U.S. President George W. Bush yesterday called on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to allow U.N. inspectors to return to Iraq to prove that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, Nov. 14).  Speaking to White House reporters, Bush said Hussein would “find out” what the consequences were if he refused to allow inspections to resume.

Bush said that developing weapons of mass destruction “that will be used to terrorize nations” was part of his definition of sponsoring terrorism, and added that countries that do so would face consequences.

“If anybody harbors a terrorist, they’re a terrorist.  If they fund a terrorist, they’re a terrorist.  If they house terrorists, they’re terrorists … If they develop weapons of mass destruction that will be used to terrorize nations, they will be held accountable,” Bush said.

U.S. action in Afghanistan was only the first phase of the war on terrorism, he said.  Preventing terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, including from certain states, was part of the war, Bush said (U.S. State Department release I, Nov. 26).

Bush was intentionally vague about the consequences Iraq would face if Hussein continued to refuse the return of inspectors, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said yesterday, adding that Bush’s comments reiterated long-standing U.S. policy toward Iraq.

Regarding whether Iraq was a new target in the war on terrorism, Fleischer said Bush was focused on phase one of the war:  Afghanistan.  Bush, however, “has made it plain to the American people that this is a long-term war,” Fleischer said.  Concluding that Bush’s pledge to hold countries that develop weapons of mass destruction for terrorist purposes accountable meant that Iraq was a new U.S. war target would be “inferring what that means to unusual lengths,” Fleischer said.

Bush emphasized that countries that would use weapons of mass destruction and could proliferate weapons to terrorist organizations were countries of concern to the United States (see GSN, Nov. 26), Fleischer said.  Bush likely did not mean that any country that possessed or developed weapons of mass destruction would be a target.  “The president was referring to those nations that are listed on the State Department” list of nations that sponsor terrorism, Fleischer said (U.S. State Department release II, Nov. 26).

Ritter Warns Against Attacking Iraq

Former U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq Scott Ritter said yesterday on the BBC Radio 4 Today program that the United States should not attack Hussein as part of its war on terrorism because such action would have “devastating” consequences, such as destroying the international coalition against terrorism.

“If the United States expands its war on terror to be inclusive of Iraq, I think you will see that the coalition that we have put together, the international support we have garnered to take on terror—Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda—will dissipate,” Ritter said.

Although Hussein’s regime has supported terrorist organizations in the past, Ritter said he did not believe Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.  Involvement in anti-U.S. terrorism was not Hussein’s “method of operation,” Ritter said, adding, “I think he is focused solely on getting economic sanctions lifted against his country.”

Sharif Ali, spokesman for the Iraqi National Congress, one of the main organizations opposed to Hussein, said, however, that Hussein was involved in international terrorism and had contacts with al-Qaeda (Press Association, Nov. 27).

U.N. Unlikely to Impose ‘Smart Sanctions’

Meanwhile, the U.N. Security Council was unlikely to revise sanctions against Iraq (see GSN, Nov. 7) by the deadline on Friday, diplomats said yesterday, adding that the council would probably extend the current oil-for-food program, which allows Iraq to use profits from oil sales to purchase humanitarian goods and repair some infrastructure (Agence France-Presse, Nov. 27).

The United States yesterday proposed that the council extend the current sanctions for four months, rather than the usual six months, asking key council members to commit to revising the sanctions at the end of March 2002, according to U.S. diplomats.  Russia, however, has not agreed to the dates in the U.S. proposal, calling for a usual six-month extension.

Russia has blocked U.S. efforts to replace the current sanctions with “smart sanctions” that would ease restrictions on civilian goods while continuing a ban on military products.  The U.S. plan would also create a list of dual-use goods that could be used for military and civilian purposes which would require council approval before Iraq could import them.

Iraq has objected to the proposal (see GSN, Nov. 26), rejecting anything short of a complete end to the sanctions.  Russia has blocked the proposal due to Iraqi objections and Russian commercial interests, according to Reuters (Evelyn Leopold, Reuters/Yahoo.com, Nov. 27).

The United States and Russia were discussing ways to find a resolution that would target Iraqi weapons acquisition, particularly weapons of mass destruction, while allowing a “smoother flow” of civilian goods, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said yesterday.  The current U.S. proposal to revise sanctions was “essentially the same proposal” as the one the United States presented six months ago that failed to pass due to Russian opposition, he said (U.S. State Department release III, Nov. 26).

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP

Back to top