• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

US Senate Moves Decisively; Aziz threatens UNSC

Iraq News, SEPTEMBER 3, 1998

The central focus of Iraq News is the tension between the considerable, proscribed WMD capabilities that Iraq is holding on to and its increasing stridency that it has complied with UNSCR 687 and it is time to lift sanctions. If you wish to receive Iraq News by email, a service which includes full-text of news reports not archived here, send your request to Laurie Mylroie .

I.    GEORGE WILL, "THE ILLUSION OF ARMS CONTROL," WASH POST, SEPT 5
II.   SENATE AMENDMENT, FUNDING DEMOCRATIC IRAQI OPPOSITION, SEPT 2
III.  US, UK SEEKING NEW UNSC RESOLUTION, AP, SEPT 2
IV.   TARIQ AZIZ WARNING ON NEW UNSC RESOLUTION, INA, SEPT 2
   This is the 29th day without weapons inspections in Iraq.  
   Scott Ritter will testify today, Sept 3, in a joint hearing of the 
Senate's Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committees, 2:00 PM, Hart 
Bldg, 216.  That, even as "Iraq News" has heard a report that the 
Clinton administration is preparing a major smear campaign against him. 
The Wash Post broke the story of the administration's blocking UNSCOM 
inspections.  Reportedly, the administration has leaked Ritter's FBI 
file to the NYT, in the expectation it will dig for dirt.
  On Sept 1, CNN's Late Edition asked Sec State Albright about Ritter's 
criticism.  She replied, "I think that Scott Ritter has his piece of the 
story.  He was a good inspector.  I'm not going to criticize him.  
However, he doesn't have a clue about what our overall policy has been. 
We are the foremost supporter of UNSCOM, we have directed--have 
inspired, really, more inspections than anybody else.  If it weren't for 
the United States-and I must say, me, personally-I doubt very much that 
the sanctions regime would be in place as strongly as it is.  Though I 
admire Scott Ritter for his inspections abilities, he is not the one 
putting together US policy which has managed to keep the strongest 
sanctions regime in the history of the world on Saddam Hussein.  We will 
continue to do so. . .  I am not going to speak ill of Scott Ritter-- 
he's a great American--but he does not know the policy that we are 
carrying out."
  Who are they kidding?  Also, this will likely affect US foreign policy 
more generally.  Aaron Lerner, in today's Jerusalem Post, wrote, "The 
Clinton administration has demonstrated only too well its penchant to 
avoid fulfilling its leadership role.  Revelations by former UN weapons 
inspector Scott Ritter that US Secretary of State Albright has been 
responsible for blocking more critical inspections in Iraq than Saddam 
Hussein send a clear warning to anyone who advocates basing Israeli 
security on third-party supervision."
   George Will, in today's Wash Post, wrote, "What Secretary of State 
Madeleine Albright seems to have said, sotto voce, to the United Nations 
is that the United States wants UN inspectors in Iraq not to conduct the 
most aggressive and important inspections of facilities pertaining to 
weapons of mass destruction.  Why provoke Saddam Hussein to call the US 
bluff when Albright knows that the United States has been bluffing when 
threatening severe consequences for an obstructionist Iraq? . . .
   "Ritter says that in Iraq 'the people who protect the weapons are the 
people who protect the president.'  If Ritter is right, 'enforcement' of 
the original UN mandate of eliminating those weapons must mean 
eliminating the man. . . .
   "Four congressional committees are interested in hearing from Ritter. 
The importance of the policy disarray that his resignation protests, and 
the rarity in American public life of resignation from a point of 
principle, will render his testimony riveting.  But, then, the mere 
sighting of such an adult in Clinton's Washington would be newsworthy."
   Yet Will also wrote, "Regarding Iraq, arms control must mean regime 
removal, or it will mean nothing.  If Saddam Hussein cannot be toppled, 
we should shut up rather than continue to squander US credibility. . ." 
But that would most probably just lead to much worse problems.  As Fred 
Hiatt argued in the Wash Post, Aug 16, [see "Iraq News, Aug 17], if the 
US cannot summon the will to act against Saddam Hussein, when he is weak 
and in violation of international agreements, what will the US do, when 
Saddam becomes a nuclear power, which is his ambition?  Also, what might 
Saddam do with the CBW capabilities he retains and/or will develop as 
UNSCOM's presence is eviscerated?  The Wash Post editors, Aug 28 [see 
"Iraq News," Aug 28], underscoring the importance of UNSCOM's mission, 
cited Clinton's words only last Feb, "What if Saddam fails to comply and 
we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him 
yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass 
destruction? . . . Well, he will conclude that the international 
community has lost its will.  He will then conclude that he can go right 
on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.  And 
some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal." 
  Moreover, the Clinton administration has not even tried very hard to 
oust Saddam.  Above all, it has been unwilling to support the Iraqi 
opposition in an insurgency to overthrow Saddam.  
   But Sept 1, the Senate took a ground-breaking measure to give some 
backbone to US policy. It passed an amendment to the foreign operations 
bill [which passed last night] stating that "not less than $10,000,000 
shall be made available only for assistance to the Iraqi democratic 
opposition  . . . Of this amount not less than $3,00,000 shall be made 
available as a grant to the Iraqi National Congress;   . . . provided 
further that of the amounts previously appropriated under section 10008 
of Public law 105-174 not less than $2,000,000 shall be made available 
as a grant to INDICT, the International Campaign to Indict Iraqi War 
Criminals; provided further that  . . . not less than $1,000,000 shall 
be made available as a grant to INDICT;  . . . provided further that ... 
not less than $3,000,000 shall be made available only for the conduct of 
activities by the Iraqi democratic opposition inside Iraq; Provided 
further that within 30 days of enactment of this Act the Secretary of 
State shall submit a detailed report to the appropriate committees of 
Congress on implementation of this section."
   That the Senate passed this amendment on its first day back from 
recess should be taken as a sign of its grave concern over US policy on 
Iraq.  And it did so in the face of fierce administration opposition.  
Asst Sec State for NEA, Martin Indyk, is the point man for shafting the 
INC, just as Madeleine Albright is for UNSCOM.  Indyk was personally 
involved in the failed administration fight.  But the administration is 
expected to come back strongly, when the measure goes into conference, 
before the House and Senate.  The administration is expected to try to 
sabotage it through the House.
   The Senate took the lead on Iraq policy, and the House is catching 
up.  The House was slow, in significant part because several key figures 
relied too much on the CIA, which has made some very serious mistakes.  
Under Clinton, the CIA botched two key elements of Iraq policy, 
inherited from the Bush administration.  One was to support UNSCOM in 
finding and destroying Iraq's proscribed unconventional weapons.  The 
other was to overthrow Saddam.  The urgency, even necessity, of 
achieving those goals may not have seemed so great--until Hussein Kamil 
defected, when it was learned that a large and dangerous unconventional 
capability had survived the war, and Saddam was holding on to it.  After 
that, it became necessary to work vigorously to overthrow Saddam through 
the Iraqi opposition and/or work vigilantly and aggressively to support 
UNSCOM in finding and destroying Iraq's proscribed weapons. But the CIA 
failed to do both.  And that meant Saddam has been left in power as a 
major threat to the region.
   Nonetheless, the Clinton administration is proceeding on its fixed 
path.  Yesterday, AP reported that in conjunction with the UK, the US is 
submitting a draft UNSC resolution, which would suspend sanctions 
reviews, until Iraq resumes cooperation with UNSCOM.  A reader, a former 
DoD official, sent in the AP report with the title "Department of Bad 
Ideas."  In order to get Russian, French, and Chinese agreement, the 
US/UK are also prepared to offer Iraq "a comprehensive review of 
sanctions," if Baghdad renews "cooperation" with UNSCOM, whatever that 
may mean in present circumstances. 
   Also, INA yesterday, reported Tariq Aziz'comments on the draft 
resolution.  Aziz reiterated Iraq's Aug 5 position [see "Iraq News," Aug 
6].  He said, "The Security Council's adoption of the US-British draft 
resolution means that the Council does not give serious attention to 
Iraq's legitimate demands, which were outlined in the statement issued 
by the leadership on 5 August . . . This also means that the Council 
continues to adopt a negative stand towards Iraq's legitimate rights to 
have the blockade lifted.  This matter cannot be ignored. . . . If the 
situation continues the way it is now. . . Iraq will be forced to make 
other decisive decisions in order to protect its interests and security, 
in light of the decisions made by the leadership before 5 August and in 
line with the recommendations of the National Assembly and the will of 
the Iraqi people."