Thank you, Steve, for inviting me to join you today. You have had a tremendous impact on American foreign policy during your distinguished career, and I am honored to be with you. I'd like to focus on U.S. policy toward three countries: Iraq, Pakistan and India. That may belie my intention of speaking for just 20 minutes! While one would be hard pressed to draw parallels among these three countries, I would note one interesting fact. In significant ways, U.S. policy toward each has evolved since the end of the Cold War. To name the obvious but perhaps forgotten point, the international coalition that forced Saddam's retreat from Kuwait was possible because of the end of the Cold War. We would have faced down Saddam in any case, but international unanimity would have been unlikely prior to 1990. In South Asia, relations between the United States and India have the potential to deepen now that the end of the Cold War eliminates some of the tensions that once interfered in that set of relations. Problems still exist, but I think it is fair to say that these two great democracies are poised to build a relationship good for both countries and potentially stabilizing for the region. Relations with Pakistan also have been affected by the end of the Cold War, but in more complex and sometimes contradictory ways. The end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan held out great hope for increased stability in the region - but instead, Afghanistan has dissolved into an intractable civil war, placing obvious pressures on Pakistan. Meanwhile, one of our newest and greatest issues with Pakistan is that democracy be restored promptly. Another thread linking these three countries is, unfortunately, their common interest in acquiring nuclear capability. Turning to Iraq, my concern here is that the modern mind has both a short memory and a short attention span. To wit, some people in the United States and abroad forget what we are trying to do and at times lose their desire to persevere. One could be cynical and say that economic goals alone motivate those now tired of sanctions, but there are other reasons, too, including an erroneous view that the sanctions, not Saddam, are to blame for the suffering among Iraqis. Our policy towards Iraq rests on three pillars: containment, humanitarian relief and regime change. On the first issue, containment, we have been quite successful. Saddam has not been able to threaten his neighbors in a very long time. But he clearly has not buried the sword. Whether one looks at his indiscriminate aggression against his own people, or at the weapons of mass destruction he still has the will to pursue, Saddam has not yet had a change of heart--and will not, barring a transplant. Desert Storm reversed Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. Containing him now requires a multifaceted strategy. --First and foremost, sanctions are in place because Saddam has not complied with the UN resolutions--all members of the Security Council agree he has not fulfilled them. He has not disarmed, accounted for prisoners of war, returned stolen Kuwaiti property, or ceased repressing Iraq's people. His aggressive intentions are clear and the sanctions help to contain the threat he poses, most importantly by denying him control of oil revenues he would otherwise use to re-arm. --Another containment measure are the coalition patrols of the no-fly zones, which prevent Saddam from using air power to attack his own people in the north and south. The southern no-fly zone also provides a deterrent against troop movements that would threaten Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. For eight years we peacefully patrolled the zones. However, since last December, Iraq has been firing anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air missiles at coalition aircraft, illuminating them with radar, and violating no-fly zones by sending in fighter jets. Coalition aircrews are responding to these threats in self-defense. If Iraq's challenges ceased so would our strikes, as we have made clear. --We also contain Iraq by maintaining a military presence in the region that is ready to act if Iraq once again threatens its neighbors, moves against the Kurds in the north, or rebuilds his weapons of mass destruction or missile delivery systems for them. --The United States is working intensively with other members of the Security Council to develop an omnibus resolution that would reestablish a disarmament and verification regime in Iraq, as well as offer further humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people and address Iraq's other outstanding obligations. --Despite Saddam's best attempts to foil them, UNSCOM and the IAEA were very effective in unmasking the extent of Saddam's WMD program. They uncovered significant and in come cases massive chemical, biological and nuclear weapons development programs, and disarmed those that they discovered. --Resuming a disarmament and verification regime is an important element in containing Saddam and diminishing the threat he poses to the region. Turning now to our desire to provide humanitarian relief, Saddam's actions against his own people--from murder and ethnic cleansing to depriving them of food and medicine--are of deep concern to all of us. You know the facts: for a considerable amount of time, Saddam did not avail himself of the oil-for-food program. Even now, he does not spend the funds on the goods Iraqis need the most. The UN continues to urge Iraq to order greater quantities of nutritional supplements for the population's most vulnerable groups. His own minister of health recently turned down an unconditional offer of 3 million Pounds Sterling for food and medicine from NGO founder and Member of the European Parliament, British Baroness Emma Nicholson--telling her in exactly these words: "The Iraqi people have all the food and medicine they need." Indeed, while we are concerned about how Baghdad would exploit a papal trip to Iraq, the one saving grace would be in the stark contrast between His Holiness and Saddam Hussein, between the righteous and the depraved. The theologian Reinhold Niebuhr wrote of the Children of Light and the Children of Darkness, while classical Islam divides the world into the House of Peace and the House of War. To name Saddam a child of darkness and war is to call him by his proper title. He is a man who denies food and medicine to Iraq's children and who has gassed his own citizens. In the last 6 months alone, Iraq sold over $7 billion dollars worth of oil. That figure is a clear counterpoint to those who make the argument that the sanctions are responsible for the humanitarian conditions in Iraq. It is Saddam who inflicts suffering by using food and medicine as a political tool rather than distributing it to the Iraqi people. What you may not know is that he has not stopped pumping oil illicitly. In November alone, illegal oil exports through the Persian Gulf averaged about 70,000 barrels per day, earning Baghdad about $21 million. That revenue is used to prop up and pamper regime elements that keep Saddam in power while the rest of Iraq suffers. To underscore the point, in areas of northern Iraq where the UN directly administers the Oil-for-Food program, child mortality has fallen to levels below those prior to the Gulf War. In areas where Saddam is in control, child mortality has risen. As a policy maker, relieving human suffering in Iraq is a great source of motivation as well as frustration. The United States, in partnership with the United Nations, can take steps to help the Iraqis, but we cannot ensure that Saddam will do his part. Sanctions never prohibited the import of food and medicine. We were an original sponsor of the Oil-for-Food program because despite the lack of prohibitions, Saddam was not providing food and medicine to his people. It is the largest humanitarian aid program the United Nations has ever run. Finally, I'd like to say a few words about regime change. For the very same reasons we turned back his aggression in Kuwait, are containing him now and seeking to alleviate suffering, we also are supporting Iraqis who want to change their government. I met with the opposition in New York last month, where we worked with them as they develop a vision for Iraq's future and strengthen their unity--so they can contribute directly to changing the regime and realizing that future all the sooner. We are providing non-lethal assistance under the Iraq Liberation Act, including training members of the opposition in civil-military relations and providing equipment. While we do not rule out providing lethal assistance, as allowed in the Iraq Liberation Act, we do not want to put lives at risk needlessly, as would be the case at this early stage of our efforts. We also have established Radio Free Iraq so that Iraq's isolation is broken, and we are helping to finance NGO's and others who are collecting evidence of Saddam's war crimes. Ironically, while no one can doubt Saddam's culpability, we have not yet reached consensus on establishing a war crimes tribunal to try him and his henchmen. The evidence NGO's are compiling will certainly help the cause and may be helpful in still another way. A clear lesson of the last decade is that the truth not only sets people free, it also is the medicine that helps a country heal after years of tumult, torture, and injustice. When Iraq is free of Saddam, an historically accurate picture of those years will help mend that ancient society, that has known glorious centuries and will again, once Iraq is free of Saddam. ............... [end of document]
|
