By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — A panel of nonproliferation experts yesterday promoted an alternative approach to going to war to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.
The “coercive inspections” approach, released last week by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, would return U.N. arms inspectors to Iraq, but they would be backed by a heavily armed and mobile U.S.-led “implementation” force to ensure unimpeded access. The approach would be made possible by the threat of a U.S. war if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein refused to cooperate (see GSN, Sept. 5).
The U.N.-sanctioned, ideally multinational, force, would employ a highly sophisticated intelligence capability, would operate under the cover of no-fly and no-drive zones near inspection sights, and be supported by U.S. fighter jets, bomber aircraft, and surveillance aircraft, the panel said.
Once the force concluded Iraq was free of weapons of mass destruction, it would depart leaving a team of U.N. inspectors in place to monitor for new activity.
U.N. inspectors left the country nearly fours years ago as Iraq increased efforts to obstruct inspections.
Comply or Else
The panelists acknowledged the plan would be a difficult one to implement.
They said, for example, the plan is based on the premises that Hussein is convinced the Bush administration plans on, and will not be deterred from, invading Iraq with the intention of removing his regime, and that the Iraqi president would allow a powerful U.S.-led force into the country to help find and destroy his WMD capabilities as an alternative.
The alternative presented by the plan would be “comply or else,” placing the burden “squarely on Saddam Hussein to choose compliance or the possibility of regime elimination,” according to panel moderator Joseph Cirincione, director of Carnegie’s Nonproliferation Project.
The panel included Carnegie President Jessica Mathews, retired U.S. Air Force Gen. Charles Boyd, Ambassador Rolf Ekeus, chairman of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute and former executive chairman of the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq, and Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Boyd said the force would need to be composed of at least 50,000 troops, including forces for providing air cover, and would be stationed in Iraq and surrounding countries.
Boyd and Mathews said the implementation forces might need to be engaged for two years to accomplish its mission, but Mathews also said the plan sets no arbitrary deadlines.
Mathews said they had briefed senior White House officials on the plan and that there was “intense interest” and that the proposal was recognized as an “attractive compromise position between an unacceptable status quo and a war for regime change.” She said administration responses, however, depended on who was asked.
She said there are plans now to brief U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan today, and later officials of foreign governments.
Pitched as an Alternative to War
The plan is contained in a 60-page Carnegie report, Iraq: A New Approach, prepared by the panelists and two dozen other arms nonproliferation experts.
The panelists pitched the idea as an alternative to an all-out U.S. war against Iraq. Although the Bush administration would not need to give up its policy of regime change in Iraq, it would need to forswear action on it as long as the inspections are underway.
Critics, including some on the panels, have expressed concerns a U.S. war against Iraq could be costly in U.S. and Iraqi lives and provoke a wider regional conflict.
The Bush administration appears to be seriously considering an attack to remove Hussein from power and destroy Iraq’s WMD capabilities. Speaking at the United Nations yesterday, President George W. Bush called Iraq “a grave and gathering danger” to peace, and urged world leaders to “move deliberately and decisively to hold Iraq to account” without saying specifically what it might do. Bush also said the regime would lose power (see GSN, Sept. 12).
The panelists said Hussein might choose the plan if faced with the certainty of a U.S. military assault to remove him from power.
“Saddam Hussein will only give up weapons of mass destruction if and only if he is presented with a choice between loss of political power and death if he does not,” said Mathews.
Under the plan, the United States would forswear unilaterally invading Iraq as long as Hussein complies with all relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions pertaining to WMD inspections approved following the Gulf War.
All other Security Council members might support it, Mathews said, faced with a growing perception that the Bush administration is preparing for war with Iraq, with or without Security Council approval.
“The rest of the members of the U.N. Security Council believe … if they do not act the U.S. will act alone.”
The forces used in the coercive inspection operations would not attempt to destroy the regime, according to the plan, although it would be sufficiently strong to be used in as a component of an invasion in the event of Iraqi noncompliance.
Potential Difficulties Acknowledged
The panelists acknowledged a number of difficulties the plan might face.
Preconditions for the success of the plan, they said, require freedom from interference by the U.N. Security Council and headquarters during its implementation, and that the commander of the implementation force would have the freedom to choose the size, deployment and methods of the force.
Further, full support would be needed from the Security Council permanent members and from countries neighboring Iraq, which might be difficult to obtain, they said.
“There are a number of Iraqi neighbors that are going to be reluctant to help with this,” said Clawson.
“We unfortunately have a sad track record of Iraq’s neighbors allowing substantial cheating of the sanctions the United Nations has imposed upon Iraq,” he said, and added Iraq’s neighbors could not be expected to like the plan, as they are satisfied with current restrictions on Iraq that allow illicit cross-border trade.
Boyd said the military force would need to include air transportation for inspectors and aircraft to control the airspace in the areas of inspections. The forces would need to be positioned in four places, he said, suggesting Kuwait, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and eastern Turkey, as well as staging locations in Iraq.
Clawson said Iraq’s neighbors might be convinced to support the plan. “If it is made clear that an alternative to this kind of proposal is a war for regime change, then it should be quite possible to persuade Iraq’s neighbors that this is a much better alternative than regime change,” he said.
From a military perspective, Boyd said the plan would be difficult.
The plan is “not a particularly attractive option,” he said. “It’s complex and it’s difficult and there’s no doctrine manual that tells you how to do it. It only becomes attractive when it is compared with the complexity involved when assembling an invasion force for the purpose of regime change, and one on the border of a nation in the possession of weapons of mass destruction.”
He added, though, “I’m certain it’s doable.”
Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said he is opposed to the idea because it inevitably would be vulnerable to a pre-emptive Iraqi attack, which then could severely complicate a U.S. invasion.
“I’m a little nervous they might fight this force and actually be able to defeat it. If this is an alternative to full out war, than the question is could this be more difficult than full out war, and ... one of the ways it could be is that the smaller force could get into trouble and require rescue in a place the Iraqis obviously know about and that would mean we really couldn’t attack in any kind of a stealthy or secret way.”
Alternatively, the Iraqis may simply find less confrontational ways to obstruct the inspectors, he said, such as shutting off the electrical power in Baghdad, setting up roadblocks or using crowds of civilians to otherwise slow down inspections.
Convincing Saddam
The panelists also seemed to acknowledge the difficulties of getting Hussein to go along with the plan.
For instance, they were asked why Hussein would agree to a program that would remove the weapons that he may consider key to deterring a U.S. attack, or to introduce potentially hostile forces and an elaborate intelligence-gathering capability into his country.
“Ours is a very tough choice. We believe it is a preferable choice for him than invasion and certain death and certain losing power,” said Mathews. “What we’ve tried to build into here is an extremely coercive tough choice.”
“It’s a choice between the undesirable and the unacceptable,” said Boyd.
What President Bush Might Want
Another critical issue is the question of whether the Bush administration’s principal aim with respect to Iraq is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction or remove Hussein from power.
The premise of the plan, said Mathews, is that the United States would be willing to pursue the elimination of weapons of mass destruction as its primary goal, rather than other reforms, or regime change.
“If your goal is disarmament, this [plan] is not giving up anything,” she said.
While senior administration officials have repeatedly cited regime change as the administration’s goal, Bush yesterday did not tell the U.N. General Assembly whether he would accept something short of regime change and seemed to suggest peace was still an option.
He said, however, peace would be conditioned on much more than Iraq giving up its WMD programs. Bush included that issue among a list of other grievances, including human rights abuses and missing Gulf War detainees, that must be resolved “if the Iraqi regime wants peace.”
By Jim Wurst
Global Security Newswire
UNITED NATIONS — There has been general praise here for yesterday’s speech on Iraq by U.S. President George W. Bush, both for what he said and the fact that he came to the United Nations to say it, but most diplomats have reserved comment on what they think should happen if Iraq continues to defy Security Council resolutions demanding the return of weapons inspectors (see related GSN story, today).
In both his speech to the General Assembly and a news conference yesterday, Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin of France repeated his country’s proposal for a two-stage resolution.
“France advocates a demarche made completely legitimate through collective deliberation. It requires two successive steps,” he said. “First, we must reaffirm together the need for U.N. inspectors to return and demand that Iraq comply at last with its obligations under the Security Council decisions taken since 1991, and do so according to a definite timetable. That is the objective of the international community. It is also Iraq’s interest.”
Second, de Villepin said, “If Baghdad persists in its refusal to allow the inspectors to return unconditionally, then we should draw the consequences. The Security Council should then decide measures to be taken without excluding any option. Responsibilities would be clarified.”
Although there are reports of several draft resolutions in circulation, only France has made its plan public.
De Villepin told journalists, “President Bush’s speech is fully compatible with the French approach.” He added, “Without legitimacy, there is a risk of increasing instability in the world. … This means, of course, the pre-eminent role of the Security Council.” Stressing that U.N. actions should focus on the return of inspectors, he refused to comment on whether a military option needs to follow. “We do not want to anticipate what France would do in that situation,” he said. “We will look at all the options … and we will take our responsibilities at that time.”
“It is important not to jump the gun,” de Villepin said.
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell is at the United Nations today making the case for stronger action against Iraq. The foreign ministers of the permanent, veto-wielding members of the Security Council — the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China and Russia — will meet later today on possible council action.
Foreign Minister Bill Graham of Canada said Bush’s speech indicated that “the U.S. will be actively engaged in the process, and that is exactly what everyone is urging the U.S. and the president to do. We have to accept that and welcome it.” Speaking to journalists yesterday, he added, “Mr. Bush didn’t tell the U.N. how to do its work in minute detail. What he said was ‘engage the Security Council,’ and that is where the debate will take place.”
Noting that he will meet with Iraq’s foreign minister Monday, Graham said, “My advice to him is going to be, ‘Open the doors immediately. Now is the time. You have to demonstrate to the world community you are not a danger.”
The only hostile response came from Iraq. Shortly after the speech, Ambassador Muhammad Duri said, “President Bush’s speech had no credibility at all.” He said the “true motives” of the United States are “revenge, oil, political ambitions and the security of Israel.” He added, “We don’t care about the position of the U.S. If they are threatening, if they would attack, certainly we would defend ourselves.”
Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres said Bush made “a forceful speech. … The United States has the right to expect the world to understand it.” He said, “I think there must be a campaign to save human life and international freedom from the danger and whims and irresponsible policies of groups of terrorists and crazy dictator.”
Speaking to journalists, Peres added, “It’s not a campaign against Iraq; it is a campaign against a dictator. It is not that the United States is fighting terror; it is terror that is fighting the United States. It is the right of self-defense.”
At a news conference yesterday, President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan moderated his endorsement. “We have too much on our plate already. ... I would not like to get involved in it. However, I appreciate President Bush’s stand to go through the Security Council,” he said. On the issue of taking pre-emptive action against another country, Musharraf said, “It has certain implications in our region. It should not encourage others to follow suit.”
U.S. President George W. Bush’s speech to the United Nations yesterday has helped increase support among U.S. lawmakers for a resolution to authorize the use of U.S. force, the Washington Post reported today.
Bush’s decision to go before the United Nations and call for enforcement of existing U.N. resolutions against Iraq has helped the White House increase support in Congress for military action and for a vote before the November elections on a resolution authorizing force, according to the Post (see related GSN story, today).
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) said Congress would now probably debate a resolution on the use of military force before the November elections.
“Every time the president speaks out … he strengthens his case,” Daschle said. “I don’t think that the case for a pre-emptive attack has been made conclusively yet. That doesn’t mean it can’t be made.”
Daschle and House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) said there are still concerns that need to be addressed — for example, plans for Iraq after the fall of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein — before they will commit to the timing of a vote on a resolution. Gephardt indicated some support for such a resolution when he said earlier this year that the United States would need to be ready to move “diplomatically if we can, militarily if we must” to oust Hussein. Other Democrats, however, said there should not be a rush to vote on a resolution (see GSN, Sept. 12).
The White House should not attempt to force a vote in Congress before the November elections, said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden (D-Del.). He added that it would be “somewhat foolish” to “essentially issue a declaration of war” before the U.N. Security Council took up the issue.
While praising Bush for his U.N. speech, Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) also said the United Nations would look irrelevant if Congress voted on a resolution on the use of military force before the U.N. Security Council has taken action.
“You’ve got to let the U.N. work its will,” Kerry said.
Republicans in Congress, however, have begun to use Bush’s U.N. speech to renew pressure on Democrats for a vote on a resolution before the November elections, according to the Post (see GSN, Aug. 9).
“When (Bush) consults with our allies and makes his case for a robust weapons inspection regime, he needs to tell our allies and people throughout the world that the American people are behind him, as articulated by a vote on the part of the Congress,” Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) said.
A senior Bush administration official dismissed the idea that Congress should wait for U.N. action before debating a resolution.
“I just don’t understand why the Congress can’t debate this on its own merits, why the Congress can’t take action,” the official said. “And the president really does believe that they need to do so before they leave” (Balz/VandeHei, Washington Post, Sept. 13).
Making Deals
Bush’s U.N. speech has also kicked off a series of behind-the-scenes negotiations to gain support from U.S. allies for military action against Iraq, the Los Angeles Times reported.
U.S. officials expect Turkey to ask for military and debt assistance, Russia and France to ask for access to Iraqi oil, Qatar to ask for funds for an air base and Jordan to ask for oil and trade guarantees — all in exchange for their support, the Times reported. Many other countries are expected soon to list demands for supporting U.S. action against Iraq, according to officials.
“Countries in the Middle East take the bazaari approach,” said Danielle Pletka, of the American Enterprise Institute. “Once they know we want to buy ... the sky’s the limit.”
“This is a great time to step forward and get something you want from the United States,” a senior congressional aide said.
Russia
The White House is first trying to obtain support from Russia, France and China — three key members of the U.N. Security Council, officials said (see GSN, Sept. 9). Russia has said it wants any new government in Iraq to continue to honor the country’s estimated $8 billion debt. Russia also wants to be able to maintain its large share of the Iraqi oil business and to have access to any new business opportunities that might arise, according to the Times.
The United States has made no commitments to Russia, U.S. State Department officials have said. U.S. Ambassador to Russia Alexander Vershbow said this week, however, that Russia’s investments in Iraq would be “better protected under new leadership” (see GSN, May 22). Russia has yet to receive “a single kopek” in the billions Iraq owes in debt, he said.
Russia might also demand that the United States end its criticism of Russian assistance to Iran for building the Bushehr nuclear power plant, the Times reported (see GSN, Sept. 4).
France
France, meanwhile, will not seek any financial incentive as part of an agreement to support U.S. action against Iraq, an official said.
“Our focus on Iraq is about disarmament, not about access to oil fields if there’s a new government,” the official said.
After the 1991 Gulf War, however, French companies were not involved in the rebuilding of the Kuwaiti oil fields as they had been promised, a U.S. official said, adding that France is expected to bring up the issue before long.
“We’re still in the process of establishing positions, before the French get to their dollar value,” the U.S. official said.
China
China is expected to push for more U.S. support on the issue of Taiwan in exchange for support against Iraq, according to the Times. The issue is likely to be on the agenda of a U.S.-Chinese summit set for next month.
The United States might have already begun attempting to obtain Chinese support by backing Beijing’s efforts against the Turkestan Islamic Movement, a separatist group based in northwestern China, according to some foreign diplomats and experts. While the United States has previously resisted supporting China against the group, it has now added it to the State Department list of terrorist groups and has supported China’s attempts to add the group to the U.N. terrorist list.
“Horse Trading”
The United States is also expected to attempt to obtain support from a number of Middle Eastern countries due to the need for the use of military bases and overflight rights, the Times reported (see GSN, March 13). It is expected to be more difficult for the United States to build a coalition now, as opposed to during the Gulf War, because of increased opposition to military action against Iraq and the lack of funding that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other countries provided in 1991, according to the Times.
“The horse trading will be much more difficult this time,” said Edward Walker, president of the Middle East Institute. “Part of what you’ve been seeing is people making a public display of opposition that will increase the price” (Richter/Miller, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 13).
For further information, see:
UNMOVIC
U.N. Resolution 687 (Sanctions Regime)
U.N. Resolution 1409 (“Smart Sanctions”)
U.S. State Department Fact Sheet on Iraqi Sanctions Revisions
| 
Back to top
