where some of the real friction within the NATO alliance is surfacing. The
French, the Germans, the Belgians have been blocking that assistance. The
Germans and the French are also lining up with the Russians and the Chinese at
the UN Security Council, insisting that weapons inspectors inside Iraq be given
more time. That confrontation with the United States is likely to come to a
head at the UN over the next few days. But in all of its aspects, tension over
the war is putting an unhealthy strain, not just on the Western alliance, but
on bilateral relations between Washington and Moscow, Washington and Beijing.
That's our focus tonight. The looming prospect of war with Iraq could undermine
the NATO alliance and marginalize the ultimate effectiveness of the UN. At the
root of this diplomatic showdown is a mounting hostility between the United
States and two of its principal European allies, Germany and, especially,
France. We begin tonight with this report from "Nightline"
correspondent John Donvan.
JOHN DONVAN, ABC NEWS
(Voice Over) They're still stuck at NATO. Three friends of the United States
are still getting in the way of the United States.
GEORGE W. BUSH
When you say something, does it mean anything?
JOHN DONVAN
(Voice Over) At least that's how the US sees it.
GEORGE W. BUSH
If you lay down a resolution, does it mean anything?
JOHN DONVAN
(Voice Over) President Bush was complaining about the United Nations this
morning. But the same feelings apply to the impasse at NATO. There are certain
nations, friends of the US, getting in the way. He didn't name them. But listen
between the lines.
GEORGE W. BUSH
Many nations have offered to provide forces or other support to disarm the
Iraqi regime.
JOHN DONVAN
(Voice Over) But not the French. Not the Germans. Not the Belgians. All three
are still blocking Turkey's request to NATO for protection in case there is war
with Iraq. NATO has never been this divided.
JOHN DONVAN (CONTINUED)
(Voice Over) Once upon a time, and it was a different time, the Cold War, the
United Nations Security Council had occasional visits from a man the world came
to call "Mr. Nyet". His real name was Andre Gromieko and he was the
Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union, America's enemy. And when the Soviets
couldn't get their way, which was a lot of the time, they got in the way using
their veto power, voting "nyet," again and again and again, just to
spite the West, especially the United States. And now, this world, and the
French, who are among the world's smoothest diplomats, the last thing they
would ever want to do is use a clumsy tool like the veto.
JOHN DONVAN (CONTINUED)
(Voice Over) But as the French work at persuading NATO and the United Nations
that the US march to war is moving way too fast, France, more than any other
the nations resisting the US, has, like Gromieko in the old days, come in for a
mountain of scorn here. There was that thing the US Secretary of Defense put
out a few weeks ago, a put down, actually, which he also extended to Germany.
DONALD RUMSFELD, US SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
You're thinking of Europe as Germany and France. I don't. I think that's old
Europe. If you look at the entire NATO Europe today, the center of gravity is
shifting to the east.
JOHN DONVAN
(Voice Over) And the Secretary of State, only Tuesday...
COLIN POWELL, US SECRETARY OF STATE
The alliance is breaking itself up because it will not meet its
responsibilities.
JOHN DONVAN
(Voice Over) Powell is a diplomat, so he's not going to go too far in saying
what our culture really thinks of the French. But late-night television will.
DENNIS MILLER, COMEDIAN
The only way the French are going in is if we tell them we found truffles in
Iraq.
JOHN DONVAN
(Voice Over) And so will the editors of "The New York Post," whose
front page yesterday all but said the French owe us their cooperation on Iraq.
The culture, our culture, has long had this take on the French, that ever since
US troops liberated Paris in World War II, the French have resented the power
that liberated them and will, just to spite us, go slow when the US wants to go
fast and vice versa. Again, comedy can say what governments cannot.
ROBIN WILLIAMS, COMEDIAN
Look. I'm giving a cigarette to a baby. Do it. Suck on the cigarette, my
darling. You better get, you Americans. We hate all of you. Oh, the Germans are
here. Hello, Americans.
JOHN DONVAN
(Off Camera) Here's a French travel guide, National Parks of the American West.
And in the section where it gives its readers some tips on what Americans are
like, it says that we Americans are usually open and willing to help people.
But then on page 130, out of nowhere it reads, "Americans love national
holidays where two-bit emotions gush all over the place. But they don't want to
know about Iraqi children dying of hunger or the problems caused by the embargo
of Cuba." This is from a travel guide.
JOHN DONVAN (CONTINUED)
(Voice Over) And to go with that image of Americans is a view in France, where
one poll says that 75 percent of the public thinks the US is really only after
Iraq's oil, that the dangerous man is not Saddam, it's George Bush. Charles, is
a writer for, a newspaper in France.
CHARLES
They've seen George W. Bush as a symbol of all the clich's that the French have
about the Americans. That is the gung-ho cowboy, ready to shoot first and
asking questions afterwards. The French do feel that there are two people who
really want this war, George W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden.
JOHN DONVAN
(Voice Over) But if the French are reducing the American approach to a cartoon
of the President, what about Americans cartoon of the French? So, they like to
give the US a hard time. But does their resistance to war with Iraq have more
substance to it than that? Of course it does, says Phillip Gordon of the
Brookings Institution.
PHILLIP GORDON
I can understand the reasons that are driving them. And it's not, you know, the
corruption of the leaders and it's not oil.
JOHN DONVAN
(Voice Over) In fact, Gordon says French economic interests in Iraq have been
greatly exaggerated.
PHILLIP GORDON
The French are the 11th leading trading partner, behind ten other countries
that do a lot more business with Iraq. And so, in the overall context of the,
French economy, this is insignificant. There are real, sound reasons why they
think war is a bad idea and are opposing it. I happen to think that that's
still not smart diplomatically because I don't think they're going to be
successful in stopping it.
JOHN DONVAN
(Voice Over) The main thrust of the French argument actually coincides with a
view published in an American journal, "Foreign Policy," co-authored
by an American who agrees with the French that there are other answers to
Saddam than war.
PROFESSOR STEPHEN WALT, HARVARD UNIVERSITY
The Soviet Union, with 46,000 nuclear weapons, was never able to blackmail us.
And even Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser, said in an article a
couple of years ago that their weapons of mass destruction would be unusable
because they would bring national obliteration. So, they cannot blackmail us.
Similarly, they have no incentive whatsoever to give weapons to terrorists.
That would be taking the weapons and leaving them outside Iraq's control.
They'd have nothing to gain from doing so and everything to lose. Because, if
we held them responsible for doing that, our response would be swift and
decisive.
JOHN DONVAN
(Off Camera) Explained like, that without a French accent or for that matter a
German or a Chinese or a Russian accent, maybe that view would be more
palatable to the Administration. But not likely. US government minds seem as made
up for war as the minds of some of our allies are against it. The reality,
everyone understands, is that if the United States decides to go to war,
there's not much anyone else can do to stop it. I'm John Donvan for
"Nightline" in Washington.
TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) Can the differences with Europe be resolved or is this the end of
the old alliances?
JUSTIN VAISSE, THE BROOKINGS
INSTITUTE
It's based on principle and not only on commercial interests.
TOM BUHROW, ARD GERMAN TV
The Europeans will read out of anything they find or not find, another reason
to postpone and postpone and postpone.
TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) That conversation when we come back.
graphics: Nightline
ANNOUNCER
This is ABC News "Nightline", brought to you by . . .
commercial break
TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) My guests here in Washington tonight are Justin Vaisse, a former speechwriter for the
French Defense Minister, now a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Tom Buhrow, the Washington bureau chief for Germany's public television
network, ARD. And Andrei Sitov, the Washington bureau chief for ITAR-TASS, the
media group financed by the Russian government. And Tom, I'm going to begin
with what I concede is a terribly unfair question. For the sake of argument,
let's just assume that there's a change of heart in Berlin and the German
government were to send troops into Iraq. Do you think they would equip them
with gas masks and gear for biochemical warfare?
TOM BUHROW
I think so. Don't forget, there are already anti-chemical or protective
vehicles in Kuwait, it's just not for the Iraq invasion. They're there under
the mandate, Enduring Freedom. So, I think, if they would go, which is very,
very hypothetical, I think they'd be equipped, yes.
TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) But you take my point. In other words, I think we can begin with
an assumption that everyone will concede that there is a high probability that
the Iraqis still do have both chemical and biological weapons and that they
have been trying, over the years, to create nuclear ones. So, what's the fuss
all about?
TOM BUHROW
Well, the fuss is, does that mean, since we haven't, we haven't drawn the
conclusion in the years before, actually since Desert Storm, that we gotta
invade and finish this job and topple him and disarm him or maybe remove him,
why do we have to do it now so fast? Why can't we wait until there's more? It
just looks, for Europeans and for Germans in particular, as if the United
States had picked this target almost arbitrarily. And that's why this rush is
giving way to suspicions.
TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) When you speak of rush, and Justin, I'm going to put the question
to you. It is hardly unseemly haste if you allow 12 years to elapse, during
which time there have been extensive investigations by weapons inspectors,
during which time sanctions have been imposed, during which time every
diplomatic weapon and lever at our disposal has been used. After 12 years, it's
a little difficult to say that the United States is moving with unseemly haste,
isn't it?
JUSTIN VAISSE
Yes, of course it is. But at the same time, the question is, what happened
during these 12 years? Did it work? Did Saddam attack any of his neighbors? Did
he sponsor terrorism? And the, answer to these questions is, no. And so when
you, what you have to do is put in balance on the one hand, you know, the cost
of the status quo. And on the other hand, the cost of war. And when you take
into account the cost of war, you also have to take into account the risk of
rising terrorism, of, you know, fueling recruitment for terrorist networks. But
also the risk of regional instability and all that. And so, what you have
really to compare is the status quo as opposed to the war. And I think the case
is not being made that the war will be much better after the war than the
status quo.
TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) All right, that's a fair point. But Andrei, let me put the next
question to you, then. Is there ever going to come a time, let's say six months
from now, when the weapons inspectors come back and say, yes, what we found or
what we haven't found is still somewhat inconclusive. We still believe the
Iraqis are not being entirely forthcoming. Will we ever have enough, do you
think, that the three of your governments would say, yes, now we concede that
it's time to go to war?
ANDREI SITOV, ITAR-TASS MEDIA GROUP
Ted, I do not understand the premise of your question. You almost sound as if
you want to go to war.
TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) No...
ANDREI SITOV
And that is, what everybody is concerned about.
TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) Well, if the premise of my question is unclear, let me try and
clarify it for you. What I'm saying is, under what circumstances, if indeed,
the whole purpose of resolution 1441 was to give weapons inspectors time to do
something. My question is, what is that something?
ANDREI SITOV
Okay. I'll answer to that question. The answer to that question is, when the
inspectors say that they have found evidence of violations and of an imminent
threat from the Iraqis and present the evidence to the United Nations, and the
United Nations Security Council votes for it, then, I guess it will be time to
take action.
TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) Where did the issue of imminent threat come in. I don't recall
that being a part of resolution 1441?
ANDREI SITOV
That was just my answer to your question.
TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) I see, so you just made that up. Because imminent threat was never
part of the issue here.
ANDREI SITOV
The imminent threat was brought in by the Americans. From my perspective, this
is the crux of the matter. That's why the public in all the world opposes this
war because, again, if there is an imminent threat, if there is a threat of war
coming from Iraq, then I guess everybody would say, okay, we need to stop that.
But until and unless that threat is shown to be there, to be present, other
people are asking why do Americans want to make war?
TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) So, in point of fact, Tom, and if you could give me a relatively
short answer, we'll take a short break, we're really wasting our time with the
weapons inspectors. Because, even if the weapon inspectors found all kinds of
weapons, unless they could link that to what Andrei describes as the imminent
threat, the governments of Europe and let's put it particularly to you, the
German government, would still say, no, that's not enough.
TOM BUHROW
No European or German diplomat or government would ever admit this, but yes,
that's the underlying untold truth. And the source of exasperations
transatlantic is, the US is thought to be gung-ho about going to war, no matter
what the inspectors find or will not find. But if we're really honest, the
Europeans will read out of anything they find or not find, another reason to
postpone and postpone and postpone.
TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) On that note, gentlemen, let's take a short break and we'll be
back with more in a moment.
commercial break
TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) And we're back once again with Justin Vaisse, Tom Buhrow and Andrei Sitov. Andrei, Washington and Moscow
have a lot of other fish to fry. I mean, Iraq is not the only issue on the
agenda between our two governments. In the final analysis, will Vladimir Putin
step aside and say, go ahead and do what you need to do, simply because of
those other interests?
ANDREI SITOV
In a way, he is in a more difficult position, I think, than his colleagues in
France and Germany. I think everybody believes that the, feud between Mr.
Rumsfeld and those countries is a sort of a family spat that will be resolved
sooner or later. For the Russians, it's much more difficult. They are newcomers
in this club of nations. And they want to establish a place for themselves. So,
yes, if President Putin can find a way to both keep good relations with the
United States and do everything possible to prevent a war, I think he'll do it.
TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) So, in the final analysis, then, you think he'll back away and
step aside and say, I don't like it, but you're gonna have to do what you're
gonna have to do?
ANDREI SITOV
If he sees that the war is inevitable in any way, again, this is, a trap that
the Soviets and the Russians have fallen into many times over the past few
years. They've been building opposition to things that had been preset from the
beginning against them. I don't think they'll do it again.
TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) Tom, is this just a struggle or a tension between two
Administrations or between two countries? In other words, is this a
Bush-Schroeder thing in the final analysis? Or is it a Berlin- Washington spat?
TOM BUHROW
Schroeder-Bush, for sure. And it can become a Berlin-Washington spat. And
that's what we have to prevent, I think, in our mutual interest., Bush is never
going to trust Schroeder again. That's what I hear from, no matter where you,
you know, put your ears up in the Administration, they all say this is over
until, you know, he's out of office, there's no more personal trust
relationship possible. But I'm afraid that this could turn into a sense of
betrayal on the side of the US population. And a sense of weariness or caution
on the side of the German populace. I think that would be a dangerous thing.
Germany, I've heard someone say the other day to me, "you know, I was
always ashamed to be German and for the first time, now, I'm proud to be German
because I really think the government is doing the right thing. I'm for peace.
I'm against war." So, in a way, you know, we got standing up to the United
States in this respect, is a part of German identity. I think, you know, that
should trouble all of us.
TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) Justin, France has some significant economic interests in Iraq.
The Iraqi government has some rather major debts to France. You're shaking your
head.
JUSTIN VAISSE
No, that's, you know, it's like, I keep telling to my French compatriots that
from the US point of view, this is not a war for oil. And believe me, it is
not. And it's exactly the same on the French side. I mean, you could even make
the very good point that if France wanted to enhance its commercial interest
and especially its oil interest, it would just join the US and the UN and it
would attack Iraq and then it would share the spoils afterwards. Because, the
oil contracts that are signed now just will never happen when Saddam is in
place. So, actually what Chirac is doing is running against the interest of
the, French company. And for the US, you could make exactly the same claim,
that it's running against its interests.
TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) Actually, Justin, you anticipated the second half of my question
which was, and therefore, it's my expectation that ultimately France will go
along with the United States.
JUSTIN VAISSE
Yeah, I mean, if it was only about commercial interest, yeah, you could expect
that. But it's more about a principle. And, I mean, we have to take that at
face value, the thing, there are a couple of things that Chirac hold on to. And
commercial interest has really nothing to do with it. You know, the part of our
trade with Iraq, is about zero, it's between zero point one percent and zero
point two percent of our total exports. It's nothing. It's really nothing. And
so, there's nothing like that. So, that's, my fear is that it will go as far as
opposing the US by a veto at the Security Council because it's based on
principle and not only on commercial interests.
TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) Gentlemen, we're out of time, but I thank you very much indeed.
Justin, Andrei, Tom, I appreciate your coming in. I'll be back in a moment with
a program note.
graphics: Nightline: E-mail
ANNOUNCER
To receive a daily e-mail announcement about each evening's
"Nightline" and a preview of special broadcasts, log on to the
"Nightline" page at abcnews.com.
commercial break
TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) The arms inspectors report to the United Nations Security Council
will be carried tomorrow morning on ABC News beginning at 10:15 Eastern.
Tomorrow on "Nightline," we'll bring you a full report of the day's
events.
TED KOPPEL (CONTINUED)
(Off Camera) That's our report for tonight. I'm Ted Koppel in Washington. For
all of us here at ABC News, good night.
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
LOAD-DATE: February 14, 2003