BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell made his first visit to Iraq on Sunday to get a first-hand look at the situation on the ground and meet with U.S., coalition and Iraqi officials. He spoke to CNN's Wolf Blitzer via satellite from Baghdad.
BLITZER: Why do you need the United Nations now involved in this postwar reconstruction of Iraq? Why can't the U.S. and its coalition partners get the job done by themselves?
POWELL: Well, first of all, we believe that this should be an international effort. We're in the process of rebuilding a country after over 30 years of dictatorship. And the need is great. And we believe the international community should come together for this purpose. And in fact, some 30 nations are here providing forces to the Coalition Provisional Authority's activities.
We believe that with one more resolution, one with a broader mandate than 1483 and 1500, the first two postwar resolutions, with that broader political mandate, other countries in the world might find it easier to participate in either military activity or reconstruction activity.
And it also is a vote of confidence, frankly, for what the Iraqi people are now doing through their newly selected Governing Council, the new cabinet ministries that have just been formed.
People are hard at work over here, Wolf. It's very, very impressive, and I'm very encouraged by what I've seen.
BLITZER: Well, some of the critics, some of the hard-liners, if you will, are saying, well, why should France, for example, have a say in what's going to happen in Iraq, since they opposed liberating Iraq, going to war with Iraq against Saddam Hussein and overthrowing his three decades of power? Why should you now be making concessions to France or Germany or Russia, countries that didn't want you to do this?
POWELL: I'm not aware of any concessions we've made to France or Germany or Russia.
The debate we had earlier this year about going to war or not going to war is over. The international community is coming back together again. Resolution 1483 was unanimous. Fifteen hundred was unanimous. And so I think there's an opportunity to once again show solid support from the U.N.
And this is how resolutions are put together. One country puts down a draft, perhaps sponsored by another country. And then the other members of the Security Council consider it, offer opinions and suggest changes, and we work our way through it until we get a resolution that we hope most people will agree to.
Remember, there are 15 members of the Security Council, not just the United States, not just France. And all we need for a successful resolution is nine votes. And I'm confident that, with enough work and enough goodwill, we can find a way through this and get a positive vote.
BLITZER: I guess the other critics are suggesting there was a basic miscalculation in the postwar strategy that you had, that's resulting in your having now to go back to the U.N. Security Council, in effect, ask these other nations for help because you miscalculated what was going to happen.
POWELL: That's not the reason we went back to the U.N. We always knew the U.N. would play a role. Remember, the president, on many occasions, said that he wanted the U.N. to play a vital role. Why? Because the president believes in the U.N., and the U.N. is the institution that brings the whole world together.
And the U.N. has a number of agencies under it that can help the people of Iraq with their humanitarian needs, with their electoral needs, to help them write a constitution.
That's why we were so encouraged when Kofi Annan sent over Sergio de Mello, who gave his life in the cause of freedom and in the cause of reconstruction of this country and for the Iraqi people.
And so we always believed the U.N. had a vital role to play, and this resolution will further shape and define that vital role.
It's not a matter of we can't do it without the U.N. Without another U.N. resolution, we already have 30 countries here. But if more can be encouraged to come, more can be encouraged to give, then it seems appropriate. It seems appropriate to give a broader mandate in order to encourage the Iraqi people to move in the direction that they are now starting to move.
BLITZER: There's no doubt that everyone wants to wind up at the same place, namely that the Iraqis will be in charge of their country, there will be democracy there. But obviously there are serious differences, especially between the Bush administration and the French government, over how to get there.
What's the basic, big difference that you have to overcome with the government of France right now in order to get this new resolution?
POWELL: The disagreement we're having with France has to do with the timing of returning full authority and sovereignty to the Iraqi people. For reasons that are understandable, France believes that we ought to do this as quickly as possible, suggesting even perhaps within a month. The only problem with that is that there is not yet a functioning government that you can turn authority over to. And the last thing we want to do is to set up the Iraqis to fail.
They need time to bring their ministries up to speed, to man them, to start functioning. They need time to write a constitution. They need time after that constitution is written and ratified to hold elections.
We want to turn the government over from us to the Iraqi people, but with an Iraqi leadership that has been elected by the people, not just a group of individuals who have been appointed. And I think that's the flaw in the French plan. And we've had open discussions with our French colleagues about it.
Let me also remind you, it is not the U.S. versus France. There are, once again, 15 nations in the Security Council. And France has been most outspoken with respect to this issue, and I hope we'll find a way to bridge the difference between us and France.
Where we all agree, all 15 nations, that as soon as it is possible, we want authority to go back to the Iraqi people, totally. The United States and its coalition partners do not want to stay here one day longer. And, Wolf, I just met for an hour and a half with the new Governing Council. They've got ideas. They've got economic ideas. They've got political ideas.
I just met before that with the new foreign minister who succeeded in persuading the Arab League to seat him as representing Iraq. They've declared within the last two days that they will have an independent judiciary.
After this interview is over, I'm going to go meet with the Baghdad City Council, representatives of city councils all across this country. And so there is political life returning here on a democratic basis. The Iraqi people are being presented a future so totally different from the horrible past from which they've just come out.
And while people argue and debate, which is the right thing to do in a democratic system, about the difficulties that lie ahead, don't forget the achievements that we have obtained, and don't forget Saddam Hussein is gone. That awful regime is gone. That threat to the region is gone. And a new democratic Iraq will arise from this, even though it will take a lot of work, a lot of money and a lot of goodwill. It will happen.
BLITZER: As you know, the debate here in the United States is intensifying. Your critics are speaking out in ever-more-forceful words, criticizing the policy, especially the postwar policy. [Some critics compare the effort to the war in Vietnam.]
Mr. Secretary, you served in Vietnam. This is a sensitive subject for you and for a lot of Americans. Is this another Vietnam?
POWELL: No. And, you know, we ought to stop with these rather bizarre historical allusions back to something that happened 25, 30 years ago. Let's deal with the facts on the ground and where we are now.
We have removed a dictatorial regime. There will be no more mass graves. These people will no longer be oppressed. We're restoring the basic services that the society needs, electricity, water, sewage.
Everybody is eating. Everybody now has access to health care. The universities are open, the schools are being opened. Security is slowly being re-established.
Yes, it's a little unstable in the central part of the country. We are taking casualties. We regret each and every one. But we knew it would be difficult, and we are encouraging more and more people to contribute to our work here. And from what I have seen here over the last several hours, just in the last several hours, listening to Ambassador [L. Paul] Bremer and his people, General [John] Abizaid, General [Ricardo Sanchez], and their staff, but more importantly, speaking to Iraqis, the Governing Council, new ministers have been appointed and other Iraqis I have spoken to and look forward to speaking to this afternoon, there's a sense of hope here even in this time of difficulty.
And those who are so critical of the administration might want to hold their fire a bit. They may also resemble those who were so critical of the way the war was being fought the first few days of the war.
BLITZER:The deputy secretary of defense, Paul Wolfowitz, one week into the war, at the end of March of this year, told the U.S. Congress [That Iraqi oil revenues would finance much of the reconstruction]. He was obviously wrong on that specific point, that the Iraqis could finance their own reconstruction and do it soon.
POWELL: The oil revenues of the Iraqi people will be used to operate the government, but the infrastructure was so broken once we got in here and had a chance to see it, as a result of 30 years of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, that the need is far greater than we thought. And now we have to respond to that need.
And it will be a combination of contribution of the American people, other nations around the world participating in financing the reconstruction, and, yes, the revenues that will be generated by the Iraqi people through the sale of their oil.
BLITZER: Right, we get that. But Wolfowitz was clearly wrong when he thought that the Iraqis could finance this reconstruction on their own, largely, and do that relatively soon. That was way overly optimistic.
POWELL: Well, in light of what we have found out, it wasn't an accurate statement at the time. And I think Paul would agree to that.
BLITZER: Why do you need the United Nations now involved in this postwar reconstruction of Iraq? Why can't the U.S. and its coalition partners get the job done by themselves?
POWELL: Well, first of all, we believe that this should be an international effort. We're in the process of rebuilding a country after over 30 years of dictatorship. And the need is great. And we believe the international community should come together for this purpose. And in fact, some 30 nations are here providing forces to the Coalition Provisional Authority's activities.
We believe that with one more resolution, one with a broader mandate than 1483 and 1500, the first two postwar resolutions, with that broader political mandate, other countries in the world might find it easier to participate in either military activity or reconstruction activity.
And it also is a vote of confidence, frankly, for what the Iraqi people are now doing through their newly selected Governing Council, the new cabinet ministries that have just been formed.
People are hard at work over here, Wolf. It's very, very impressive, and I'm very encouraged by what I've seen.
BLITZER: Well, some of the critics, some of the hard-liners, if you will, are saying, well, why should France, for example, have a say in what's going to happen in Iraq, since they opposed liberating Iraq, going to war with Iraq against Saddam Hussein and overthrowing his three decades of power? Why should you now be making concessions to France or Germany or Russia, countries that didn't want you to do this?
POWELL: I'm not aware of any concessions we've made to France or Germany or Russia.
The debate we had earlier this year about going to war or not going to war is over. The international community is coming back together again. Resolution 1483 was unanimous. Fifteen hundred was unanimous. And so I think there's an opportunity to once again show solid support from the U.N.
And this is how resolutions are put together. One country puts down a draft, perhaps sponsored by another country. And then the other members of the Security Council consider it, offer opinions and suggest changes, and we work our way through it until we get a resolution that we hope most people will agree to.
Remember, there are 15 members of the Security Council, not just the United States, not just France. And all we need for a successful resolution is nine votes. And I'm confident that, with enough work and enough goodwill, we can find a way through this and get a positive vote.
BLITZER: I guess the other critics are suggesting there was a basic miscalculation in the postwar strategy that you had, that's resulting in your having now to go back to the U.N. Security Council, in effect, ask these other nations for help because you miscalculated what was going to happen.
POWELL: That's not the reason we went back to the U.N. We always knew the U.N. would play a role. Remember, the president, on many occasions, said that he wanted the U.N. to play a vital role. Why? Because the president believes in the U.N., and the U.N. is the institution that brings the whole world together.
And the U.N. has a number of agencies under it that can help the people of Iraq with their humanitarian needs, with their electoral needs, to help them write a constitution.
That's why we were so encouraged when Kofi Annan sent over Sergio de Mello, who gave his life in the cause of freedom and in the cause of reconstruction of this country and for the Iraqi people.
And so we always believed the U.N. had a vital role to play, and this resolution will further shape and define that vital role.
It's not a matter of we can't do it without the U.N. Without another U.N. resolution, we already have 30 countries here. But if more can be encouraged to come, more can be encouraged to give, then it seems appropriate. It seems appropriate to give a broader mandate in order to encourage the Iraqi people to move in the direction that they are now starting to move.
BLITZER: There's no doubt that everyone wants to wind up at the same place, namely that the Iraqis will be in charge of their country, there will be democracy there. But obviously there are serious differences, especially between the Bush administration and the French government, over how to get there.
What's the basic, big difference that you have to overcome with the government of France right now in order to get this new resolution?
POWELL: The disagreement we're having with France has to do with the timing of returning full authority and sovereignty to the Iraqi people. For reasons that are understandable, France believes that we ought to do this as quickly as possible, suggesting even perhaps within a month. The only problem with that is that there is not yet a functioning government that you can turn authority over to. And the last thing we want to do is to set up the Iraqis to fail.
They need time to bring their ministries up to speed, to man them, to start functioning. They need time to write a constitution. They need time after that constitution is written and ratified to hold elections.
We want to turn the government over from us to the Iraqi people, but with an Iraqi leadership that has been elected by the people, not just a group of individuals who have been appointed. And I think that's the flaw in the French plan. And we've had open discussions with our French colleagues about it.
Let me also remind you, it is not the U.S. versus France. There are, once again, 15 nations in the Security Council. And France has been most outspoken with respect to this issue, and I hope we'll find a way to bridge the difference between us and France.
Where we all agree, all 15 nations, that as soon as it is possible, we want authority to go back to the Iraqi people, totally. The United States and its coalition partners do not want to stay here one day longer. And, Wolf, I just met for an hour and a half with the new Governing Council. They've got ideas. They've got economic ideas. They've got political ideas.
I just met before that with the new foreign minister who succeeded in persuading the Arab League to seat him as representing Iraq. They've declared within the last two days that they will have an independent judiciary.
After this interview is over, I'm going to go meet with the Baghdad City Council, representatives of city councils all across this country. And so there is political life returning here on a democratic basis. The Iraqi people are being presented a future so totally different from the horrible past from which they've just come out.
And while people argue and debate, which is the right thing to do in a democratic system, about the difficulties that lie ahead, don't forget the achievements that we have obtained, and don't forget Saddam Hussein is gone. That awful regime is gone. That threat to the region is gone. And a new democratic Iraq will arise from this, even though it will take a lot of work, a lot of money and a lot of goodwill. It will happen.
BLITZER: As you know, the debate here in the United States is intensifying. Your critics are speaking out in ever-more-forceful words, criticizing the policy, especially the postwar policy. [Some critics compare the effort to the war in Vietnam.]
Mr. Secretary, you served in Vietnam. This is a sensitive subject for you and for a lot of Americans. Is this another Vietnam?
POWELL: No. And, you know, we ought to stop with these rather bizarre historical allusions back to something that happened 25, 30 years ago. Let's deal with the facts on the ground and where we are now.
We have removed a dictatorial regime. There will be no more mass graves. These people will no longer be oppressed. We're restoring the basic services that the society needs, electricity, water, sewage.
Everybody is eating. Everybody now has access to health care. The universities are open, the schools are being opened. Security is slowly being re-established.
Yes, it's a little unstable in the central part of the country. We are taking casualties. We regret each and every one. But we knew it would be difficult, and we are encouraging more and more people to contribute to our work here. And from what I have seen here over the last several hours, just in the last several hours, listening to Ambassador [L. Paul] Bremer and his people, General [John] Abizaid, General [Ricardo Sanchez], and their staff, but more importantly, speaking to Iraqis, the Governing Council, new ministers have been appointed and other Iraqis I have spoken to and look forward to speaking to this afternoon, there's a sense of hope here even in this time of difficulty.
And those who are so critical of the administration might want to hold their fire a bit. They may also resemble those who were so critical of the way the war was being fought the first few days of the war.
BLITZER:The deputy secretary of defense, Paul Wolfowitz, one week into the war, at the end of March of this year, told the U.S. Congress [That Iraqi oil revenues would finance much of the reconstruction]. He was obviously wrong on that specific point, that the Iraqis could finance their own reconstruction and do it soon.
POWELL: The oil revenues of the Iraqi people will be used to operate the government, but the infrastructure was so broken once we got in here and had a chance to see it, as a result of 30 years of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, that the need is far greater than we thought. And now we have to respond to that need.
And it will be a combination of contribution of the American people, other nations around the world participating in financing the reconstruction, and, yes, the revenues that will be generated by the Iraqi people through the sale of their oil.
BLITZER: Right, we get that. But Wolfowitz was clearly wrong when he thought that the Iraqis could finance this reconstruction on their own, largely, and do that relatively soon. That was way overly optimistic.
POWELL: Well, in light of what we have found out, it wasn't an accurate statement at the time. And I think Paul would agree to that.