[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 156 (Saturday, November 8, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12103-S12105]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             IRAQ SITUATION

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the situation in Iraq 
regarding the U.N. inspection regime and the refusal of the Iraqi 
Government to accept American inspectors and thus delay the 
inspections. The Iraqi purpose is clear: to attack the unity and will 
of the world community, and especially the members of the Security 
Council, concerning sanctions to Iraq; to weaken the authority of the 
United Nations by dictating terms of compliance to U.N. Security 
Council resolutions; and most important, to conceal and retain and 
build up the chemical and biological weapons programs of the Iraqi 
military.
  Once again we are in a crisis with Iraq; not of our making but of 
theirs. The question being debated here and in the United Nations is: 
What should we do?
  The crisis began a week ago on October 29, 1997 when Saddam Hussein 
sought to evict from Iraq Americans who are assigned to international 
inspection teams sent by the United Nations to enforce a cease fire 
agreement signed by Iraq on April 6, 1991, following the January 17 to 
February 28 war to liberate Kuwait known as Desert

[[Page S12104]]

Storm. In the agreement Iraq promised to pay Kuwait for war damages, to 
destroy all its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons capacity, and 
to allow inspectors into their country to verify compliance. On April 
11, 1991, the U.N. Security Council officially declared an end to the 
war and to continuing the sanctions originally imposed on August 6, 
1990.
  The Security Council created the Special Commission, also known as 
UNSCOM, to carry out the inspection of Iraqi installations in order to 
verify the destruction of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons 
capacity. UNSCOM--originally expected to be in operation for several 
months--has been in business for 6 years. During these past 6 years the 
UNSCOM inspectors have met with success. They reduced the Iraqi 
stockpile of weapons of mass destruction more than the war itself. Iraq 
has considerably less capability than it had when Desert Storm ended. 
That is the goods news. The bad news is that they retain sufficient 
capacity to pose a real and serious threat to the people of the United 
States.
  The nature of this residual threat can be seen in a letter sent to 
the United Nations on Wednesday by Richard Butler, an arms control 
expert who heads the UNSCOM. According to Mr. Butler the Iraqis could 
easily adapt laboratory or industrial equipment to resume making 
prohibited materials. In his letter he says: ``For example, it would 
take only a matter of hours to adapt fermenters to produce seed stocks 
of biological warfare agents. Furthermore, it appears that cameras may 
have been intentionally tampered with, lenses covered and lighting 
turned off in the facilities under monitoring.''
  The idea of biological weapons in the hands of Iraq's Saddam Hussein 
should strike fear in the hearts of every American. This man is 
dangerous to his own people, his neighbors, and to us.
  He is also clever. His latest ploy has produced more benefits for him 
than losses. Again, Mr. Butler is our guide. In his letter he says 
that, while we attempt to negotiate a right that was guaranteed under 
the peace agreement they signed, Iraq has been able to hide evidence 
and disable surveillance equipment. He specifically notes that we 
cannot monitor machinery that can balance missile guidance systems or 
equipment that could grow seed stocks of biological agents in a matter 
of hours.
  Mr. Butler calls our attention to two actions Iraq has taken during 
the week when inspectors were absent. First, significant pieces of 
equipment that had been under the view of video monitoring system have 
been moved out of range of cameras. Second, monitoring equipment has 
been tampered with in other areas.
  Even if inspections start again, Saddam Hussein has succeeded in 
making our work more difficult. We must reset and re-aim surveillance 
cameras. We must recheck the machinery or stocks of materials these 
cameras watch. And we should not be certain whether prohibited arms or 
components had been produced in crash programs and carried away to be 
hid.
  So, while we sit and wonder what we should do, Saddam Hussein sits 
and counts the ways he has benefited. A U.N. team sent by Secretary 
General Kofi Amnan has just returned with nothing to show for their 
efforts. The team leader, Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi of Algeria was quoted as 
saying the Iraqis were very nice. Well, why not be nice? After 
succeeding 2 weeks ago in defeating United States efforts to impose 
more intense sanctions at the Security Council, Iraq has now gotten the 
U.N. to send a special negotiating team to ask politely if Iraq will do 
what it promised to do 6 years ago when it was suing for peace.
  Mr. President, we cannot allow the situation in Iraq to continue to 
head in its current direction. Too much is at stake. American security 
and the security of our allies and interests hangs in the balance of 
our decision.
  For my part I have reached the conclusion that our policy of 
containment cannot succeed. We need an objective which will ensure our 
security. We need a goal which will guarantee the stability we seek for 
the region.
  As has always been the case, an outrageous act by Saddam Hussein has 
provoked a strong reaction in this country. Military responses are 
broadly discussed. Editorial pages talk of making sure our military 
response if a head shot at Saddam himself, as though assassination were 
a legal option for U.S. forces. At some point we may turn to a military 
response appropriate in scope and direction to achieve immediate and 
longer terms goals. A measured action, complete with the certainty of 
further response if necessary, may be what is called for in this 
situation. But I believe we need to ensure that our military actions, 
as well as our diplomatic and economic efforts, are part of an overall 
strategy toward Iraq which will attain a goal consistent with American 
ideals and interests.
  Today, the United States and the international community are 
considering whether the proper response to Saddam's actions is a 
limited military action targeting suspected facilities or continued 
talks aimed at a more diplomatic end to this impasse. These are 
tactical options which will enable the United States and the 
international community to continue to muddle through its current 
strategy of containment toward Iraq. While the containment of Saddam 
has brought limited success in disarming his military, this strategy 
has been ineffective in changing the behavior of the Iraqi Government 
and is in danger of becoming more ineffective with the passage of time.
  Some commentators state that the cohesion of the Persian Gulf 
coalition has naturally grown more tenuous as other nations rediscover 
the promise of Iraqi petrodollars. They believe that our former 
coalition partners will inevitably find Iraq's oil wealth so tempting 
as to overlook the risks involved in the reemergence of a military 
powerful Saddam. I believe this need not be the case, if United States 
can formulate a strategy with clear policy objectives instead of 
continuing with a strategy of simply reacting to the Iraqi dictator's 
latest violation. We need to change our goals, our strategy, and our 
tactics.
  I believe our policy toward Iraq should be open and direct--The 
United States seeks to remove the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein in 
Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government. Nothing more, 
nothing less.
  Our frustration with Saddam is understandable. Six years ago we 
thought we had him. He failed utterly, ruined his country and two 
neighboring countries, caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of 
people, and by our political lights he should be gone. But by his 
politics, the politics of a terror rivaled in this century only by 
Stalin's, Saddam keeps his job and we are rightly frustrated.
  While Saddam rules, Iraq poses a threat to its neighbors and, by 
extension, to us. He still has SCUD missiles which could carry his 
chemical and biological agents to Israel, to Saudi Arabia, and to other 
nations in the region whose security is a vital American interest. He 
has ground forces which could invade Kuwait again or embroil any of his 
other contiguous neighbors in war. Those same forces threaten or 
oppress Iraq's Kurdish and Shiite minorities every day.
  If Saddam retains power and escapes from sanctions, the threat he 
will pose in a decade will be far greater. He will have intermediate 
range or even long range missiles to carry his deadly payloads, he may 
have developed a nuclear weapon, and he will again have many billions 
of dollars in oil income to modernize his Armed Forces. He will be a 
major threat to his country and in fact to the entire world. We simply 
cannot let it happen, and I am confident we will not.
  In considering how to respond to Saddam's latest outrage, President 
Clinton and the Congress need to take the long view, looking past the 
incident of the moment to determine the long-range outcome we want. 
Because we are the United States, and because we have already expended 
lives and treasure because of Iraq, I think our long-range goal should 
be ambitious.
  We know from Iraqi history that Iraq is predisposed to dictatorship. 
We also know the dictatorships from this unbalanced state will 
inevitably threaten their neighbors. So getting rid of Saddam is not 
good enough. We need to get rid of Iraqi dictatorship. Our long-range 
goal should be a democratic Iraq. Other countries may be tempted to do 
business deals with the Iraqi dictator

[[Page S12105]]

and tactfully glance away from his abuse of his people. We Americans 
should settle for nothing less than democracy.
  An impossible, naive dream? I think not. The Iraqi people, despite 
the lobotomy Saddam has tried to give them, are a well-educated, 
skilled people. They know the horrors of dictatorship better than 
anyone else on Earth. When Iraqis tell me their heartfelt commitment to 
a democratic future for their country, I believe them.
  How do we turn this yearning for democracy into the reality of a free 
Iraq? Let me lay out a road map. First, we should maintain sanctions on 
Iraq and return to the inspection system which existed until October 
29, when Saddam excluded American inspectors from the teams. If we have 
to use military force to get Iraqi compliance, fine. We should strive 
to have our coalition partners join us in this use because the power of 
the world community to bring an outlaw to heel is at issue here. If 
Iraq can thumb its nose at the Security Council today, some other rogue 
state will do the same tomorrow, and the system we and our allies have 
carefully built over 52 years will collapse. But even if some of our 
coalition partners don't join us, we should act militarily if Iraq 
won't back down.
  Second, we must convince our core European and Asian allies that 
democracy, not just the compliance of a dictator, is the right long-
term goal for Iraq. We must show our allies the far greater benefits 
and reduced risks that will accrue to them as well as to us from a 
democratic Iraq. We must sign up our allies for the long term.
  Third, we must make the people of Iraq our allies, too. We must go 
beyond merely stating our support for democracy and instead put 
concrete encouragements on the table, solid indicators of Western 
commitment to Iraqi democracy. We should announce we will forgive Iraqi 
debt if a democratic regime takes power there and we should encourage 
our allies to do the same. We should state clearly the loan and foreign 
assistance preferences which a democratic Iraq would receive from 
United States and multinational institutions. We should discuss our 
preparations to supply immediate food and medical assistance to Iraq at 
the moment of Saddam's replacement by a regime which states its 
intention to hold free elections. And we should make sure, by means of 
Voice of America and commercial media, that every Iraqi knows about 
these encouragements to be democratic. Even before change comes, these 
steps will restore hope in Iraqi hearts.
  Fourth, we should openly and consistently state our goal of a free, 
democratic Iraq. To accept less and to say less is simply unworthy of 
our heritage. Let democracy, respect for human rights, and a free 
economy be our consistent mantra for Iraq, as it ought to be for every 
country, and some day, not far off, when Saddmam's prisons and 
graveyards and secret weapons sites are opened and the Iraqi people can 
tell the story of their suffering, we will be proud that we set a lofty 
goal.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the role.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the role.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________