DATE=8/19/2000
TYPE=ON THE LINE
TITLE=ON THE LINE:IS IRAQ STILL DANGEROUS?
NUMBER=1-00876 SHORT # 1
EDITOR=OFFICE OF POLICY - 619-0037
CONTENT=
INSERTS AVAILABLE IN AUDIO SERVICES
THEME: UP, HOLD UNDER AND FADE
Anncr: On the Line - a discussion of United
States policy and contemporary issues. This week,
"Is Iraq Still Dangerous?" Here is your host,-----
--.
Host: Hello and welcome to On the Line. This
month marks the tenth anniversary of the invasion
of Kuwait by the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein.
Since then, the United Nations has maintained
sanctions against Iraq because it refuses to
comply with the cease-fire resolution that ended
the Persian Gulf War. Iraq's unmet obligations
include the dismantling of its programs to develop
weapons of mass destruction. Since December 1998,
Iraq has not allowed U-N weapons inspectors into
the country. Many observers worry that Iraq has
used the time to reconstitute its military
capabilities. Others contend that Iraq has been
crippled by a decade of sanctions and no longer
presents a major threat.
Gary Milhollin is director of the Wisconsin
Project on Nuclear Arms Control. He says that
though Saddam Hussein is weaker in conventional
military capabilities, he remains a threat because
of his weapons of mass destruction.
Milhollin: We are very confident that he has
thousands of chemical munitions still stored and
hidden. He's still engaging in missile
procurement. He's still developing missiles. And
we think he has some number of SCUDs still hidden
with some number of launchers. And he still has
never revealed his entire nuclear program. Instead
of getting rid of the sanctions and getting money,
he's hanging onto these programs, which means he's
willing to sacrifice billions of dollars to retain
this capability. That tells you a lot.
Host: Peter Rodman is director of national
security programs at the Nixon Center for Peace
and Freedom. He says keeping the sanctions on Iraq
is essential, despite the false impression that
they are hurting the Iraqi people.
Rodman: There are hardships that the Iraqi people
are suffering, but it is not the result of the
sanctions. It's the result of the choices that
Saddam is making in diverting his resources and
all the resources available to him to rebuilding
his military, to pursuing weapons of mass
destruction, to rebuilding lots of palaces for his
cadre. The worst possible thing the United States
could do would be to yield to these pressures,
because then we would face a nightmare. Saddam
would be better able to get hold of weapons of
mass destruction, terrorize his neighbors, and it
would do nothing for the people of his country.
Host: Zalmay Khalilzad is director of the strategy
and doctrine program at the Rand Corporation. He
says that Saddam can be removed by arming
opposition forces inside Iraq.
Khalilzad: In order to facilitate a change of
regime in Iraq, I think these [Kurdish] forces in
the north and [Shi'ite] in the south have an
important role to play. My own judgment is, the
more they become effective in terms of moving
against Saddam, the more the incentives of those
who fear Iraq's disintegration will increase to
change the regime from Baghdad. I think we've had
a false dichotomy, traditionally thinking that if
we support the opposition from the north and the
south, we reduce the chance of change from the
center. My argument is that you can have exactly
the opposite effect.
Host: Gary Milhollin from the Wisconsin Project
on Nuclear Arms Control says that if sanctions are
lifted, the Iraqi people will get even less
humanitarian assistance than they do now, because
Saddam Hussein will use all the resources to
rebuild his military. For On the Line, this is ---
-----.
Anncr: You've been listening to "On the Line" - a
discussion of United States policies and
contemporary issues. This is --------.
18-Aug-2000 13:50 PM EDT (18-Aug-2000 1750 UTC)
NNNN
Source: Voice of America
.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
