U.N. Urged to Work on Iraq Solution
By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 15, 2002; Page A01
URL: washingtonpost.com
Bush administration officials pushed the United Nations yesterday to begin work this week on ironclad requirements for Iraq and insisted that the resolutions spell out the consequences for Saddam Hussein if he does not disarm.
The officials provided the starkest description yet of President Bush's demands, hardening the White House position going into negotiations with other world powers. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said he has urged members of the U.N. Security Council not to vote for a resolution against Hussein if they do not support enforcement, probably by military force.
"We're talking about a solution this time where the Iraqis are required to act, and if they do not act, the U.N. must act," Powell said on NBC's "Meet the Press." He said the administration wants the Security Council to begin debate this week and to conclude it in "a matter of weeks and not months."
The administration appeared to make some progress over the weekend, at least on the domestic front. Leading Democrats say they would support a vote in coming weeks authorizing military action against Hussein, and opinion polls show growing public approval for Bush's Iraq policy. Retired Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who was national security adviser to Bush's father and had warned against haste against Iraq, said on NBC that the president "is pursuing a brilliant bit of diplomacy now."
At the United Nations, Jordan called on its neighbor Iraq to implement Security Council resolutions, including admitting weapons inspectors.
Powell said the three elements the administration wants in a Security Council ultimatum to Hussein are a declaration that he has broken previous agreements on admitting inspectors and destroying weapons stocks; a requirement that he comply, including a deadline, "or we're just kicking the football further down the field"; and a statement of what action the U.N. will take if he does not cooperate.
The question of whether to specify the consequences if Iraq does not comply is the most controversial of the U.S. demands. France, which is one of the five permanent Security Council members and so can veto its resolutions, has proposed a two-stage process in which Hussein would have three weeks to admit weapons inspectors. If he did not, the Security Council would debate authorization of military force.
Administration officials disparaged the two-step approach during their blitz of Sunday talk shows, with national security adviser Condoleezza Rice declaring on ABC's "This Week" that it "doesn't make sense to say, 'You must do this,' and to say there are no consequences."
"Let's be very realistic: He's said 'yes' to inspectors before," Rice said on BET's "Lead Story." "He frustrated them and he intimidated them and he hid things from them. So this time, anything that we do has to be different."
Rice said the White House was waiting to determine the acceptable wording until after Security Council representatives returned to their capitals to consult about Bush's challenge to the U.N. on Thursday to prove its relevance by holding Iraq to account.
Bush has not said publicly what the U.N. deadline should be for Hussein, but Powell said on NBC that it needs to be "a relatively short timeline" for him to demonstrate compliance with a strict new inspection regime. Administration officials acknowledged that although they prefer a single resolution, some Security Council members might insist on two. Powell said Bush "knew what he was doing when he used the word 'resolutions.'."
Rice said Bush officials believe that one resolution "makes sense, but how it is worded, I think, is a matter for the Security Council to look at."
Saudi Arabia said over the weekend that it would comply with any Security Council resolution on Iraq. Asked if Saudi bases would be available to U.S. aircraft flying in support of such a resolution, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Faisal told CNN that "if there is a Security Council decision ..... everybody is obliged to follow through" under the terms of the U.N. charter. But the Saudis said later that there had been no change in their opposition to a unilateral U.S. invasion of Iraq or a goal of regime change.
What changed, senior Saudi foreign policy adviser Adel Jubeir said in an interview yesterday, was "the president's decision to take the U.N. route, which is what every country in the world has been urging him to do." The Saudis favor a two-resolution plan and have indicated that if Hussein allows U.N. inspectors inside the country, they would not be opposed to destruction of any site to which the inspectors are refused access. But they have emphasized that, should the Security Council subsequently find Baghdad in "material breach" of resolutions, their direct participation in any wider, multilateral military action would depend on the nature of the action.
Nations skeptical of Washington's brisk schedule, particularly countries in the region, have also expressed concern about who would run Iraq if Hussein were deposed. Iraq is divided in a multitude of ways, with Kurds in the north in conflict with one another as well as with bordering states. Dissident groups are shot through with disputes and competition, and some in the administration have said privately there is no way to gauge their support for any particular Hussein successor.
As the administration has signaled before, Bush officials suggested yesterday that the United States does not plan to take sole responsibility for the aftermath of an invasion. Powell said that if Hussein's regime "were to leave the scene in one manner or another," then his replacement "would be a major issue for the international community."
Rice said the administration "has spent a lot of time beginning to think about what a post-Saddam Iraq might look like," but she said uncertainty cannot be a reason for inaction. "We always underestimate people in these circumstances," she said. "We always seem to think that the Iraqi people can't be trusted with their future unless they have a bloody dictator like Saddam Hussein on top of them."
Polls released over the weekend by Newsweek and ABC News found more than two-thirds of respondents favored military action against Iraq, with significant movement toward Bush's position since his speech to the U.N. Perhaps coincidentally, Democrats have begun to sound more supportive of Bush's Iraq policy. He has said Congress must begin its debate on Iraq without waiting for the U.N., although he has not requested a resolution of support.
Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) said he believes a bipartisan consensus on a resolution can be reached before the Nov..5 elections. "We'd be more than willing to take the model that we used in the post-9/11 period, where we sat down together, wrote a resolution on the use of force and came up with a unanimous vote," he said on "This Week." "However they want to do it, we're ready."
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) also said she could support military action. "If it's the right thing to do, I'm going to support the president," she said. "I know a little bit about what it's like on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue making these difficult decisions."
Staff writer Karen DeYoung contributed to this report.
© 2002 The Washington Post Company |
