|
The u s will { September 19 2002 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39533-2002Sep19.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39533-2002Sep19.html
Bush: If U.N. Won't Deal with Iraq, U.S. Will
By Jim VandeHei and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, September 19, 2002; 1:42 PM
President Bush plans to ratchet up the threat of military action against Iraq on both the domestic and international fronts this week and began the effort today by formally asking Congress to grant him authority to strike unilaterally if Saddam Hussein does not comply soon with United Nations mandates to forfeit his weapons of mass destruction.
In a short exchange with reporters this morning before the legislation was sent to Capitol Hill, Bush acknowledged that he would be sending proposed legislation to Capitol Hill and said that it would give him the ability to use force.
"I've asked for Congress' support to enable the administration to keep the peace," Bush said in a short exchange with reporters at the White House this morning. "And we look forward to a good, constructive debate in Congress. I appreciate the fact that the leadership recognizes we've got to move before the election. . . . "
"If you want to keep the peace," he said, "you've got to have the authorization."
The legislation that Bush is proposing for the Congress would allow him to use "all means he determines to be appropriate, including force" against Iraq.
Bush's proposed congressional resolution would give him "maximum flexibility" to carry out any war plans, regardless of U.N. actions, said a senior White House official.
At the same time, the administration is preparing an unprecedented diplomatic push, including a U.N. Security Council resolution to be introduced as early as Friday declaring that Iraq is in "material breach" of international law for its failure to comply with a series of U.N. mandates. The phrase has been used in the past as international authorization for military action.
The president again this morning urged quick, decisive action by the United Nations.
"It is very important that the members understand that the credibility of the United Nations is at stake, that the Security Council must be firm in its resolve to deal with a true threat to world peace, and that is Saddam Hussein," he said. "The United Nations Security council must work with the United States and Britain and other concerned parties to send a clear message that we expect Saddam to disarm. And if the United Nations Security Council won't deal with the problem, the United States and some of our friends will."
Should the Security Council reject Bush's proposed resolution, the administration is prepared to make clear it believes it has authority to act unilaterally under a "self-defense" clause in the U.N. charter. Senior U.S. and British diplomats are working on the draft text, to be introduced jointly or by Britain alone. Aside from the United States and Britain, the Security Council members holding veto powers are China, Russia and France -- and all three have expressed serious reservations about Washington's Iraq policy.
Bush's plans to request broad, open-ended authority from Congress and his willingness to risk an open breach with U.S. allies in the United Nations are designed to make clear that he will brook no conditions on his ability to do what he sees fit in Iraq, sources said.
Strong congressional action, Bush said yesterday after a White House breakfast with top lawmakers, "is an important signal for the world to see this country is united in our resolve to deal with this threat." Congressional leaders predicted swift passage of the proposed resolution, even though some Democrats remain wary of granting Bush the power to go it alone if diplomatic efforts fail.
"We all ought to recognize the military option ought to be the last option, but it ought to be a real option," Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) said after the meeting. "There is a great deal of support for pressing Iraq to open its borders and destroy its weapons."
Daschle, who previously has expressed reservations about the White House's Iraq policy, predicted the resolution will pass with "strong bipartisan support," perhaps by early October. Other Democrats, however, predicted a fight over the wording.
Bush is accelerating his domestic and international campaigns for toughly worded resolutions after the administration's goals seemed undercut by Iraq's offer on Tuesday to allow U.N. weapons inspectors back into the country. Aides said Bush wants overwhelming, bipartisan congressional support to show skeptical world leaders and ordinary citizens here and abroad that he's not acting alone.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told lawmakers yesterday that the Iraqi president, more than any other world leader, poses a clear and present danger to the United States and its allies. Several members of Congress, including Republicans, have raised concerns about the timing of Bush's campaign and its target. They have asked why the United States needs to act now and why Iraq -- as opposed to other countries, such as Iran, known to harbor terrorists and be seeking weapons of mass destruction -- presents the greatest threat.
"No terrorist state poses a greater and more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein," Rumsfeld told the House Armed Services Committee yesterday.
In 3 1/2 hours of testimony, Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, strongly questioned whether U.N. weapons inspectors could stop Iraq's pursuit of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. They cited Iraq's ability to evade previous inspection teams and its recent efforts to build even deeper and more numerous places to hide production and storage facilities.
"Iraq has demonstrated great skill at playing the international community," Rumsfeld said. "It's a dance."
He and Myers sought to reassure committee members that the Pentagon was considering all the risks. They said U.S. forces could manage a war with Iraq without diminishing the global war on terrorism. They expressed confidence that other Arab nations would join a U.S.-led war effort even in the absence of a U.N. resolution. And they said the U.S. government was working on the challenge of reconstructing Iraq and establishing a new government if Hussein is overthrown.
Hoping to box Democrats in, Bush is modeling the congressional resolution after the one the House passed in 1998, at President Bill Clinton's request. Approved 417 to 5, the resolution reaffirmed the U.S. policy of supporting efforts to remove Hussein from power.
The administration wants "simple approval for the president's use of force to enforce resolutions passed by the United Nations," said Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), who is chairman of the House Committee on International Relations. Hyde is leading negotiations regarding the resolution's language.
Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said the resolution would not explicitly call for a regime change in Iraq. But a top White House official said it would be strongly suggested, if not specified.
In his U.N. speech last week, Bush said Hussein had run out of chances and that the U.N. risked irrelevance if it continued to let him flout its orders. Since then, senior administration officials have repeatedly made clear that U.S. willingness to work with the international organization extended only as far as it agreed with the U.S. approach.
The proposal being worked on by British and U.S. diplomats in New York, London and Washington is likely to bring stiff opposition from the other Security Council members with veto powers. France has proposed a resolution reinforcing a decade's worth of U.N. demands on Iraq. If the Iraqi government does not cooperate with this ultimatum, the French proposal calls for the council to reconvene and consider further measures, including possible military action.
Following Baghdad's sudden offer this week to readmit "without preconditions" inspectors it has barred since 1998, Russia said it saw no need for new U.N. resolutions. It has proposed taking Iraq at its word and waiting to see what happens when new inspections begin.
The United States and Britain have rejected those alternatives. Their proposal will call for a newly toughened inspection regime with a tight timeline and unequivocal benchmarks for judging Iraqi cooperation, spelling out the consequences if Iraq fails to comply.
Listing all U.N. resolutions against Iraq, including those dealing with disarmament, human rights and terrorism, the proposal would find that Iraq is already in "material breach" of existing U.N. mandates. This, in the U.S. view, would provide international authorization for military action by the United States and any like-minded countries.
Hoping to head off an open fight in the Security Council, U.S. and British diplomats are continuing preliminary talks with their French, Russian and Chinese colleagues. Bush will lay out the U.S. position in White House talks Friday with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov and Foreign Minister Ivan Ivanov.
Once Security Council deliberations begin, the administration is expected to make clear that if a satisfactory agreement cannot be reached, it will reserve the option to act on its own under Article 51 of the U.N. charter based on the threat Iraq poses. The article recognizes "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations."
Even as the private diplomatic hardball continued, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and chief weapons inspector Hans Blix continued planning a response to Iraq's offer to readmit inspectors. After meeting with the two U.N. officials last night, Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri said he hoped Iraq's invitation "will lead to the eventual lifting of this brutal regime of sanctions" and restore Iraq's "sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence." Annan told Sabri in a statement issued after the meeting that Iraq should "provide full and unconditional cooperation" to the inspectors.
Staff writers Bradley Graham in Washington and Colum Lynch at the United Nations contributed to this report.
© 2002 The Washington Post Company
|
|
