[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 15 (Wednesday, February 25, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Page S960]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAQ AVERTED

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it now appears that U.S. military action 
against Iraq will not be undertaken in the near future. All Americans, 
and I'm sure people all around the world, are pleased when military 
force can be avoided, when our men and women in uniform are not put in 
harm's way, and when innocent civilian lives are not put at risk.
  But we must be clear: We cannot afford peace at any price--peace that 
could lead to a much more difficult conflict later on down the road.
  It is always possible to get a deal if you give enough away. The 
central issue with regard to Iraq is whether an agreement furthers 
American interests.
  The deal negotiated by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan with Iraq 
does not adequately address the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. After 
years of denying that Saddam Hussein had any right to determine the 
scope of inspections or the makeup of inspection teams, this agreement 
codifies his ability to do both. It is, to quote one diplomat, ``the 
beginning of the unraveling of the inspection process.'' This accord 
sets up a new inspection regime under the control of the Secretary 
General of the so-called ``eight palace residences.'' He appoints 
``senior diplomats'' to the group. He names the head of the group.

  And it is not clear to me, although others I am sure are getting 
clarification on this, who that person would be. Would it be one of the 
UNSCOM inspectors? Would it be some diplomat?
  The group will have its own rules. And we don't know exactly what 
they are because they have not yet been developed. I know questions are 
being asked about this by Ambassador Richardson. I know he is trying to 
get clarifications. I also know that he is concerned about what he is 
learning.
  The Secretary General is calling the shots. The United States is not. 
Secretary Albright earlier this week objected to my characterization of 
this episode as ``contracting out U.S. foreign policy.'' With all due 
respect, I stand by that comment, because it appears that in fact is 
what has happened.
  Because of the central role of the U.N. Secretary General, it is 
important to understand his approach and his conclusions.
  Before and after his mission to Baghdad, Secretary General Annan 
stopped in Paris. He briefed the French government before he met 
personally, as I understand it, with any senior U.S. official. I find 
if of great concern that the French are, frankly, accorded a privilege 
denied to the United States.
  The Secretary General has now briefed the Security Council and the 
press on his trip.
  Let's look at what he has said. ``Saddam can be trusted.'' ``I think 
I can do business with him.'' ``I think he was serious.'' These are all 
direct quotes. The Secretary General told reporters he spent the 
weekend building a ``human relationship'' with Saddam Hussein.
  The Secretary General thinks that he can trust the man who has 
invaded his neighbors, who has used chemical weapons ten times, and who 
tried to assassinate former President George Bush. This is folly. I 
cannot understand why the Clinton Administration would place trust in 
someone devoted to building a ``human relationship'' with a mass 
murdered.
  According to the Washington Post, Secretary General Annan described 
UNSCOM inspectors ``as `cowboys' who had thrown their weight around and 
behaved irresponsibly.'' He also ``passed along without comment on 
Iraqi complaint--denied by [UNSCOM] as a paranoid delusion--that some 
of the most aggressive U.N. inspectors were seeking to hunt down Iraqi 
President Saddam Hussein so he could be assassinated . . .''
  The Secretary General of the U.N. starts describing the inspectors as 
``cowboys,'' when, as a matter of fact, I had the impression, and it 
was universally agreed, that they had been very professional. These are 
people with expertise on biological and chemical weapons. These are 
people that have come from the international atomic agencies. They know 
what they are doing. Mr. Butler, the Brit, was in charge of the 
inspectors, has been very diligent, and very circumspect. As a matter 
of fact, I understand that one of the most aggressive and most 
effective inspectors is a Russian. Why in the world would the Secretary 
General use this kind of wording? Why would he come up with, or even 
pass along, this ridiculous suggestion that they were being used to 
hunt down Saddam Hussein?
  These comments are outrageous. They reflect someone bent on 
appeasement--not someone determined to make the United Nations 
inspection regime work effectively.
  The Secretary General has greatly harmed the credibility of the 
United Nations by cutting what appears to be a special deal with the 
most flagrant violator of United Nations resolutions, probably in 
history. Instead of standing on principle, he sat with the 
unprincipled--and gave him what he wanted.
  The United States has not yet formally announced its support for the 
deal negotiated by Secretary General Annan. It is not too late to 
reject a deal if it leaves Saddam Hussein rejoicing and leaves UNSCOM 
out in the cold.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wanted to make some remarks about 
the situation in Iraq as well.
  Is this a time that has been set aside within the MilCon debate, or 
should I ask consent?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would entertain a request from the 
Senator that she might proceed as if in morning business.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent to 
proceed as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________