This Is The Time to ‘Bash’ — Or At Least Repudiate — The U.N.; Bipartisan, Bicameral Consensus Emerges That Saddam Must Go
(Washington, D.C.): In light of press reports that Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was,
to a
considerable degree, responsible for the disastrous agreement negotiated by Kofi Annan (her pick
for UN Secretary General), her testy response to mounting criticism of that Faustian deal is
understandable, if indefensible. Still, her defensiveness cannot conceal the emerging reality,
however: Practically everyone with any common sense — from left to right on the political
spectrum — understands that the “business” the Secretary General takes such pride in
having
done with Saddam Hussein is at our expense and a prime example of the dangers of
mindless multilateralism practiced by Messrs. Clinton and Annan and by Mrs.
Albright.
If Not Now, When?
In a press conference following her rather tempestuous testimony before the House
Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary, Mrs.
Albright declared:
- “…This is not a time to bash the United Nations. This is a time to
understand that
this agreement is a useful one that needs to have some clarifications. We are dealing
with those issues and…the proof of it is in the testing. So I think that it is important for
us to test what the Secretary General brought back. That is what we’re going to do.
And I think it is — I just have to say that in no way has the United States given away
anything. We have, in fact, I think, gained, because we have — Saddam Hussein has
reversed course, and we still have all the options open to us if he fails the test.”
The attached articles, which appeared on the op.ed. page of the Washington Post
over the
past two days, offer powerful rebuttals to the Secretary. They were written, respectively, by
Michael Kelly of the liberal National Journal and
conservative Weekly Standard. Despite their differing vantage points, these
thoughtful essayists
share a virtually identical bottom line: The United Nations deserves its fair share of the
blame
for the Annan debacle, but the preponderance of responsibility lies with the Clinton
Administration and its failed policy of containment of Saddam.
As Messrs. Kristol and Kagan put it: “Bad as this deal is…it is the logical conclusion of a
policy
of containment. Seven years of such policies have proven that, in the end, ‘containment’
of
Saddam cannot be sustained, diplomatically, financially or militarily. Over time,
containment of Saddam becomes ‘detente,’ and eventually detente becomes
appeasement.“
The Swelling Call for a Different Strategy — The Overthrow of
Saddam
In recent days, anger over the Clinton Administration’s doomed containment policy has been
expressed from many quarters of Capitol Hill. Particularly noteworthy were remarks by
Senate
Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) delivered yesterday on the
Senate floor. Highlights of Sen.
Lott’s critique included the following:
- “The deal negotiated by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan with Iraq does not adequately
address the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. After years of denying that Saddam Hussein had
any right to determine the scope of inspections or the makeup of inspection teams, this
agreement codifies his ability to do both. It is, to quote one diplomat, ‘the beginning of the
unraveling of the inspection process.’ - “All Americans, and I’m sure people all around the world, are pleased when military force
can
be avoided, when our men and women in uniform are not put in harm’s way, and when
innocent civilian lives are not put at risk. But we must be clear: We cannot afford peace
at
any price — peace that could lead to a much more difficult conflict later on down the
road. - “It is always possible to get a deal if you give enough away.
- “The Secretary General is calling the shots. The United States is not. Secretary Albright
earlier
this week objected to my characterization of this episode as ‘contracting out U.S. foreign
policy.’ With all due respect, I stand by that comment, because it appears that in fact is what
has happened. - “Let’s look at what [Secretary General Annan] has said. ‘Saddam can be trusted.’ ‘I
think I
can do business with [Saddam].’ ‘I think [Saddam] was serious.’ These are all direct
quotes. The Secretary General told reporters he spent the weekend building a ‘human
relationship’ with Saddam Hussein….These comments are outrageous. They reflect
someone bent on appeasement — not someone determined to make the United Nations
inspection regime work effectively. - “The United States has not yet formally announced its support for the deal negotiated by
Secretary General Annan. It is not too late to reject a deal if it leaves Saddam Hussein
rejoicing and leaves UNSCOM out in the cold.“(1)
“The Secretary General thinks that he can trust the man who has invaded his neighbors,
who has used chemical weapons ten times, and who tried to assassinate former
President George Bush. This is folly. I cannot understand why the Clinton
Administration would place trust in someone devoted to building a ‘human
relationship’ with a mass murderer.
On the other side of Capitol Hill, a member of the House leadership —
Republican Policy
Committee Chairman Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA) — announced yesterday that
Congress
would seek funding to implement a program designed to remove Saddam from power.
For,
as Rep. Cox, the 1997 recipient of the Center’s “Keeper of the Flame” award, put it: “A policy
based on Saddam Hussein remaining in power indefinitely is doomed to failure.”
Rep. Cox correctly observed that, “A thoughtful policy toward Iraq involves an
active effort
to deal with the root of the problem — not just weapons of mass murder, but the sadistic
despot who has already used them against his own people…. Neither Iraq’s people nor
its
neighbors can enjoy lasting security while Saddam Hussein remains in power.”
Leading Democrats Agree: Saddam Must Go
The call for a change in policy towards Iraq has also found support among leading
Democratic
Members of Congress. Particularly noteworthy were remarks by two former Vietnam veterans
now serving in the United States Senate:
- Senator Bob Kerrey (D-NE): “We need a mission that puts
us in the gap, not just to reduce
the threat, but to liberate a people and make a whole region secure and
prosperous….The
best way to deal with this threat is to remove it completely by replacing this dictatorship
with a democracy.”
- Senator John Kerry (D-MA): “I think there is a disconnect
between the depth of the threat
that Saddam Hussein presents to the world and what we are at the moment talking about
doing. If indeed he is as significant a threat, as you heard him characterized by the president,
the secretary of state, the secretary of defense — can threaten London, threaten the peace of
the Middle East, that he is really a war criminal who is already at war with the civilized world
— then we have to be prepared to go the full distance, which is to do everything possible
to disrupt his regime and to encourage the forces of democracy.”
The Bottom Line
These prominent Americans, who may disagree on many other issues, have all recognized the
error of Mrs. Albright’s contention that bringing about conditions which would precipitate the
overthrow of Saddam Hussein “would require a far greater commitment of military force, and a
far greater risk to American lives, than is currently needed to contain the threat Saddam poses.”
They are to be commended for rejecting the policy of appeasement that has evolved from the
unsustainable and rapidly mutating strategy of containing Saddam.
It is now time for those who subscribe to the necessity of liberating Iraq from the
tyranny
imposed upon it by Saddam and his clique to join forces behind a specific program of
political and military action. Such a program — which was elegantly outlined in a
recently
released Open Letter to the President circulated by former Democratic Rep. Stephen Solarz and
former Reagan Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle
and legitimating of a provisional government of Iraq and the delegitimating and undermining
Saddam Hussein’s regime. It is to be hoped that this formula will be drawn upon by Rep. Cox
and other legislators of both parties who share his determination to protect American interests
from the mismanagement of the Clinton Administration and the not-so-tender mercies of the UN
multilateralists.
– 30 –
1. Senator Trent Lott (R-MS), Floor speech, 105th Congress, 2nd
Session, 25 February 1998.
2. News release, House Republican Policy Committee, 25 February 1998.
3. Senator Kerry appearing on ABC This Week, February 22, 1998.
4. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State
and Judiciary of the House Appropriations Committee, 25 February 1998.
5. See the Center’s Decision Brief entitled
‘Serious Consequences’: If Clinton Means It,
Here’s The Alternative To His Failed Strategy of ‘Containing’ Saddam (
February 1998).
- LIVE NOW – Weaponization of US Government Symposium - April 9, 2024
- CSP author of “Big Intel” is American Thought Leaders guest on Epoch TV - February 23, 2024
- Four weeks after release, Big Intel remains a #1 Amazon bestseller - February 13, 2024