[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 26 (Thursday, March 12, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1867-S1874]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INDICTMENT AND PROSECUTION OF SADDAM HUSSEIN
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have been asked by our distinguished
majority leader to request that we now proceed to Calendar No. 322,
relative to the war crimes, under the provisions of the consent
agreement entered into on March 9, 1998.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the concurrent resolution
by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 78) relating to the
indictment and prosecution of Saddam Hussein for war crimes
and other crimes against humanity.
The Senate proceeded to consider the concurrent resolution.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the majority leader has asked me to
express his intention to have a vote on this resolution occur tomorrow
at around 9:30 a.m. and the majority leader notes that he will inform
all Members as to when that vote is set by unanimous consent.
The majority leader has also asked me to announce--if I may have the
attention of the majority leader on this part--the majority leader has
asked me to announce that there will be no further rollcall votes this
afternoon. I hesitate to do that on my own, but, with Senator Lott
here--and he says, now, the vote will be fixed with precision at 9:30
in the morning.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this resolution has been offered by
Senator Dorgan and myself. The most expeditious way to move to the
import of the resolution is to read the ``resolved'' clause. It is as
follows:
That the President should:
(1) call for the creation of a commission under the
auspices of the United Nations to establish an international
record of the criminal culpability of Saddam Hussein, and
other Iraqi officials;
(2) call for the United Nations to form an international
criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting,
and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who
are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and
other violations of international law; and
(3) upon the creation of such an international criminal
tribunal, take steps necessary, including the reprogramming
of funds, to ensure United States support for efforts to
bring Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials to justice.
This move to try Saddam Hussein as a war criminal is the most recent
in a series of moves to establish the international rule of law with an
international criminal court. The antecedent for this activity lay in
the international military tribunal at Nuremberg, which was convened to
try individuals for crimes against international law committed during
World War II. The Nuremberg tribunal provisions stated that:
Crimes against international law are committed by men, not
abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who
commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be
enforced.
That statement is as valid today as it was in 1946. For more than a
decade, many of us in the Congress of the United States have sought to
create an international criminal court to deal with crimes against
humanity and other international crimes. Senator Dodd and I have
authored a series of resolutions in the U.S. Senate. In the House of
Representatives, under the leadership of Congressman Jim Leach, a
number of resolutions have been offered. The international criminal
court is moving forward, with a realistic likelihood of the
establishment of such an international criminal court in the not too
far distant future. And, in the interim, the War Crimes Tribunal has
[[Page S1868]]
been established by the United Nations to try crimes against humanity
from the former Yugoslavia, the offenses committed in Bosnia and
related territories, and for crimes against humanity committed in
Rwanda.
The War Crimes Tribunal is in existence. I have had the opportunity
to visit it on three occasions to see the operation of the Tribunal. It
would be merely an extension of the War Crimes Tribunal to include the
import of the current resolution so that Saddam Hussein could be tried
as a war criminal.
The specifics are that in 1988 the Iraqi Government, under the
direction of Saddam Hussein, carried out a systematic campaign to
destroy the Kurdish population in Iraq. Kurdish leaders estimated the
death toll of this campaign at between 50,000 and 182,000.
On March 16, 1988, Iraqi aircraft bombed the city of Halabja, then in
the hands of Iranian-supported Kurdish rebels. That bombing was with
chemical weapons, and more than 5,000 women and children died in that
attack.
Iraqi chemical weapons were used in 1982 to 1984 in the Iran-Iraq
war. The Iraqis developed their proficiency in chemical weapons
gradually during the war with Iran. The Iraqis initially used chemical
weapons against the Iranians in 1982, and the next recorded deployment
was in July 1983, when the Iraqis used mustard gas against an Iranian
force. Large quantities of mustard gas were used in November 1983 and
February 1984. They may also have used a nerve agent in the February
1984 attack.
With respect to the Iraq-Kuwait crisis, from January 18, 1991, to
February 25, 1991, Iraq fired 39 Scud conventional warhead missiles at
Israel in 18 separate attacks, killing 2 persons directly, killing 12
people indirectly, and injuring more than 200 persons.
On December 18, 1990, Amnesty International issued a report that
stated Iraq tortured or executed hundreds of Kuwaitis suspected of
conducting guerrilla warfare against Iraqi forces. Thousands of
Kuwaitis were arrested for resisting Iraqi orders. Amnesty
International also reported that some 312 premature babies died after
the Iraqi troops stole their incubators.
Iraq committed deliberate and calculated crimes of environmental
terrorism in the region by its willful ignition of more than 700
Kuwaiti oil wells in February 1991.
In the spring of 1993, the Government of Kuwait informed the U.S.
administration that it had discovered evidence that Iraq sponsored an
attempt to assassinate former President Bush and destabilize Kuwait
during his April 14, 15, and 16 visit to Kuwait. The Federal Bureau of
Investigation and other U.S. intelligence agencies were sent to Kuwait
to conduct their own investigation and reported back to the President
on June 24, 1993, that their findings confirmed the view that Iraq was
behind the plot.
Iraq denied that it attempted to assassinate the President. But the
proof, being overwhelming, led the United States, on June 26, 1993, to
launch 23 Tomahawk missiles at Iraqi intelligence headquarters.
On June 28, 1993, President Clinton sent the Congress a letter
describing the missile attack on Iraq being ``consistent with the War
Powers Resolution.''
This is a very brief summary of the war crimes committed by Saddam
Hussein and others. We have found on the international scene the
conduct of Saddam Hussein to be reprehensible in many other respects.
Saddam Hussein has flagrantly violated the U.N. resolutions, carrying
the world to the brink of conflict and then backing down at the last
minute. It would be a very salutary matter to have Saddam Hussein
indicted and tried as a war criminal. It is obvious that taking Saddam
Hussein into custody is a very complex matter and perhaps impossible
without an enormous military force. By 20/20 hindsight, Saddam Hussein
should have been taken into custody in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, but
that is 20/20 hindsight.
There have been a number of calls to have Saddam Hussein toppled. It
is not beyond the realm of possibility that insurgent forces within
Iraq could lead a revolution. The United States could lend the Voice of
America to those efforts. The United States could, consistent with
international practices, support those who would move against Saddam
Hussein, and in the context where action is contemplated against Saddam
Hussein, a resolution for the trial of Saddam Hussein as a war
criminal, the indictment itself, the trial, even if in absentia, could
give the United States a high moral ground and warrant our action in
toppling Saddam Hussein.
I am joined at this time by my distinguished colleague, Senator
Dorgan, who is a cosponsor of the resolution. I yield the floor to
Senator Dorgan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, first, I compliment Senator Specter from
Pennsylvania, since he is the original author of this resolution on an
international criminal tribunal for Iraq. I very much appreciate his
leadership, and I know the Senate appreciates that leadership as well.
This is the right subject. It is something the Senate needs to be
discussing. I hope very much that tomorrow, when we vote on this
resolution, the Senate will overwhelmingly approve it.
Recently, in the country of Iraq, a state-controlled newspaper
proposed that Saddam Hussein be given the Nobel Peace Prize. I doubt
whether many Americans would believe that Saddam Hussein would qualify
for the Nobel Peace Prize. The only ceremony I believe Saddam Hussein
ought to attend in the near future is a war crimes trial. And I expect,
in the future, if there were a war crimes trial to be held--and I hope
this legislation will be the catalyst to make that happen--I expect in
the future no one will again suggest a Nobel Peace Prize for a
convicted war criminal.
Why do we say there should be an international tribunal to try Saddam
Hussein and other leaders of Iraq for war crimes?
First of all, there is precedent for it, as Senator Specter
indicated. In Nuremberg, at the end of World War II, over 200 Nazi
leaders were tried between 1945 and 1949. Thirty-seven of them were
sentenced to death, 23 to life in prison, and 101 to shorter prison
terms.
There is an international tribunal for Rwanda at work right now.
Three trials are underway. Thirty-one suspects have been indicted, and
nearly all of them are in custody.
The international tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has indicted 79
suspects, of whom 24 are now in custody.
I believe that an international tribunal to try Saddam Hussein and
other Iraqi leaders for war crimes should follow on these models. A
tribunal for Iraq should be constituted by the United Nations, and war
crimes trials should begin.
Iraq's crimes against peace include two wars of aggression: the Iran-
Iraq war in which Iraq invaded Iran, and the Persian Gulf war, in which
Iraq invaded its southern neighbor, Kuwait.
War crimes committed by Iraqi forces against civilians in Kuwait
include extrajudicial and political killings, acts of torture, rapes of
civilian women, pillage and looting--all crimes under the Fourth Geneva
Convention, which requires wartime protections for civilians.
Iraqi troops committed crimes against third country nationals. They
prevented Western and Arab refugees from leaving Iraq and Kuwait. They
carried out arbitrary arrests and detentions. Iraq even resorted to
hostage taking and use of hostages as human shields.
The Iraqi government committed crimes against prisoners of war. It
used physical and mental torture to coerce POWs to reveal information.
It used prisoners of war as human shields, and it displayed injured
prisoners of war on Iraqi TV.
Iraq committed crimes against diplomats and embassies: it abducted
people with diplomatic immunity, and it seized and blockaded embassies
in Kuwait.
So Mr. President, the list of war crimes during the Persian Gulf War
is a lengthy one. However, Iraq's criminal record goes back further
than that.
Human Rights Watch has written extensively about the Anfal campaign
against the Kurds living in northern Iraq. This campaign was a policy
of systematic and deliberate murder. Human Rights Watch concluded that
the Iraqi government killed at least 50,000 and perhaps as many as
100,000 Kurds.
[[Page S1869]]
The Anfal campaign involved the destruction of thousands of Kurdish
villages and the murder, disappearance, and extermination by chemical
weapons or the forcible resettlement of hundreds of thousands of Kurds.
This was ethnic cleansing before the term was invented.
Even worse, the Anfal campaign included chemical weapons. A U.S.
Government white paper says there were ``numerous Iraqi chemical
attacks against civilian villages in 1987 and 1988.'' The white paper
lists 10 instances of Iraqi chemical attacks and says that Iraq
``delivered. . .Mustard 5 agent and the nerve gases Sarin and Tabun in
aerial bombs, spray dispensers, 120-mm rockets and several types of
artillery.''
Iraq possesses a chemical weapons program and a biological weapons
program. Its chemical stockpile contained 40,000 chemical weapons
munitions; 480,000 liters of chemical weapons agents; and 8 delivery
systems.
Iraq's biological weapons arsenal included 8,500 liters of anthrax;
19,000 liters of botulinum toxin; and 2,200 liters of alfatoxin. This
program was in violation of the Biological Weapons Convention, to which
Iraq is a party.
And the list of Iraqi crimes and treaty violations goes on at some
length. I ask unanimous consent to have the list printed in the Record
at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let us look at the behavior and the
actions of Saddam Hussein and the regime in Iraq through the horror of
what happened to a young boy, now dead, named Dejwar, 5 years of age.
In reading Dejwar's story, I am relying on the wonderful reporting work
done by Middle East Watch and the Physicians for Human Rights. Human
Rights Watch has published this work in a book called, ``The Anfal
Campaign in Iraqi Kurdistan.''
This book tells a terrible story about happened to Dejwar.
On August 25, 1988, at dawn, this 5-year-old boy, with his father, a
farmer, was awake inside their house in Birjinni. Hassan, the boy's
father, lived there with his father and mother, his four brothers, his
wife and four children, of whom Dejwar was one.
Hassan, Dejwar's father, was preparing to go to the orchards that
morning. Then the bombs began to drop. The father said that the
explosions that morning were not as strong as other bombs that had been
dropped on their village by the Government of Iraq.
The surviving villagers described the smoke that morning rising from
the bombs as ``white, black and then yellow'' smoke. Those columns of
smoke from the bombs rose 50 to 60 meters in the air.
The smell of gas was ``pleasant, at first'' that morning. ``It
smelled of apples,'' they said, smelled of ``something sweet.'' Several
men said it smelled like ``pesticides in the fields.'' Shortly after
that, they said ``it became bitter. It affected our eyes, and our
mouths, and our skin. All of a sudden,'' they said, ``it was hard to
breathe. Your breath wouldn't come. You couldn't breathe'' at all.
The people of that village--and this is one study of one village, one
attack on one morning by the Iraqi Government--did not know what to do
when those bombs fell. They began to understand these were not usual
bombs, these were chemical bombs.
As the smoke from the chemical bombs settled into the lower land,
they said ``it drifted down the valley toward the fields and the
orchards.'' The father said, ``I took my family, three of my children
and my wife, and we ran to higher ground. We went the other direction
from the smoke.'' There was complete panic; people ran in all
directions. Families were separated, children lost from their parents.
Everyone ``was trying to save themselves, each one himself, even the
mothers of children, because they couldn't breathe.''
But Hassan's father and other family members at first stayed in the
house because ``they didn't know what the smoke could do.'' When they
realized they were under gas attack, many of them ran down from the
village to an orchard in a ravine. The smoke followed them into the
ravine.
Hassan and his wife realized that one of their four children was also
separated from them, and that was the 5-year-old boy I mentioned,
Dejwar. He was missing. He had gone with his grandfather to the orchard
in the ravine and stayed there.
When some of the smoke lifted, after about a half an hour, Hassan and
other survivors thought it was safe to come to the village. He found
his mother and sister ``lying on the ground, overcome by the gas.''
Symptoms: Hands, legs paralyzed, trembling, shaking. They tried to
swallow water and couldn't. Their throats were burning. They were
vomiting. Hassan later said, ``My mother whispered, 'I think there's a
hole in my head.''' Within several hours after exposure to the smoke,
both mother and sister went blind, according to family members.
Hassan went down from the village and found his father and his son
Dejwar lying dead outside the orchard. There were no marks on them.
``It was like they were sleeping,'' he said, ``except their faces were
blue.'' Then he found his two brothers dead in a small cave where they
had taken refuge.
Mr. President, these are just a few paragraphs in a book describing
the experience of one village under attack with chemical weapons by the
country of Iraq.
Name another leader on the face of this Earth who has decided, not
once but on numerous occasions, to use weapons of mass destruction
against his own people and his neighbors. Name one other country. Only
Iraq, only Saddam Hussein.
The Senator from Pennsylvania and I and others say it is time, long
past the time, when there should be constituted an international
tribunal to try these people, who have committed such atrocities, for
war crimes. That tribunal will give a much longer presentation of
evidence than the Senator from Pennsylvania or I will give today. Maybe
then, maybe all of the world will see the systematic presentation of
evidence, and hear of the unspeakable horrors that have been visited
upon innocent men, women and children. Not just tens of thousands, but
hundreds of thousands of people, who have disappeared and been killed
and murdered. Some of them were killed by poison gas.
Maybe then the rest of the people in the world will understand this
is not just a foreign leader, this is not just the leader of Iraq, this
is a convicted war criminal.
A war crimes trial should have happened after the Gulf War. Whether
Saddam Hussein is tried in absentia or not is irrelevant to me. The
fact that he is tried is very important. We must, as a world, come
together and judge actions of this type.
The unspeakable horrors that have been visited upon so many innocent
people by this government must not go unnoticed and must not remain
unprosecuted. We can, we should, and we will convene an international
tribunal. We have done that in the past, and there are two such
tribunals ongoing right now.
With the leadership of the Senator from Pennsylvania, we can and will
and should convene that international tribunal for Iraq and do the
right thing.
This resolution may be controversial for some, who say that the foggy
world of diplomacy does not accommodate this kind of decisive and
important action. I think the foggy world of diplomacy demands this
kind of action.
When diplomatic initiatives occur in the Persian Gulf in the future,
it ought not occur between respectable diplomats on one side and Saddam
Hussein as a national leader on the other side. It ought to be Saddam
Hussein, a convicted war criminal, on the other side, a war criminal
convicted by evidence all the world will have seen. That is the purpose
of this resolution.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
CRIMES OF SADDAM HUSSEIN AND IRAQI LEADERS
The first category of crimes is crimes against peace. It
has been said that to wage a war of aggression is the worst
of all war crimes, because from it other war crimes flow. In
fact, the Nuremberg and Tokyo war crimes tribunals both said
that to unleash a war of aggression ``is the supreme
international crime.'' In international legal terms, a war of
aggression is a crime against peace, and the leaders of a
government that wages an aggressive war are culpable for
their country's aggression.
The regime of Saddam Hussein is guilty of perpetrating this
crime not once but twice.
[[Page S1870]]
Often overlooked is the fact that Saddam Hussein invaded
Iran in September of 1980, thinking that a weakened and
isolated Iran would not be able to fend off what was
essentially an Iraqi land grab. The Iran-Iraq War lasted
until a cease-fire in 1988. It is estimated that the war left
1 million dead and 1.7 million wounded. Iraq repeatedly
resorted to using chemical weapons during this war.
Iraq's second war of aggression was the attempted
annexation of Kuwait, which began with an unprovoked Iraqi
invasion on August 2, 1990. This was an attempt by Iraq to
annex Kuwait, to obliterate Kuwait as an independent state,
which is a violation of Chapter I, Article 2, sections (1)
and (4) of the United Nations Charter, of which Iraq is a
signatory. In addition, it was a violation of Article 25 of
the UN Charter for Iraq to refuse to accept and carry out 12
specific UN resolutions ordering Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait
and to permit the restoration of Kuwait's lawful government.
During their illegal occupation of Kuwait, Iraqi forces
occupying Kuwait committed many war crimes. The scope of
Iraq's guilt is suggested by a Defense Department report that
states that Iraq's war crimes included:
Taking hostages, torture and murder of civilians, looting
civilian property, looting cultural property, indiscriminate
attacks on noncombatants by the launching of Scud missiles
against cities rather than specific military objectives,
illegal employment of sea mines, mistreatment of prisoners of
war, and unnecessary destruction of property, as evidenced by
the release of oil into the Persian Gulf and the destruction
of hundreds of Kuwaiti oil wells.
Iraq's crimes against the people of Kuwait included
extrajudicial and political killings of hundreds of Kuwaiti
civilians, rapes of civilian women, collective punishment of
neighborhoods where resistance was strong, and pillage and
looting of nearly everything of value.
According to an article in the Denver Journal of
International Law and Policy, the acts of torture committed
by Iraqi troops in Kuwait included:
Beatings, the use of fists, belts, hot metal rods and hot
skewers, kicking, burning of the skin with fire and acid,
sexual torture, mock execution, electric shocks, shootings,
knife slashes, exposure to extreme heat and cold for long
periods of time, pulling out fingernails and forcing victims
to watch relatives being tortured.
All of these actions against the population of Kuwait were
war crimes under relevant international law, especially the
Fourth Geneva Convention, which describes obligations to
protect civilians in time of war. Both Iraq and Kuwait are
parties to this convention.
International law also protects citizens of other countries
in Iraq or Kuwait. However, despite being a party to the
Fourth Geneva Convention and to the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, Iraq committed many crimes
against third country nationals. These crimes included
preventing Western and Arab refugees from leaving Iraq and
Kuwait, subjecting third country nationals to arbitrary
arrest and detention, taking some of them hostage and using
them as human shields, and murdering Egyptians, Iranians,
Pakistanis and others in Kuwait.
Iraq is also a party to the Geneva Convention Relative to
the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which requires good
treatment and protection of POWs. However, during the
occupation of Kuwait, Iraqi forces committed war crimes
against POWs, including physical and mental torture to coerce
POWs to reveal information, using POWs as human shields, and
displaying injured POWs on Iraqi television.
One of the oldest obligations in international law requires
that countries immunity to diplomats and respect the
integrity of embassies and their archives and documents. Iraq
and Kuwait are parties to 2 conventions on this subject, the
Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations.
Nevertheless, Iraqi troops violated these conventions by
denying diplomatic immunity to those diplomats whose nations
refused to shut down their embassies (as demanded by Iraq),
seizing and blockading embassies in Kuwait, and abducting
people with diplomatic immunity.
During the Persian Gulf War, Iraq launched surface-to-
surface missiles at populated cities in Israel and Saudi
Arabia. These were among Iraq's more blatant and dramatic
crimes. Who can forget the TV footage of Scud missile
fragments falling on Tel Aviv? In the case of Israel, these
were attacks upon a neutral state. In the case of Saudi
Arabia, the attacks served no military purpose. In both
cases, missile bombardments were willful and wanton attacks
on civilian populations, in violation of the 1907 Hague
Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land.
During and after its occupation of Kuwait, Iraq took
extreme steps to destroy Kuwaiti property--steps that were
well beyond what military necessity required. Iraq released
millions of gallons of crude oil into the Persian Gulf to
gain military advantage, at great environmental cost.
Retreating Iraqi forces also set fire to over 700 Kuwaiti oil
wells. International law has a convention against such
environmental crimes: the Convention on the Prohibition of
Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental
Modification Techniques. Iraq signed this Convention on
August 15, 1977 and violated it less than 15 years later.
Perhaps Iraq's most fundamental war crime was its refusal
to honor its Charter commitment, as a member of the United
Nations, to ``accept and carry out the decisions of the
Security Council.'' The Security Council adopted 12
resolutions after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. They called on
Iraq to cease its war crimes and to withdraw from Kuwait. We
all know that Iraq refused to comply, and had to be routed
from Kuwait by force.
GENOCIDE AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
The violations of international law in Kuwait were
systematic and widespread. But the international tribunal
should not confine itself simply to the Persian Gulf War--to
do so would be to ignore the larger pattern of Saddam
Hussein's crimes, of which the invasion of Kuwait was only a
part. Criminals, after all, have records--and the criminal
record of Saddam Hussein is a long one. It goes back to
before the Persian Gulf War, and it continued after the war.
The most enormous crime that Iraqi leaders have committed
was the genocidal Anfal campaign against Kurds in rural areas
of northern Iraq. Relying on over 300 interviews, field work
in Iraqi Kurdistan, and forensic material, and using a
captured cache of official Iraqi documents, Human Rights
Watch has concluded that the Anfal campaign against Iraqi
Kurds involved the ``systematic, deliberate murder of at
least 50,000, and possibly as many as 100,000, Kurds.'' The
campaign involved the destruction of thousands of Kurdish
villages, and the murder, disappearance, extermination by
chemical weapons, or forcible resettlement of hundreds of
thousands of Kurds.
A Human Rights Watch report describes how this campaign of
genocide worked, village by village. ``A village was often
first shelled or bombed, sometimes with chemical weapons,
evidently of the type used in the Iran-Iraq war. The
inhabitants, attempting to flee, were trapped by troops
enveloping the village.'' Iraqi security forces would cull
out the men and the boys, who disappeared. Eyewitness reports
suggest that they were taken south by truck, killed, and
buried in mass graves.
These acts against its own Kurdish population make the
Iraqi government guilty of genocide, as that crime is defined
by the Genocide Convention, to which Iraq became a party in
1959. The Convention prohibits the mass murder of people
based on their ethnicity. It is clear from Iraq's own
documents that on a mass scale, the Government of Iraq
attempted to eliminate Kurds simply because they were
Kurds. This is the definition of genocide.
In its campaign against its own Kurdish population, the
Iraqi government used chemical weapons left over from its
wartime stockpile. A U.S. government white paper on Iraqi
weapons of mass destruction says that there were ``numerous
Iraqi chemical attacks against civilian villages in the 1987
and 1988 time frames . . . in areas close to both the Iranian
and Turkish borders.'' That same white paper also lists 10
instances of Iraqi chemical attacks against Iranian troops or
Kurdish civilians. To quote the report:
``Iraq had an advanced chemical warfare capability that it
used extensively against Iran and against its own Kurdish
population during the 1980s. Iraqi forces delivered chemical
agents (including Mustard 5 agent and the nerve agents Sarin
and Tabun 6) in aerial bombs, aerial spray dispensers, 120-mm
rockets, and several types of artillery both for tactical
military purposes and to terrorize rebellious segments of the
population.''
IRAQI VIOLATIONS OF TREATIES AND UN RESOLUTIONS
These chemical weapons attacks, both in the war against
Iran and internally against the people of Kurdistan, raise
the issue of Iraq's entire program to develop weapons of mass
destruction--chemical, biological and nuclear weapons--and
the means to deliver them. These weapons programs were not
war crimes that an international tribunal could prosecute,
but they are further evidence by which to judge Saddam
Hussein. Most importantly, they show a continuing pattern of
treaty violations and disregard for Security Council
resolutions.
For example, Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iranian
troops was a violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925, to
which Iraq is a party. While most of Iraq's chemical attacks
were in the 1980s, it is only since the Persian Gulf War that
the full extent of Iraq's chemical arsenal has become
apparent. UN inspectors have supervised the destruction of
40,000 chemical weapons munitions (of which 12,000 were
filled), 480,000 liters of chemical weapons agents, and 8
types of chemical weapons delivery systems, including
ballistic missile warheads.
Despite Iraq's commitment to the UN to destroy its chemical
weapons and production facilities, Iraq is poised to resume
its production. According to the white paper, ``UNSCOM
believes Iraq continues to conceal a small stockpile of
chemical weapons agents, munitions and production
equipment.'' If this is the case, it is a direct violation of
the United Nations cease-fire resolutions, which, under the
UN Charter, Iraq has an obligation to obey. Ominously, the
white paper notes that ``Since the Gulf War, Iraq has rebuilt
two facilities it once used to produce chemical agents and
has the capability to shift smaller civilian facilities to
chemical weapons production.''
Iraq's record is even worse with respect to biological
weapons. Despite Iraq's commitment to reveal all of its
weapons of mass destruction programs, and despite the demands
[[Page S1871]]
of the UN that it do so, it was only after the defection in
August 1995 of Saddam Hussein's son-in-law Husayn Kamil, the
former head of Iraqi military industries, that Iraq owned up
to its biological weapons program.
According to the Administration white paper, Iraq's
biological weapons activities included producing 8,500 liters
of anthrax, 19,000 liters of botulinum toxin and 2,200 liters
of alfatoxin. Iraq also prepared biological weapons
munitions, including 25 Scud missile warheads (5 anthrax, 16
botulinum toxin, 4 alfatoxin), 157 aerial bombs, and aerial
dispensers. Iraq researched other ways of using biological
weapons, including 155mm artillery shells, artillery rockets,
a MiG-21 drone, and aerosol generators.
The Iraqi biological weapons program was a clear violation
of the Biological Weapons Convention, which Iraq signed,
incredibly enough, in 1991. Is there any greater indication
of Saddam Hussein's criminality than his legal commitment in
that year to destroy his stockpile of biological weapons--a
pledge that he clearly never intended to fulfill?
Lastly, Iraq has confessed to a nuclear weapons development
program, but again only after Husayn Kamil's defection in
1995. According to the white paper, ``Iraq has admitted
experimenting with 7 uranium enrichment techniques. . . .
Iraq planned to build a nuclear device in 1991.''
Since the Gulf War, Iraq has violated the safeguards and
inspection agreement that it signed with the International
Atomic Energy Agency, which is attempting to monitor Iraq's
nuclear program. The United Nations Security Council, in
several resolutions, has denounced Iraq's failure to comply
with the cease-fire resolution (#687) and with Iraq's
obligations under international law, including treaties--the
Nonproliferation Treaty, the Geneva Protocol of 1925 and the
Biological Weapons Convention. The Security Council has
concluded that:
Iraq is ``in flagrant violation of [the cease-fire]
resolution'';
Iraq's weapons development activities are ``material
breaches of its obligations'' under the cease-fire
resolution; and
Iraq's failure to comply with the safeguards agreement
``constitutes a breach of its international obligations''
under the Nonproliferation Treaty.
Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. How much time remains under the agreement?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania holds 49 minutes
7 seconds; the other side holds 47 minutes 37 seconds.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I urge any of my colleagues who wish to
speak on this resolution to come forth at this time.
In the absence of any Senator seeking recognition, I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1933
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader and on behalf
of Senator Specter, I call up amendment numbered 1933 to the pending
resolution
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski], for Mr. Specter
and Mr. Dorgan, proposes an amendment numbered 1933.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:
That the President should--
(1) call for the creation of a commission under the
auspices of the United Nations to establish an international
record of the criminal culpability of Saddam Hussein and
other Iraqi officials;
(2) call for the United Nations to form an international
criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting,
and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and any other Iraqi officials
who may be found responsible for crimes against humanity,
genocide, and other violations of international humanitarian
law; and
(3) upon the creation of a commission and international
criminal tribunal, take steps necessary, including the
reprogramming of funds, to ensure United States support for
efforts to bring Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials to
justice.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered as
read and agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1933) was agreed to.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I rise in support of Senator Specter's resolution
which calls for the establishment of a war crimes tribunal to bring
Saddam Hussein to justice. I agree that it is justifiable that Saddam
Hussein be prosecuted as an international war criminal, thereby
removing him from power. Such an action would eliminate the problem
facing the United States and a good part of the free world today.
Certainly with his systematic action to destroy the population of the
civilian Kurds in Iraq through the use of chemical weapons in 1988, his
war of aggression against Kuwait in 1990, his missile attacks on Israel
in 1991, and his involvement in the attempt to assassinate former
President Bush in 1993, there is no doubt in my mind that there is
sufficient evidence to pursue him as a war criminal.
Mr. President, I think this resolution is only one of the policies
that this administration should pursue to shut down Iraq's terrorist
regime. I propose one more, one that I raised earlier in this body this
week. I think we must go back to the original purpose of the economic
sanctions against Iraq and shut down Saddam Hussein's ability to fund
his programs for weapons of mass destruction.
In other words, Mr. President, cut off his cash flow, which comes
from illegal oil sales. Mr. President, this is the only way we can
bring Saddam to his knees. We must effectively cut off the flow of oil
from Iraq.
I would like to share a few facts that my colleagues may not be aware
of but that are critical to the issue of how Saddam Hussein maintains
his current grip on power.
Revenue from oil exports have historically represented nearly all of
Iraq's foreign exchange earnings. In the year preceding Operation
Desert Storm, Iraq's export earnings totaled $10.4 billion, with 95
percent of that attributed to petroleum exports. So make no mistake
about where the revenue comes from. It comes from his oil. Iraq's
imports during the same year, 1990, totaled only $6.6 billion.
U.N. Security Council Resolution 687, passed in 1991 at the end of
the Gulf war, requires that international economic sanctions, including
an embargo on the sale of oil from Iraq, remain in place until--I
emphasize ``until''--Iraq discloses and destroys its weapons of mass
destruction programs and capabilities and undertakes unconditionally
never to resume such activities.
Well, where are we? The teeth in Resolution 687 have effectively been
removed with the expansion of the so-called oil-for-food exception to
the sanctions. The first loosening of the sanctions occurred in 1995
when Security Council Resolution 986 allowed Iraq to export $1 billion
in oil every 90 days, which is $4 billion over a year.
Most recently, during the period when Saddam was again violating
Security Council resolutions by refusing to allow international
inspectors to conduct their work, the United Nations voted to more than
double the amount of oil Iraq can export next year.
On February 20, the U.N. Security Council, with the Clinton
administration's support, adopted Resolution 1153, which will allow
Iraq to export $10.52 billion in oil sales per year. That is $5.256
billion every 6 months. In other words, Iraq is now authorized to
export nearly as much oil, in today's dollars, as it did before it
invaded Kuwait.
So what are we doing, Mr. President? We are obviously increasing
Saddam Hussein's ability to generate a greater cash flow to fund his
purposes, that are certainly suspect, to say the least.
The question is, Will the United States force Iraq to wait to rebuild
its oil production capability until it meets the conditions imposed at
the end of the Gulf war? We clearly have that answer: It is quite the
contrary. In fact, paragraph 12 of Resolution 1153 directs the
Secretary General to establish a group of experts to determine whether
Iraq has the production and transportation capacity to export the full
amount allowed. Well, the resolution goes on to say that the Security
Council ``expresses its readiness'' to authorize ``the export of
necessary equipment to enable Iraq to increase the export of petroleum
or petroleum products.''
[[Page S1872]]
Clearly, we are giving him the green light to increase his production
capabilities.
Nowhere does the resolution mention the potential arms control
problems presented by allowing Iraq to resume the import of petroleum
equipment, some of which is dual-use and some of which can easily be
disguised.
We witnessed his efforts in the early 1980s to disguise shipments
into Iraq that, at that time, were explained to the United States as
``parts for his refineries,'' when in fact they turned out to be parts
for his huge cannon or pipe gun.
Even as President Clinton vowed to ``keep the sanctions on'' Iraq
until the regime lives up to most of its commitments, we are obviously
creating a giant loophole for Iraq's most important commodity--and that
is oil--to find its way out into the markets of the world.
Mr. President, I recommend to my colleagues an excellent analysis of
the problems with the expansion of the oil program by Patrick Clawson,
which came out of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy,
entitled ``Oil for Food Or the End of Sanctions.'' I ask unanimous
consent that the text of this article be printed in the Record at the
conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Further, it should be noted that using this program to
feed his people and to provide medicine frees up other resources that
can be used to finance his factories of death.
Moreover, the increase in illegal sales of petroleum products
coincided with implementation of the oil-for-food program in 1995. Part
of this oil is moving via truck across the Turkey-Iraq border. A more
significant amount is moving by sea vessel through the Persian Gulf.
Exports of contraband Iraqi oil through the Gulf have jumped seven-fold
in the past year, from $10 million in diesel fuel sales in 1996 to $75
million in 1997. Furthermore, Iraq has been steadily increasing exports
of oil to Jordan, from 60,000 barrels per day at the end of Operation
Desert Storm to an expected 96,000 barrels per day this year. An ABC
News report in December of 1997 cited the Center for Global Energy
Studies' estimate that Saddam Hussein was generating $300 million to
$400 million a year from contraband oil sales.
Mr. President, I have absolutely no doubt that allowing Saddam to
increase his oil production under the new resolution means that
contraband oil exports will increase proportionately. It is this
illegal flow of oil that is the lifeline that keeps his Republican
Guards well fed and his weapons of mass destruction program on track.
Finally, Mr. President, Resolution 1153 does more than address
humanitarian imports; it finances almost the full range of imports that
Iraq would make were it not under the sanctions. The resolution
provides for infrastructure improvements, such as sewers and
electricity--all activities that would normally be undertaken by the
Iraqi Government.
I have a few theories about the motivation of the interested parties.
From the standpoint of the Clinton administration, this may have been
viewed as a counterbalance to the call for military action. I think it
was certainly counterproductive. But in any event, that was their
decision.
But for the other members of the Security Council, particularly those
who oppose the use of military force--Russia, France, and China--the
motivation is clear. The motivation is economic. As a recent Wall
Street Journal article observed:
For Kremlin envoys, more than $10 billion in contracts and
debt is at stake in bringing an end to the United Nations
economic sanctions against one of Russia's biggest trading
partners.
Indeed, even under the U.N. embargo, Russian oil companies
have been the prime beneficiaries of the oil-for-food
program. It is reported that Russia signed and delivered 36
contracts to supply pharmaceuticals worth $100 million to
Iraqi hospitals under the U.N. deal.
Russia's heavy industry would also benefit by supplying oil
equipment, such as platforms and rigs, to Iraq, as would Russian arms
makers. Of course, some Russian companies have not waited for the end
of the sanctions. Iraq obtained several Russian gyroscopes used for
aiming Scuds back in 1995. We know that. And just last week, U.N.
inspectors accused Russia of selling Iraq huge steel drums that can be
used to produce biological warfare agents.
I should note that both China and France have similar conflicts of
interest in that their close economic ties to Iraq and their desire for
Iraqi oil have made them hard set against any military action.
With the United Nations having now negotiated a deal with Saddam
Hussein that appears, in the short term at least, to have sidetracked
military options, and with members of the Security Council actively
working to let Saddam off the hook, what can the United States do
unilaterally to advance our national security interests?
I am pleased to announce that Senator Helms and the Foreign Relations
Committee and, in my capacity as chairman of the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, will be holding hearings on this matter in the
very near future. Our Committees will look specifically at enforcement
and monitoring of the oil-for-food program, the flow of contraband oil
out of Iraq, the effect of the lifting of the sanctions on Iraq by the
United Nations, and the beneficiaries of that change of policy.
I believe Congress should instruct the administration to pursue means
to tighten the oil-for-food monitoring program so that we are assured
that we have the accountability--and the United Nations has never been
particularly adept at accountability--and to develop measures that will
prevent the illegal leakage of oil into the world marketplace.
I introduced a resolution 2 weeks ago--Senate Concurrent Resolution
No. 76--which would send that message to this administration. I plan to
amend the resolution to reflect what is learned in the congressional
hearings, and will ask the Senate to take action on it in the near
future.
My resolution will call on the administration to consider a few
options. The first would be expanding the Multinational Interdiction
Force, MIF, in the Gulf of Arabia and ensuring that the rules of
engagement allow MIF forces to effectively interdict vessels containing
contraband oil.
Second, using all diplomatic means available to ensure that other
countries in the region are not aiding illegal oil exports in violation
of the U.N. resolution.
Third, inspecting all vessels leaving the Iraqi Port of Basra to
ensure that the economic sanctions are not being circumvented. This
type of blockade is justified under existing U.N. resolutions
implementing economic sanctions. We maintain in the skies, in effect,
what amounts to a blockade, and we certainly have the right to enforce
the movement of illegal oil that is coming out of Iraq.
And, fourth, entering into negotiations with oil-producing nations to
encourage them to make subsidized sales of oil to Jordan so that Iraqi-
Jordanian oil-flows can simply be shut off.
Mr. President, oil is the key to controlling the future of the
military capacity of Iraq. We have to control it if we are ever going
to control Saddam Hussein.
This concludes my remarks. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank
the Senator from Pennsylvania for yielding me time to talk on this
Iraqi issue.
Exhibit 1
[From Policywatch, Feb. 26, 1998]
`Oil for Food' or the End of Sanctions?
(By Patrick Clawson)
While Kofi Annan's diplomacy has received headlines,
another Security Council action last week--approval of United
Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1153 on February
20--was subject to remarkably little scrutiny. This
resolution, designed to expand the existing oil-for-food
program with Iraq, was intended to blunt criticism from Arab
and others as the way was prepared for a military option.
However, in vastly expanding the amount of oil Iraq can
export and loosening the restrictions on what it can import,
this U.S.-backed measure went a long way towards undermining
the existing sanctions regime and removing much of the
incentive for Iraq to fulfill its arms inspection
obligations.
No Effective Limits on Iraqi Oil Exports: UNSCR 1153
authorizes oil exports of $10.66 billion per year ($5.256
billion per 180 days). By contrast, Iraqi oil exports in
1981-89 averaged $9.54 billion per annum; adjusting for
inflation, that would be the equivalent of about $11.5
billion now. In other words, Iraq is now authorized to export
nearly as much
[[Page S1873]]
oil as it did before it invaded Kuwait. Indeed, the Iraqi
government actually complained to the UN that the oil export
level authorized by UNSCR 1153 is too high. In his letter,
Tariq Aziz said Iraq's operational capacity was limited to $8
billion a year in exports and that any higher target was
``unrealistic and unfeasible'' (Security Council Press
Release 6478). The UN-authorized limit translates into 2.25
million barrels per day (MBD), if the price averages $13 per
barrel. In addition, Iraq produces .4 mbd for domestic use
and .2 mbd for export to Jordan and smuggling out the Gulf or
to Turkey. That means Iraq would have to produce 2.85 mbd to
make use of the full UN quota. In fact, it is unlikely that
Iraq could produce more than 2.5 mbd today and it may take
Iraq until the end of 1999 before it could reach a production
level that takes full advantage of the UN-authorized exports.
In short, Iraq faces no effective limit on its oil exports,
because it is now permitted to export all the oil it is now
capable of pumping.
To assist Iraq in expanding its oil production, the
Security Council (in UNSCR 1153 para. 12) ``expresses its
readiness [to] authoriz[e] the export of the necessary
equipment to enable to increase the export of petroleum'' if
the Secretary-General reports this is necessary after
consulting experts. Were Iraq to resume large-scale imports
of oil-field equipment, that would pose serious arms control
problems. Not only is some equipment dual-use (e.g., heavy
trucks), but it is important to remember that Iraq disguised
its ``super gun'' barrel as an oil pipeline, convincingly
enough to mislead some of the ``pipe'' producers.
Imports at Half of Pre-War Level: UNSCR 1153 does more than
provide humanitarian imports: it finances almost the full
range of imports that Iraq would make were it not under
sanctions. (One remaining exception are consumer durables,
like automobiles.) In fact, UNSCR 1153 provides imports at
about half the pre-war level, putting the lie to the idea
that Saddam is stuck in an ever-constricting ``box.''
Here, the numbers are instructive. Of the $10.66 billion a
year in UN-authorized exports, $3.20 billion (30 percent)
will be withheld as compensation payment for war losses, to
be distributed by the Geneva-based UN committee handling such
claims. After deducting for UN operations in Iraq, about $7.1
billion will remain for imports ($3.5 billion each 180 days).
Iraq will also have about $.5 billion a year from its non-
1153 oil sales, mostly to Jordan. In total, then, Iraq will
have about $7.6 billion a year for imports. By contrast,
Iraqi non-arms imports in 1981-89 averaged $12.1 billion per
year; adjusting for inflation, that would be about $14.5
billion per year now. In other words, Iraq will be authorized
to import goods at about half the pre-war level.
Another wrinkle in UNSCR 1153 is that it allocates large
sums to items other than food, the main focus of the original
oil-for-food resolution (UNSCR 986). Of the initial 180-day
imports of $3.5 billion, the plan includes $1.1 billion for
investment (non-recurrent costs). That includes $449 million
for the rehabilitation of hospitals and clinics, $305 million
in water sanitation, $143 million in agriculture, $77 million
in electricity, $30 million in resettlement, and $92
million in education. This is far more than humanitarian
relief; it is a significant investment program.
Furthermore, the large authorized imports of agricultural
and sanitation chemicals, including dual-use precursors
for chemical weapons, will provide Iraq many opportunities
to divert part of this incoming stream. (And it will not
be practical to post UN monitors at every Iraqi farm, barn
or field to ensure that all the agricultural chemicals are
being used as claimed.) Another component of UNSCR is its
authorization for the import of medicine and other
recurrent health costs. In fact, this resolution permits
Iraq to import $117 million of such goods, an amount that
exceeds the health-related imports its neighbors Iran or
Turkey, each with populations three times Iraq's.
More than Sufficient Food: If the principal international
concern is to alleviate malnutrition, the food imports under
the original oil-for-food program were already sufficient.
UNSCR 1153 will take the average Iraqi's intake to levels far
beyond which the U.S. government recommends for the average
America.
While the food distribution program under the original oil-
for-food resolution began, the situation improved markedly
after the arrival in Baghdad last September of Dennis
Halliday, an Irish public administration expert. Three
million tons of food has arrived in country, more than 90
percent of which has been distributed. This has amounted to
regular distribution of a ration of 2,030 calories per Iraqi
day from flours, rice, legumes, sugar, cooking oil, and baby
milk. In addition, tea, salt, soap, and detergent are also
distributed. UNSCR 1153's new distribution plan envisages
increasing Iraqi rations to 2,463 calories a day. In
addition, Iraq produces fruits, vegetables, and lamb--none of
which are in the rations--sufficient to provide on average an
extra 500 calories per day. That means the Iraqi diet will
rise to an average 2,950 calories per day, a level that
equals almost 95 percent of the Iraqis' pre-1990 intake of
3,100 calories per day. To put this in context, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture recommends that a healthy diet for
an adult American is 2,200-2,400 calories per day.
Furthermore, the money authorized for food imports is well
above that needed to produce this diet. The UNSCR 1153 plan
allocates $1.4 billion for food imports for 180 days. That
works out to $129 per person per year, which is way out of
line with the cost of other international relief efforts.
Perhaps the UN plan is to provide Iraqis with a more tasty
and varied diet. But the possibility remains that Iraqis will
find ways to divert funds, for instance, by over-invoicing
(claiming goods cost more than they actually do).
Humanitarian Crisis? The Iraqi government makes lurid
claims about hundreds of thousands of infants dying because
of the sanctions. These claims are parroted by international
organizations, like UNICEF, which release reports based
entirely on Iraqi-provided data. However, there is no reason
to expect Iraqi data about malnutrition to be any more
accurate than Iraqi data about weapons of mass destruction.
Yet even if one were to take Iraqi data at face value,
without the international inspection of Saddam's humanitarian
situation that Baghdad prevents, then some Iraqi statistics
suggest there may not be as acute a humanitarian problem as
Iraq contends. Iraq's 1997 census showed a population
increase of 3.5 million since 1990's 18.5 million. As even
the official newspaper Al-Jumhurriyah admitted (October 18,
1997), ``This is an unusual increase for a people who have
been exposed to embargo, starvation, and disease and who have
consistently lost 20,000 persons per month.''
To have the increase shown in the census (500,000 a year)
and allowing for deaths, there must have been each year
700,000 infants who survived. Iraqi pre-war data on births
show that 700,000 births a year is about what could have been
expected in Iraq in the mid-1990s, given the past pattern.
That does not leave room for the claimed 100,000-plus deaths
a year of infants due to sanctions. In other words, unless
there was some unusual increase in the birth rate, the Iraqi
census data are consistent with a normal level of births and
a normal level of infant mortality and inconsistent with
Iraq's claim of a high infant mortality rate.
Implications: UNSCR 1153 is a big victory for Saddam. He
has come a long way towards his goal of the lifting of
sanctions. He is now authorized to export oil effectively
without limit and to import nearly all types of civilian
goods at about half the pre-war level, which is about all his
war-ravaged country could absorb in any case. This
effectively eviscerates one of the main incentives for Iraqi
cooperation with UNSCOM--i.e., the prospect that sanctions
would be lifted once UNSCOM certifies Iraqi compliance on
weapons of mass destruction, as outlined in UNSCR 678
paragraph 22. By going much of the way towards lifting
sanctions, UNSCR 1153 gives Saddam less reason to cooperate
with UNSCOM than ever before.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I confess a measure of regret that it has
taken the Congress this long to state the obvious in a clear and formal
way that Saddam Hussein is a murderer, and should be brought to
justice. I recall the occasion almost 10 years ago, when I stood on
this Senate floor and condemned Saddam Hussein's crimes against his own
people. Senator Pell, then the distinguished chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee, and I joined in offering amendment after amendment
on various bills then being considered by the Senate. Senator Pell and
I were dismayed that there seemed so little interest in calling the
world's attention to the sadistic tyranny of Saddam Hussein.
Mr. President, anyone who believes that Saddam is a man who ``can be
trusted'', a man with whom we can ``do business'' and have a ``human
relationship'' (I am quoting the Secretary General of the United
Nations on these points), needs to be reminded not only of the 148
lives lost in combat in Desert Storm or of the 37 lives lost on the
U.S.S. Stark, but also of those pitiful women and children of Iraqi
Kurdistan who were deliberately burned beyond recognition by Saddam's
chemical weapons. I remind them of the Anfal campaign and the city of
Halabja, and the hideous deaths of tens of thousands of innocent
people.
Let's face it, Mr. President, Saddam Hussein is the world's worst and
most treacherous nightmare. He is a brutal and totally unremorseful
killer with weapons of mass destruction and he is willing to use them
at the slightest provocation.
Mr. President, we must not be deceived. Should Saddam Hussein escape
the yoke of sanctions, he once again will begin to amass weapons. He
will be a threat to the United States and the American people, and to
our allies in the Middle East, and the people of Iraq. The Clinton
Administration pretense that all that is needed are sanctions in order
to face up to Saddam's threat is dangerous nonsense. Sanctions deal
with weapons--but the question is, who is going to deal with Saddam--
and how?
It is past time to set in motion a process of gathering evidence,
forming
[[Page S1874]]
a tribunal, indicting and prosecuting Saddam Hussein. He is a war
criminal. He is a murderer. Let there be an end to the pretense that
installing cameras and finding biological weapons toxins will end our
problems with Iraq.
We need to get the weapons, yes. We also need, one way or another, to
get Saddam.
____________________