http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-01/26/125l-012699-idx.html
Twisted Policy on Iraq
By Sam Husseini
Tuesday, January 26, 1999; Page A19
President Clinton, in his address to the nation
just after ordering the bombing of Iraq last
month on the eve of his scheduled impeachment
vote, claimed that while "other countries
possess weapons of mass destruction and
ballistic missiles, with Saddam there's one big
difference. He has used them, not once but
repeatedly." Clinton failed to mention that our
government was rather chummy with Hussein when
he was using such weapons.
The president then played psychic, insisting
that unless we bomb, "Saddam Hussein will use
these terrible weapons again" -- ignoring the
fact that he did not use them during the Gulf
War.
"Without the sanctions" against Iraq, Clinton
continued, there would be "less food for
[Iraq's] people." Can anybody believe that?
UNICEF studies show that 5,000 Iraqi children
are dying every month as a result of the
sanctions. The sanctions are the opposite of
"smart bombs" (inflated as that concept is):
Sanctions actually target the weakest people in
society -- children, the elderly, the sick.
Clinton is being disingenuous when he says that
"so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we
will work with the international community to
maintain and enforce the economic sanctions." In
fact, the administration has undermined the
international consensus by insisting that the
economic sanctions continue even if Iraq
complies with the weapons inspectors.
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in March
1997 declared: "We do not agree with the nations
who argue that if Iraq complies with its
obligations concerning weapons of mass
destruction, sanctions should be lifted." This
twisted U.S. policy is totally contrary to U.N.
Resolution 687, which states that when Iraq
complies with the weapons inspectors, the
sanctions "shall have no further force or
effect."
"I am a Baptist," Clinton stated as he was about
to take office. "I believe in death-bed
conversions. If he [Saddam Hussein] wants a
different relationship with the United States
and the United Nations, all he has to do is
change his behavior." Immediately, as
commentators attacked the incoming president for
such politically incorrect notions, Clinton
backtracked the next day, saying: "There is no
difference between my policy and the policy of
the present [Bush] administration" -- that is,
the sanctions would stay in place so long as
Saddam Hussein does. This has ensured another
six years of hell for 20 million Iraqis.
This policy of keeping the economic sanctions in
place regardless of compliance with UNSCOM has
apparently succeeded in destroying UNSCOM. The
practice of maintaining the sanctions whatever
Iraq's actions was applied to the recent
bombing, as Clinton attacked Iraq without
stating what Iraq could do to put a stop to the
bombing. UNSCOM ceased to be an instrument of
weapons inspections and became rather an excuse
for bombing.
Now, in a cynical gesture, the administration
makes a show of offering to lift the cap on the
"oil-for-food" program -- although Iraq's
devastated infrastructure cannot produce the
amount of oil currently allowed by the United
Nations.
This administration claims its bombings and
enforcement of the "no-fly" zones are
U.N.-mandated, while actually these
administration policies are undermining
international law. In fact, last month the
retiring Rep. David Skaggs (D-Colo.) pointedly
raised a legal issue, noting that "President
Clinton acted in violation of the Constitution
in ordering these attacks without authority of
Congress." Michael Ratner of the Center for
Constitutional Rights notes perhaps the supreme
irony -- "legally, Clinton's unauthorized
bombing is more impeachable than his lies about
Lewinsky."
Last month's bombing was not instigated, like
previous standoffs, by Iraq's expelling
inspectors but by a report by UNSCOM head
Richard Butler. Citing sources, The Post
reported that "Clinton administration officials
played a direct role in shaping Butler's text
during multiple conversations with him [two days
before the bombing] at secure facilities in the
U.S. mission to the U.N."
When Iraq was reducing compliance this summer,
claiming that UNSCOM inspectors were spies,
Clinton officials said they would take action at
a "time and place of our choosing." Both the
Iraqis and the administration were far more
prescient than anyone could have imagined.
Still, the real issue is the policy, not its
timing. Sanctions and bombing; killing slowly
and killing quickly. Killing Iraqis is not a
strategy.
The writer is communications director of the
Institute for Public Accuracy.
(c) Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company
