Developments
Iraq News, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1998
By Laurie MylroieThe 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. UNSCOM LETTER TO UNSC ON IRAQ'S DEMANDS, OCT 31
II. UNSC STATEMENT ON IRAQ, OCT 31
III. NAT'L ASSEMBLY STATEMENT AFFIRMING RCC, BA'TH DECISION, INA, NOV 2
IV. CLINTON STATEMENT ON IRAQ, NOV 1
V. CLINTON STATEMENT ON IRAQ, NOV 2
VI. WASH POST EDITORS, "IRAQ'S DEFIANCE," NOV 3
VII. NYT EDITORS, "IRAQ'S AUDACIOUS DEFIANCE," NOV 3
VIII. WSJ, PENTAGON THINKING ON IRAQ, NOV 2
Today is the 90th day without weapons inspections in Iraq and the
third day without UNSCOM monitoring.
Experienced mid-east correspondent, David Hirst, in the Wash Times,
Nov 2, from Beirut, wrote "Iraq's ban on spot searches, three months
old, has struck at the heart of UNSCOM's purposes. . . For three
months, the United States has done nothing at all. And that, it has
become clear, is because there has been a basic change of US policy that
high officials have acknowledged only under heavy questioning. . . .
Although Saddam has a timetable, he has always been ready for tactical
retreats in the face of superior might. But these US shifts can only
have encouraged him to stick to his timetable more than ever in the
conviction that, despite the fundamental imbalance of power, he will
triumph in the end. . . . The question is whether the United States will
now conclude that Saddam has 'broken out of his box,' thereby inviting
the 'swift and strong' US response that Mrs. Albright threatened. If it
does, then military confrontation is on the way. But if, once more, the
United States chooses not to pick up Saddam's gauntlet, the more
difficult and dangerous that will be if and when it does. That's true
not only because of the growing Arab and international opposition to
military action-the Security Council's current unanimity is unlikely to
endure-but also because Saddam will be better able to deploy the very
arsenal of mass destruction that the sanctions have clearly failed to
divest him of. Mr. Ritter recently told the Senate that, without
inspections, it would take Saddam six months to reconstitute his
chemical, biological and missile capability. If that is the case, then
by now he may already be halfway there."
On Oct 31, UNSCOM Dep Chairman, Charles Duelfer, in a brief letter to
the UNSC, explained Iraq's new restrictions on UNSCOM. On Oct 31,
UNSCOM's Monitoring and Verification Center in Baghdad was told that
decisions had been made: "to suspend, stop or cease all activities of
the Special Commission, including monitoring; the monitoring teams will
not be allowed to conduct any activities; members of the Commission's
monitoring team are not requested to depart Iraq; UNSCOM monitoring
cameras and other equipment will remain in place and working; but
visiting of those cameras will not be allowed."
Baghdad's move resulted in the UNSC statement, the same day, which
"unanimously condemned" Iraq's decision as "a flagrant violation of
relevant Council resolution and of the Memorandum of Understanding
signed between the Secretary-General and the Deputy Prime Minister of
Iraq" and which demanded Iraq's "immediate complete and unconditional
cooperation" with UNSCOM and the IAEA.
Still, as INA reported yesterday, Iraq's Nat'l Assembly endorsed the
decision to suspend UNSCOM monitoring and "called on all world
parliamentarians to confront the extermination of people and the
imposition of sanctions on them for purely political reasons. The
assembly also called on world parliamentarians to urge their respective
governments to oppose the military threats the US administration
launches against the people to impose its hegemony on the world in
violation of all international conventions and norms."
Also, yesterday, Pres Clinton spoke about Iraq at the beginning of a
health event at the White House. Clinton said, "Saddam Hussein's latest
refusal to cooperate with the international weapons inspectors is
completely unacceptable. Once again, though, it will backfire."
But Saddam is better off today, than he was a year ago. One
Washington reader characterized that as, "more mush from the wimp."
Clinton also said, "No options are off the table." As Scott Ritter
cautioned on NBC Nightly News, yesterday, that can mean capitulation is
on the table too.
And today's NYT reported, "Several [US] officials said they were not
convinced that Iraq would follow through on its threat of shutting down
the entire weapons program, a move that they agreed would almost
certainly result in a devastating military response from the United
States. 'No one would be surprised if this was another bluff from
Saddam,' said a senior administration official. 'However, if it's not a
bluff, then we have a true crisis on our hands. Then we have to start
thinking seriously about a military attack.'"
What does it take? Yesterday, the top nat'l security team met for
the third day running on Iraq, this time with Clinton present, and
decided to send Sec Def William Cohen and Under Sec State Thomas
Pickering to consult with allies in Europe and the Gulf.
Meanwhile, at the UN, as the Wash Post reported today, "Diplomatic
sources here said that it probably will take a while, perhaps two weeks
or more, before the situation reaches a military confrontation. As past
confrontations between the United Nations and Iraq have shown, there is
a diplomatic ritual that will have to be played out first. That will
begin Tuesday, when the council begins discussion of turning its
statement of Saturday . . . into a formal resolution as a springboard
for further action. The sources said that could take until the end of
the week, and then, they added, the council would have to start
considering what that action should be. Some diplomats here already
have started suggesting that Secretary General Kofi Annan should be
dispatched to Baghdad in hopes that he could repeat his success of last
February . . . However, while Annan has said it is up to the council to
decide what he should do, sources familiar with his thinking say he is
very reluctant to go because he believes that this time there is no
negotiating room to strike a deal with the Iraqis. . . . Diplomats here
pointed to the likelihood that those permanent council members that
advocate a more flexible line in dealing with Iraq-notably Russia and
France-would try to intercede, as they have in past confrontations, to
urge Baghdad to back down. The more likely candidate for an
intermediary's role, diplomats said, would be Russia. . . . Primakov
probably would view acting as peacemaker as a welcome distraction from
wrestling with the bankrupt Russian economy."
At yesterday's White House press briefing, spokesman Joe Lockhart was
asked, "You say [Saddam] hasn't been successful with each of these steps
he's taken. But at the same time, there's been no adverse action
against him." Lockhart replied, "I think there has been an adverse
action. If you look at where we were earlier in the year, there was
some belief-there was some split in the international community, and his
actions against UNSCOM brought the international community back together
firmly committed to getting cooperation from him. And as his end
game-his end game is to get from underneath these sanctions. And the UN
in August suspended the sanctions review, thus creating a serious
problem for him." The reporter then asked, "What makes you think that
that's his end game? Why couldn't his endgame be an end to the UN
inspections that lets him reconstitute his weapons program?" Lockhart
replied, "Well I think we'll take him at this word on what his endgame
is because he's repeatedly and clearly articulated that he thinks the
sanctions are unfair and need to be lifted." Yet what if that
convenient assumption is incorrect?
This all has precipitated very strong criticism. The Center for
Security policy, in a Decision Brief yesterday, described "the meltdown
of US policy towards Iraq. At this writing, the Clinton Administration
is engaged in intensive hand-wringing about Saddam's latest act of
defiance. With his complete suspension of 'cooperation' (such as it has
been) with UNSCOM, the fat is squarely in the fire: Apart from a
teetering sanctions regime, there is now no check whatsoever upon the
restoration of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. Clearly,
the UN is neither willing nor able-with the likes of Primakov wielding
Security Council vetoes-to mount an effective response. Consequently,
President Clinton's insistence (at least through the election) that the
UN must take the lead in responding to Saddam's latest provocations can
only further embolden the Iraqi dictator."
And the lead editorials in today's Wash Post and NYT both slammed the
administration over Iraq. In "Iraq's Defiance," the Wash Post editors
wrote, "Absent a response from the Clinton administration and the United
Nations, nothing now will impede Saddam Hussein's ambitions to maintain
and rebuild the weapons of mass destruction he promised to give up. . .
The United States must respond with force if Iraq does not allow UN
teams-passive monitors and surprise inspectors alike-to resume their
work. . . . Its bombing campaign should not be symbolic but designed to
destroy as much of Saddam Hussein's capability to make and use weapons
of mass destruction as possible. . . A serious strategy also must
include support for Iraqis seeking to replace Saddam Hussein's criminal
regime with something more democratic and less bellicose. Mr. Clinton,
in signing the Iraq Liberation Act on Saturday, vowed support for such a
transformation and said, 'The evidence is overwhelming that such changes
will not happen under the current Iraqi leadership.'"
The NYT editors, in "Iraq's Audacious Defiance," wrote, "Experience
suggests that resolutions alone will not be enough to make Iraq live up
to its obligations. . . . Whenever Hussein senses hesitation he moves to
gain advantage, and Washington is now dealing with the predictable
consequence of its desire to avoid another confrontation with Iraq. . .
If diplomacy backed by the threat of force does not budge Hussein,
military action itself may be needed.
Finally, the WSJ, Nov 2, reported on DoD thinking in regard to Iraq,
"The Pentagon's preference is that the US, having received some sort of
backing from the UN, tells Iraq to permit inspection of a given
facility, and then, after Iraq refuses, destroys the facility. 'We can
ask very politely to inspect a site,' said one US defense official
involved in Iraq policy. 'And if they say no, it can disappear 20
minutes later.'"
I. UNSCOM LETTER TO UNSC ON IRAQ'S DEMANDS
October 31, 1998
Letter dated 31 October 1998 from the Deputy Executive Chairman of the
Special Commission Established by the Secretary-General pursuant to
paragraph 9 (b) (i) of Security Council Resolution 687 (1991) addressed
to the President of the Security Council
Under instructions from the Executive Chairman, who is absent from
New York, I write to inform you, and through you, the members of the
Security Council, of a decision by the Government of Iraq that has been
conveyed to me today, 31 October 1998. On the evening of 31 October,
Baghdad time, the National Monitoring Directorate of Iraq (NMD) called
for a meeting with representatives of the Commission's Baghdad
Monitoring and Verification Centre (BMVC). In that meeting, the Director
of the NMD informed orally the Deputy Director of BMVC that the
Revolutionary Command Council and the Ba'ath Party had taken the
following decisions:-- to suspend, stop or cease all activities of the
Special Commission, including monitoring;-- the monitoring teams will
not be allowed to conduct any activities;-- members of the Commission's
monitoring teams are not requested todepart from Iraq;-- UNSCOM
monitoring cameras and other equipment will remain in place and working,
but visiting of those cameras will not be allowed;-- the IAEA will be
allowed to continue its monitoring activities, provided that they are
independent from the Commission. No written text of these decisions was
provided to the Commission. I would be grateful if you would bring the
present letter to the attention of the members of the Security Council.
(Signed) Charles Duelfer
Deputy Executive Chairman
II. UNSC STATEMENT ON IRAQ
31 October 1998
Press Statement
Members of the Security Council unanimously condemned today's decision
of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council to cease all cooperation with
the UN Special Commission. Members considered this decision a flagrant
violation of relevant Council resolutions and of the Memorandum of
Understanding signed between the Secretary-General and the Deputy Prime
Minister of Iraq. Members demanded that the Iraqi leadership must
rescind immediately and unconditionally today's decision, as well as the
decision of August 5, to limit cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA, as
previously demanded by the Council in UNSCR 1194, and must resume
immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation with the Special
Commission and the IAEA. Once Iraq has rescinded its decisions and has
re-established full cooperation with the Special Commission and the
IAEA, members remain ready, as clearly reaffirmed in the October 30
letter from the President of the Council to the Secretary-General, to
implement a comprehensive review of Iraq's compliance with its
obligations under all relevant resolutions. This decision by Iraq has
delayed that prospect. Members expressed their full support for the
Secretary-General in seeking to implement fully his Memorandum of
Understanding with Iraq and for the Special Commission and the IAEA in
implementing their mandates. Members praised the work and commitment of
the staff of UNSCOM and IAEA in difficult circumstances in Iraq.
Today's announcement from Baghdad and also the continuing restrictions
on the work of IAEA are deeply disturbing. In the coming days, the
Council will remain actively seized of this matter, in order to ensure
the full implementation of the relevant resolutions and secure peace and
security in the region.
III. NAT'L ASSEMBLY STATEMENT AFFIRMING RCC, BA'TH DECISION
Baghdad INA in Arabic 1100 GMT 2 Nov 98
[FBIS Translated Text] Baghdad 2 Nov (INA) The Iraq National Assembly
has announced it fully supports the decision made by the joint meeting
of the Iraqi Revolution Command Council and the Iraq Command of the
Ba'th Party the day before yesterday, the suspension of all forms of
dealings with the UN Special Commission and its chairman, and the
suspension of its activities in Iraq, including monitoring activities.
The Iraqi National Assembly met here today and issued a statement
that was unanimously approved by the representatives of the people. The
statement stresses that lifting the embargo is a national, pan-Arab, and
humanitarian task. The assembly denounced UNSCOM's role and its
chairman who are instruments in US hands, which it uses to harm Iraq and
spy on it.
The National Assembly strongly condemned the ongoing attempts by the
United States and its supporters to deny Iraq the right to have its
achievements in the field of the implementation of the UN Security
Council resolution be recognized, particularly with respect to Paragraph
C of Resolution 687, which will initiate the lifting of the embargo
imposed on the Iraqi people. The national assembly called on all world
parliamentarians to confront the extermination of people and the
imposition of sanctions on them for purely political reasons. The
assembly also called on world parliamentarians to urge their respective
governments to oppose the military threats the US administration
launches against the people to impose its hegemony on the world in
violation of all international conventions and norms.
[Description of source: Official news agency of the Iraqi Government]
IV. CLINTON STATEMENT ON IRAQ, NOV 1
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
Interview by April Ryan, American Urban Radio Network, Pastor's Parlor
New Psalmist Baptist Church Baltimore, Maryland, Nov 1, 1998 3:25 PM EST
Q: Okay, last question. There are some movements, or non-movements, in
Iraq now. What's the next step through the administration for Saddam
Hussein?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we're examining that now. As a matter of fact, this
afternoon my national security team is meeting. I've already had a
couple of briefings about it. I think it's important to go back to the
basics. First of all, let's look at the basics. At the end of the Gulf
War, as part of the conditions of peace, Saddam Hussein agreed to
suspend his biological, chemical and nuclear programs, to be subject to
inspections to see that that was done and to see that all the materials
were destroyed. We were actually making, I thought, quite a bit of
progress in that inspection after the last little crisis we had. And we
were moving toward a resolution of some of the issues when he first
suspended the inspections and now, apparently, has decided to terminate
his participation in the U.N. inspection system. It's a clear violation
of the commitments that he made, a clear violation of the U.N. Security
Council resolutions. I, personally, am very pleased that the U.N.
Security Council, including some people that I think have been a little
tolerant with him in the past, strongly condemned what he did. From my
point of view we should keep all our options open, examine the nature of
the action and where we are and then do what's best for the integrity of
the United Nations and the interests, the security interests of the
people of the United States. I think that's all I should say about it
now. I want to let my people meet, let them give me some advice and see
where we go from here.
V. CLINTON STATEMENT ON IRAQ, NOV 2
Clinton Remarks on Iraq at Beginning of Health Event Nov. 2
Let me say before I begin a few words about the situation in Iraq,
which has been dominating the news and I haven't had a chance to talk
to the American people through the press in the last couple of days.
Saddam Hussein's latest refusal to cooperate with the international
weapons inspectors is completely unacceptable. Once again, though, it
will backfire. Far from dividing the international community and
achieving concessions, his obstructionism was immediately and
unanimously condemned by the United Nations Security Council. It has
only served to deepen the international community's resolve.
Just a short while ago, I met with my national security team to
review the situation and discuss our next steps. Iraq must let the
inspectors finish the job they started seven years ago, a job Iraq
promised to let them do repeatedly.
What is that job? Making sure Iraq accounts for and destroys all its
chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons capability and the missiles
to deliver such weapons. For Iraq the only path to lifting sanctions
is through complete cooperation with the weapons inspectors, without
restrictions, runarounds, or road blocks.
In the coming days, we will be consulting closely with our allies and
our friends in the region. Until the inspectors are back on the job, no
options are off the table.
VI. WASH POST EDITORS, "IRAQ'S DEFIANCE"
Washington Post
Editorial
Iraq's Defiance
Tuesday, November 3, 1998; Page A16
Saddam Hussein now has taken the final step in breaking his promises
of cooperation with the United Nations. He had for three months been
blocking surprise inspections by U.N. arms experts trying to ferret out
his clandestine nuclear- biological- and chemical-weapons programs. Now
he has said he will block even the regular, announced visits by U.N.
monitors whose work had been continuing. Absent a response from the
Clinton administration and the United Nations, nothing now will impede
Saddam Hussein's ambitions to maintain and rebuild the weapons of mass
destruction he promised to give up.
Secretary of Defense William Cohen said that U.N. Secretary General
Kofi Annan "should be concerned because his credibility and that of the
Security Council is on the line." Mr. Annan's spokesman immediately
sought to deflect the responsibility. The squabbling was unseemly and
discouraging. In fact, Mr. Annan's credibility is on the line, but
President Clinton's is more so. It was Mr. Clinton who sent Mr. Annan to
Baghdad last February to defuse a similar crisis; it was Mr. Clinton who
promised a military response if Saddam Hussein violated the agreement
Mr. Annan negotiated; and it was Mr. Clinton who failed to respond when
Iraq shredded the pact in August.
No wonder Iraq's vice president can say, "Iraq does not fear the
threat of the United States because it has been threatening Iraq for the
past eight years."
The United States must respond with force if Iraq does not allow U.N.
teams -- passive monitors and surprise inspectors alike -- to resume
their work. It should respond as part of a U.N.-backed alliance if
possible, alone if necessary. Its bombing campaign should not be
symbolic but designed to destroy as much of Saddam Hussein's capability
to make and use weapons of mass destruction as possible. Yes, even such
a serious military effort might end with Saddam Hussein still in and
U.N. inspectors still out. That is why a serious strategy to deal with
Iraq must include a willingness to bomb more than once, if Saddam
Hussein again tries to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction.
A serious strategy also must include support for Iraqis seeking to
replace Saddam Hussein's criminal regime with something more democratic
and less bellicose. Mr. Clinton, in signing the Iraq Liberation Act on
Saturday, vowed support for such a transformation and said, "The
evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the
current Iraq leadership."
This is not a matter of the United States and other countries
meddling without right in Iraq's internal affairs. Iraq began this by
invading Kuwait. The United Nations authorized a U.S.-led military
campaign to reverse that aggression. Having defeated Iraq's army, the
United States chose to accept, in place of Saddam Hussein's total
surrender and relinquishing of power, his pledge to disarm. His failure
after all these years to honor that pledge gives the United Nations
every right to reconsider its merciful cease-fire terms.
VII. NYT EDITORS, "IRAQ'S AUDACIOUS DEFIANCE"
New York Times
Editorial
November 3, 1998
Iraq's Audacious Defiance
Emboldened by its past successes in curtailing United Nations arms
inspections, Iraq has now virtually banned all monitoring efforts.
Before Saddam Hussein will let this vital work resume, he unreasonably
demands that the Security Council guarantee an early end to
international economic sanctions against Iraq. Such a commitment would
relieve Baghdad of its obligation to prove it has eliminated all illegal
biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and missiles that can deliver
them.
This contempt for Security Council resolutions has spurred even
previously equivocal council members like Russia and France to condemn
Baghdad's decision and demand that Iraq comply in full with all
resolutions. This show of unity is important, and welcome. But
experience suggests that resolutions alone will not be enough to make
Iraq live up to its obligations. Washington, together with whatever
partners it can mobilize, must once again be prepared to enforce the
council's demands with military action.
Since August, Iraq has prohibited U.N. investigators from carrying
out surprise inspections of new locations where they believed weapons
ingredients or documentary evidence might be hidden. That seriously
undermined the inspection program, but at least previously identified
sites were still visited by inspectors and kept under surveillance by
cameras and chemical detection devices. Now even those routine
inspection visits have been barred.
For the moment, Iraq is not interfering with technicians who maintain
video cameras and replace batteries at locations where these devices
have been installed. But maintaining this equipment is much less
important than the physical inspections by trained specialists.
Until early this year Washington consistently backed the U.N.
inspection program with the threat to use force, the only language that
seems to move Hussein. But White House resolve weakened last spring and
Washington responded meekly when Iraq halted surprise inspections in
August.
Whenever Hussein senses hesitation he moves to gain advantage, and
Washington is now dealing with the predictable consequence of its desire
to avoid another confrontation with Iraq. The threat of Iraqi chemical
and biological weapons is too grave to treat exclusively as a diplomatic
matter, as the White House now seems belatedly to recognize. If
diplomacy backed by the threat of force does not budge Hussein, military
action itself may be needed.
VIII. WSJ, PENTAGON THINKING ON IRAQ
Wall Street Journal
November 2, 1998, p. 4
US Weighs Options in Dealing with Iraqi Crisis
By Robert S. Greenberger and Thomas E. Ricks
Staff Reporters of The Wall Street Journal
WASHINGTON-Top US foreign policy makers are expected to present
President Clinton by tomorrow with a list of options for dealing with
the Iraqi crisis, including military action.
Mr. Clinton's top advisers, including Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright, Defense Secretary William Cohen, and National Security Adviser
Samuel Berger, had scheduled a meeting late yesterday to discuss Saddam
Hussein's weekend decision to shut down United Nations weapons
monitoring operations. While Iraq's action poses a big test of the
administration's policy of trying to contain the Iraqi dictator without
a major military confrontation, last night's meeting indicates Clinton
advisers are preparing a quick response.
The UN Security Council, meantime, strongly condemned what it called
Iraq's "flagrant violation" of UN resolutions. The UN Secretary
General, Kofi Annan's special envoy to Iraq, Prakash Shah, who had been
in Baghdad late last week, was expected to return there to seek an
explanation of Iraq's latest moves.
Yesterday, a defiant Baghdad dismissed the UN condemnation, saying it
wouldn't reverse its decision until UN economic sanctions are lifted.
On Saturday, Iraq said it would end all cooperation with the UN's
weapons inspectors, although it didn't threaten to expel monitors as it
had almost exactly a year ago. Iraq said it would permit inspectors
from the International Atomic Energy Agency to remain.
Early this year, the US threatened to go to war to protect the
rights of the international inspectors. But that policy was abandoned
when Washington realized it had neither sufficient domestic nor
international support for military strikes. Now, the top US priority is
ensuring that UN sanctions remain in place-and punishing Saddam Hussein
with measure US force when he steps out of line.
Given tomorrow's elections, the timing is somewhat awkward for the
Clinton administration. With Mr. Clinton weakened by political scandal
and facing impeachment hearings, there are both perils and opportunities
to rattling the saber.
Several military options were being considered at yesterday's
meetings of US officials. The Pentagon's preference is that the US,
having received some sort of backing from the UN, tells Iraq to permit
inspections of a given facility, and then, after Iraq refuses, destroys
the facility. "We can ask very politely to inspect a site," said one US
defense official involved in Iraq policy. "And if they say no, it can
disappear 20 minutes later."
In any event, the Pentagon wants to avoid a repeat of the recent
confrontation with Serb leader Solobodan Milosevic in which he was given
several deadlines, only to have them postponed. With Iraq, the US most
likely will seek to get as much UN support as possible; it will then
issue one warning before action. "We won't give countless deadlines," a
Pentagon official said.
For diplomatic and domestic political reasons, it would be easier to
use unmanned cruise missiles. However, each one of those missiles only
carries a 1,000 pound warhead. A B-2 bomber, by contrast, can carry a
dozen 2,000 pound bombs.
Meanwhile, winning UN support for a US military strike won't be easy.
Beneath its public condemnation, the UN Security Council remains
divided over how to deal with Iraq. During debates last week, France,
Russia and China, three permanent members of the council who have been
somewhat supportive of Baghdad, said that the sanctions could be removed
once weapons inspectors determine that Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction have been discovered and destroyed.
The US and Britain, the other two permanent members, say that Iraq
must meet additions terms, including an accounting of all prisoners of
war from Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait and restitution for the war's
destruction.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
