Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

DATE=2/18/03

TYPE=INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

TITLE=ADELMAN IRAQ

NUMBER=3-543

BYLINE=TOM CROSBY

DATELINE=WASHIONGTON

INTERNET=

///// AVAILABLE IN DALET UNDER SOD/ENGLISH NEWS NOW INTERVIEWS IN THE FOLDER FOR TODAY OR YESTERDAY /////

HOST: A Swiss official has warned international donors that millions of Iraqis could face a catastrophic situation in a possible war. The Swiss development aid chief, Walter Fust, said a war could lead to the worst catastrophe in years if the U-N monitored oil-for-food program for Iraq collapses. Mr. Fust said the Iraqi people are in a far more vulnerable condition now than they were at the end of the 1991 Gulf War. Mr. Fust spoke Sunday at the end of a two-day conference in Geneva on the humanitarian consequences of war in Iraq.

Jonathan Adelman is a Mideast Specialist at the University of Denver in the American west. He agrees there is a potential for disaster but believes American planners are looking to head it off. But he tells V-O-A News Now's Tom Crosby he also believes the greatest humanitarian threat to Iraqis could come from Saddam Hussein:

MR. ADELMAN: There is a potential, especially in the middle of a war, that Saddam Hussein would decide to set fire to some of the infrastructure and to the oil fields. And the Iraqis are living on a short string. He is giving 30-day rations until now. And certainly it's an issue that I think the administration is very well aware of and plan to definitely deal with that.

MR. CROSBY: What could they do in a situation like this to aid the Iraqi civilian population?

MR. ADELMAN: Well, I think several things. One will depend on the speed of the war. Presumably the war will go rather quickly in southern Iraq among the Shiites and in the north among the Kurds. Therefore, in the north, there already is a semiautonomous Kurdish government. There is also the Turks right across the border, relatively easy to bring in the supplies quickly, assuming that the fighting goes well there.

In the south, obviously it is somewhat more difficult, but we have major supply bases in Kuwait and in Saudi Arabia. And to start bringing in the necessary food obviously could be hampered if Saddam - the one thing that could disrupt this of course is if Saddam decides on a scorched earth policy.

MR. CROSBY: A scorched earth policy, of course, is one of those things that oftentimes backfires on those who do the burning, doesn't it?

MR. ADELMAN: Oh, absolutely. And in this case particularly, because if he starts doing that, two things are going to happen. He is going to arouse the strong anti-Saddam sentiment among Shiites and Kurds who are going to be outraged he is doing it in their area. More dangerous for him, however, as you know as a military officer, is that the regular units, the regular army units that would be engaged in this kind of behavior, may well choose to be very unreliable. Why do this if the war is hopeless?

So, it is dangerous for him, and hopefully it either doesn't happen or it is brought to a halt rather quickly.

MR. CROSBY: When we look at this whole prospect of what might happen to Iraq during a war and after a war, you have indicated that the United States undoubtedly has plans, but how far-reaching do you think those plans are at this point?

MR. ADELMAN: I have no private knowledge of that. But from what I have been reading, I would believe that the United States has had a lengthy period of time, a number of months, to prepare this, and it is well aware of what happened in other regions. Currently, for example, we're in postwar reconstruction in Afghanistan and we have extensive experience there. We've had experience in Kosovo. We have experience in Kuwait itself. So, the United States has sort of these three major programs underway at postwar reconstruction that give us some basis on which to draw to make the relevant plans.

MR. CROSBY: But could the United States' attention be diverted by the situation in North Korea?

MR. ADELMAN: I think they become sequential. If you look at the response of the Bush administration, it is very clear that the administration wants to defer North Korea for a period of time, until after it deals with Iraq. And I think that is appropriate. Not that a superpower could not deal with more than one crisis, but the situations are very different. The cast of characters is different. The threats are different. I believe that they want to put that one off. I think the way they are acting now indicates they want to focus on Baghdad and not on Pyongyang.

MR. CROSBY: Jonathan, as we focus on Baghdad and look at a postwar Iraq, will there be a place at the table for those in NATO, those allies that have balked at military action, when it comes to sitting down and deciding how to take care of a postwar Iraq?

MR. ADELMAN: Obviously we are talking specifically here about France, Germany and Belgium. They are major American allies. They have historically been serious allies to the United States. I do think, however, that the way they may act in the final stages before the likely invasion will have a significant impact on the receptiveness of the Bush administration towards their interests there afterwards. I would expect that there will be some coming together eventually. I don't think it's in the interest of France or Germany to stand in the way of eliminating a bloody tyrant like Saddam Hussein.

MR. CROSBY: So, this is not an irreparable rift in the ranks of the allies?

MR. ADELMAN: I do not think so. You know, families often have some of the worst fights that one can ever possibly imagine. And the French and Germans, as we have problems right now, belong to the Western family. We are all democratic. We are all capitalists. We all believe in the rule of law. The United States is a European nation -- or it is increasingly more Asian but still largely European - and we are going to resolve these problems with them. We have fought together with them to stand up to the Soviet Union and to other enemies.

And I think that eventually there is going to be a realization there that old Europe and new Europe - to use Donald Rumsfeld's phrase - has still a role in Europe and that they are all in the West, and we can have differences, but that is it is in everyone's best interest - and specifically, I would like to add, in the French and German interest - to eventually reconcile. Because the threat that Saddam Hussein poses actually is a greater threat to them in the shorter run than to the United States.

HOST: Middle East specialist Jonathan Adelman of the University of Denver talking with V-O-A News Now's Tom Crosby

NEB/RAE