The US and Iraq
Iraq News MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 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. CLINTON STATEMENT, Q&A, ON IRAQ, NOV 15
II. BERGER, COHEN, SHELTON, ON IRAQ, NOV 15
III. IRAQ'S CLARIFYING NOTES, REUTERS, NOV 14
IV. WILLIAM SAFIRE, "DIDDLED AGAIN," NYT, NOV 15
V. AZIZ INTERVIEW WITH CNN, IRAQ SATELLITE TV, NOV 15
VI. UNSC PRESIDENTIAL STATEMENT, NOV 15
Today is the 103rd day without weapons inspections in Iraq; the 16th
day without UNSCOM monitoring; and the 5th day without IAEA monitoring.
It is widely reported that UNSCOM will return to Iraq tomorrow.
One reader, a former US Gov't official, noted that the administration
seemed to have no contingency for the course that events took--Iraq's
sudden acceptance of US demands and a decision not to proceed with a
military strike. He suggested there should have been a set of further
US demands "on the shelf" to test Iraq's professed willingness to
cooperate with UNSCOM. Another reader suggested there should have been
a set of punishments, "on the shelf," aside from military strikes, so
that Iraq would not emerge, once again, scot-free.
Events of the past 48 hours show how Saddam can turn on a dime. He
has strategic vision and tactical flexibility. The same events also
suggest that enforcement of a no-drive zone in Iraq, to create territory
in which the democratic opposition could operate, would not be as
difficult as some critics maintain. Even Saddam now seems to understand
what high-tech US weapons can do. If the US were to declare a
"no-drive" zone and announce that it would fire on Iraqi forces
remaining in that area, "Iraq News" believes that those forces would get
out of the way, or defect to the opposition, rather than leave
themselves open to US attack.
The Jerusalem Post, today, reported that the assessment of the
Israeli defense establishment is that events have "only delayed an
inevitable showdown and that Iraq will pull out all stops to make sure
the arms inspectors don't find anything. That way, they can insist the
sanctions be lifted and simultaneously keep a non-conventional
capability."
The Daily Telegraph, today, from Tel Aviv, reported that "to military
officials the respite in the Iraq crisis was 'not such welcome news.'
They said that each time Saddam stepped back from the brink and allowed
the inspections to resume, control over his ability to produce non-
conventional weapons was further weakened."
The Daily Telegraph, today, also reported that Scott Ritter told the
BBC "The danger is that it is the US and the UK who are getting
gradually boxed into a corner. It is clear that what Iraq has been
doing with its allies, Russia, France, China and now Kofi Annan is to
craft this very complicated diplomatic game which has made it almost
impossible to use force . . . Ultimately Saddam will get what he has
wanted: sanctions lifted and keeping these terrible weapons of mass
destruction." Asked if the US/UK decided to use military force against
Iraq, where that force should be directed, Ritter replied, "If Saddam is
found to be the center of gravity for Iraqi non-compliance, it has to be
applied against that center of gravity, against Saddam Hussein and those
who surround him."
That is quite the opposite view of the NYT editors, who, today,
explained the basis of their thinking on Iraq and why they would have
written, as they did, Nov 13, that any US strike against Iraq should not
be used to weaken Saddam politically. Praising Clinton's handling of
the latest phase of the Iraq crisis, they wrote, "The only way to bring
the inspections process to a timely conclusion and prepare for an
eventual end of the international economic sanctions is [for Iraq] to
give the inspectors the access they require. . . That kind of full
cooperation and compliance must now become the principal goal of the
Security Council with regard to Iraq."
That was the premise of UNSCR 687, which required Iraq to declare its
proscribed unconventional weapons within 15 days. They were to be
destroyed over the next 90 days, after which sanctions would be lifted.
But soon after the Gulf war's end, the Bush administration recognized it
had made a mistake in ending the war with Saddam in power. After
sanctions were lifted, he would simply rebuild what had been destroyed.
Thus, in May 91, Bush took the position that the US would not agree
to lift sanctions, while Saddam remained in power, and the US set out to
overthrow him. Initially, US efforts focused on promoting a coup, but
already in the summer of 92, the Bush administration began to develop an
alternate strategy--support for a popular insurgency, in the form of the
Iraqi National Congress. That is when the no-fly zone was established
in Southern Iraq--as a measure to help the opposition.
The Clinton administration inherited Bush's policy, but did not
pursue it vigorously. Foreign policy was not important, and, within
that, Iraq was not important. Indeed, the Clinton administration's
public position was that its goal was only the "containment" of Iraq,
even as it continued the covert programs to oust Saddam. Those programs
took on special importance after the Aug 95 defection of Hussein Kamil,
when it was learned how much of Iraq's unconventional capabilities had
survived the war and four years of UNSCOM inspections. Nonetheless, in
Jun 96, Saddam rolled up the CIA-backed coup and two months later, on
Aug 31, his Republican Guards were allowed to attack the INC in Irbil,
within the Northern no-fly zone, after which, Clinton, on the campaign
trail, proclaimed that US interests lay in the south, not the north, and
otherwise gave up the option of overthrowing Saddam.
It is difficult to understand why the NYT editors believe Saddam
would now be willing to relinquish the prescribed unconventional
material that he has retained for over seven years. But their belief
that one can deal with the Saddam threat in that way leads them to be
snitty to the Iraqi opponents of Saddam and callous and indifferent to
the suffering of the Iraqi people under economic sanctions and a very
cruel dictatorship.
That, even as the NYT, today, reported the view of Jonathan Tucker, a
leading CBW expert, who said that "inspections had reduced Iraq 'to a
core of military resources that Saddam Hussein will never give up' and
biological weapons are the heart of that arsenal. 'We know they have
produced tons of anthrax and botulism,' Tucker said. 'It's possible they
retain a significant stockpile of these agents. The Iraqis seem to
retain some kind of missile capability and they are determined to retain
some kind of VX capability.'"
Yesterday, Pres Clinton reaffirmed that UNSCOM was the best way to
address the threat posed by Saddam's unconventional weapons. He
explained that Iraq "has committed to unconditionally resume cooperation
with the weapons inspectors. What does that mean? First, Iraq must
resolve all outstanding issues raised by UNSCOM and the IAEA. Second,
it must give inspectors unfettered access to inspect and to monitor all
sites they choose with no restrictions or qualifications, consistent
with the Memorandum of Understanding Iraq itself signed with Secretary
General Annan in February [ED: that is a very problematic agreement, as
a NYT report, today, explained.] Third, it must turn over all relevant
documents. Fourth, it must accept all weapons of mass destruction-
related resolutions. Fifth, it must not interfere with the independence
or the professional expertise of the weapons inspectors."
But Clinton also said, "Over the long-term the best way to address
that threat is through a government in Baghdad--a new government--that
is committed to represent and respect its people, not repress them; that
is committed to peace in the region. Over the past year we have
deepened our engagement with the forces of change in Iraq, reconciling
the two largest Kurdish opposition groups, beginning broadcasts of a
Radio Free Iraq throughout the country. We will intensify that effort,
working with Congress to implement the Iraq Liberation Act which was
recently passed; strengthening our political support to make sure the
opposition, or to do what we can to make the opposition, a more
effective voice for the aspiration of the Iraqi people."
The Wash Post, today, reported that a "US official said privately
later that the 'new government' phrasing was an 'important shift' in
presidential rhetoric intended to send a message that building up
internal opposition will be a higher priority again." And UPI,
yesterday, reported that administration officials "say efforts are being
openly stepped up to rid the Gulf region of the Iraqi president and it
appears Clinton has the consensus of the Gulf States and other Arab
leaders to seek a change."
Also yesterday, Reuters reported that Sen. Arlen Spector [R Pa]
praised Clinton's remarks on removing Saddam, "That's easier said than
done, but I think that's candidly, the next objective, and I'm glad to
hear the president talking about it openly and forcefully."
But, yesterday, Sec Def Cohen, when asked about the President's
remarks said, "He was not calling for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
What he was saying is that we are prepared and will work with opposition
forces or groups to try to bring about, at some future time, a more
democratic type of regime that's more responsive to its people and not
engage in the harsh and brutal repression of them. But that's something
in a long-term goal, and we have taken steps in consultation with
Congress to put into place Iraqi Free Radio. And we will continue to
take other measures that will hopefully build a more significant
opposition in the future."
Asked, "Is the US subsidizing opposition groups?," Cohen replied,
"We're not getting into a subsidization. Congress has indicated it
would like very much for us to pursue this program. We will work with
Congress and work with other groups on a very prudent, systematic,
step-by-step basis. We're not going to take any premature action but
rather build long-term support, hopefully, for a different type of
regime."
Twice, Sat, Iraq's UN ambassador produced a note affirming that, this
time, Iraq really would cooperate with UNSCOM. Those were the notes
clarifying Tariq Aziz original letter and the clarifications which
caused the Clinton administration to decide not to strike Iraq.
But why should anyone believe it? Administration officials had no
answer to that question, repeatedly asked by reporters.
Moreover, as William Safire wrote in today's NYT, "The Clinton White
House would have us believe that as soon as Saddam claps one little
fetter on inspections, boom! -- without warning -- missiles will fly,
Stealth aircraft will pose for cameras and B-52's will smart-bomb until
it's over over there. But you can't do that without withdrawing the
inspectors and evacuating diplomatic missions. Figure on plenty of
warning -- time for new non-negotiations at the last minute -- and
another story of Saddam 'backing down' followed by the triumphant
announcement of the success of our resolve." And Safire suggested it
was necessary to oust Saddam, "before he can develop the terror weapons
he would surely use."
Indeed, on Sun, even before UNSC deliberations over Iraq were
concluded, Dep Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, gave an interview to CNN,
which Iraq broadcast on its satellite TV. Aziz said, "I want to make a
comment on what I heard from Mr. Clinton regarding his comment, which
echoes his position. I do not have a comment on his statement; but I
would like to clearly say that Iraq is only committed to the content of
the letter I sent yesterday to the UN secretary general. Iraq does not
accept any further conditions, which are not related to the UN Security
Council resolutions and the Memorandum of Understanding, which I signed
with the UN secretary general. In this regard, commitment is to the UN
resolutions and the Memorandum of Understanding. We are dealing with
the United Nations and not the United States."
Aziz seemed to be objecting to Clinton's expansive statement of what
Iraq had agreed to. He also said nothing about Hamdoon's two clarifying
notes.
Aziz also said, "I have to strongly condemn the statement of President
Clinton about the plans of his government to topple the Iraqi regime.
This is considered a flagrant violation of the UN Security Council
resolutions and a violation of international law."
When asked specifically about Clinton's press conference, Aziz
replied that he did not want to comment on all of Clinton's statements,
but "I wish to specifically comment on his statement on the Iraqi
Government, which I said is not acceptable. I wanted also to clarify our
position on what we are committed to, my letter to Kofi Annan, and
nothing beyond that."
Finally, asked, "How long will you continue to cooperate with the
process of inspection?," Aziz replied, "We will see. We have a
commitment and we respect our commitment."
Aziz' interview delayed UNSC deliberations, but yesterday night the
UNSC issued a presidential statement, which took note of the various
Iraqi letters. It said that once the UNSG confirmed, on the basis of
reports from UNSCOM and the IAEA, "that Iraq had returned to full
cooperation," whatever that may mean, the UNSC was ready to proceed with
the comprehensive review, provided for in UNSCR 1194, Sept 9.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
