Charlie Rose Science Series
Click here to watch previous episodes of the Charlie Rose Science Series
10/25/2007
Hans Blix
A conversation with Hans Blix
Keywords:
A conversation with Hans Blix. Blix was the head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission from January 2000 to June 2003. In 2002, the commission began searching Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, ultimately finding none.
DVD
Charlie Rose DVDs on Amazon.
Charlie Rose DVDs on Amazon.
Audio
Audio available through Audible.com.
Audio available through Audible.com.
Transcripts
Transcripts available through Voxant.
Transcripts available through Voxant.
"There is a problemâ??the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq," Chirac told Time magazine in February 2003. "The international community is ... right in having decided Iraq should be disarmed.â??â??â??â?? Chicago Tribune!!!!!!!!!!!! Nonsense. Blix made a number of knowing errors. He is very loose with the facts. He said that America had three aircraft carriers in the Gulf. The truth is we only have one as has been the case for years. Blix said that Chirac "personally" told me that Hussein had no WMD. This is nonsense. Read Chirac's quote above. Blix also said that the Niger story from Britain was based on forged documents. This is totally false.... Bix is either a liar or does not know what he is talking about. As the Butler Report puts it ... â??From our examination of the intelligence and other material on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa, we have concluded that: a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. b. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Nigerâ??s exports, the intelligence was credible. c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium and the British Government did not claim this. d. The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it.â?? We have been told that it was not until early 2003 that the British Government became aware that the US (and other states) had received from a journalistic source a number of documents alleged to cover the Iraqi procurement of uranium from Niger. Those documents were passed to the IAEA, which in its update report to the United Nations Security Council in March 2003 determined that the papers were forgeries ... The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it.
I think it is a mistake to suppose that those who refused to join the US in the invasion of Iraq based their decision on the conviction that there where no WMD or, or the contrary, on the conviction that there where indeed WMD but that the path of war, to neutralise those weapons, was morally wrong in one way or another. The decision was on the contrary based on the fact that no one knew for sure if there was or not WMD. The French and others thought that the cost of an intervention, i.e. the consequences we see now should have required a certitude of the eventual gain. It was not, per se, a situation of who was right and who was wrong in is intelligence of what was there, but a situation of: nobody knows. The decision to go to war or not, forced by the US, was to be made on the ground of this incertitude. We cannot rely here on the two value-logic : TRUE vs FALSE. We have to use the three-value logic rationality: TRUE, FALSE and UNKNOWN. And ask ourselves what should have been done in an unknown situation. By asking this question Charlie, you would probably have more intelligible answers, at least from those who opposed the invasion without being naïve about the ambitions of Saddam. The French, and the Canadians behind, said: not knowing exactly what is the danger there, let us look for a certitude before creating more chaos, more resentment and more terrorism. That was the sense of their opposition. Go back to De Villepin address to the UN and this is what you will find.
The Middle East is a cauldron of suspicion where nobody trusts anybody, particularly the US, which is a corrupting influence. Having said that, it is a hard sell to tell another country not to have nuclear weapons when everyone with a pulse knows that Israel has an arsenal with the approval of the US. It is this lop-sided approach to the issue that is an impediment to finding a solution. If Israel disarms its arsenal and subject itself to international monitoring, a stronger case could be built for the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. Until that happens, and we know that it is not going to happen, all negotiations are nothing more than posturing or shadow boxing. Perhaps, when everyone in the region has nuclear weapons, the threat of mutual annihilation would be the best deterrent. It is, perhaps, a Utopian dream because idiots run amok in the halls of power, both in the Middle East and in Washington and some fool might actually press the nuclear trigger. At the end of the day, the world knows that the US is the only country that had used the atom bomb, not once but twice. On this basis, the credibility of the US to broker any deal on WMD when it has the largest arsenal in the world is a strain on common sense, notwithstanding the perceived threats in the ME by the extremists. Unfortunately, the ME does not have exclusivity in producing extremists.
Usually enjoy Charlie Rose but the interview with Hans Blix was too much about Rose and not enough about the views of the estimable Mr. Blix. This interview highlighted the tendency of many media stars to consider that their views are as significant as those who actually have toiled long and admirably for the common good.
I am finally glad Mr Rose has made a comment about the worsening situation in Pakistan. This is the third comment I have made on this web-site about this matter. Musharraf has a tiger by the tail and his grip on that tiger has been slipping ever since he signed the deal with the tribal leaders in NW Pakistan in September 2006. It has slipped to the point where he had to bring back former PM Bhutto to garner the support of the moderates to bolster his grip on that tiger called Islamic Fundamentalism. If Musharraf should lose his grip on that tiger the Bush Leaguers will be faced with another nightmare situation to deal with. It does seem that the perfect storm is brewing across the whole of the southern portion of the Asian continent, a state of war from the Himalayas to the Mediterranean.
While I am a great believer in knowing your history, I think the ruminations about the lead up to the Iraq war have been exhausted for the moment. It is more important to move on to the present, and deal with the current state of the debacle that the Bush Leaguers have wrought upon the world. It is the future moves of this administration that give me concern. The drums are rolling for military action in Iran. The Bush Leaguers are constantly upping the ante on Iran, trying to provoke Iran into making a mistake that will give the USA an excuse to start military action. What truly gives me pause is that Iran isn't giving in to the Bush Leaguers they are giving tit for tat. That raises a great big red flag in my mind. That red flag says, "What does Iran have up its sleeve?" Regionally Iran can put a world of hurt on the US military presence in Iraq making it a virtual Fort Apache, surrounded by Iraqi's. Disrupt the flow of oil in the gulf, cause Lebanon and Israel to explode. Beyond that the Iranians say that can disrupt the USA on a worldwide basis? This leads one to ask the big question, HAVE THE IRANIANS ALLREADY AQQUIRED WMDs? What a shock that would be for the Bush Leaguers to find out the affirmative answer to that question after they have started their military campaign.
This is an excellent and important interview. North Korea is supposedly going to disable all its nuclear facilities by the end of the year, and clearly to Blix that was a big deal. On Iran, Blix seems to be saying they may make a deal on giving up enrichment but they want something significant in return for giving it up. On Iraq, Vladimir Putin had said very publicly before Bush invaded that Iraq had no WMD's but I didn't know Chirac thought that as well.