[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 128 (Thursday, October 3, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H7008-H7009]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 DO NOT POSITION USA AS A COMMON ENEMY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, coming from a family of combat infantry men 
and Marines, I must say that anytime this Congress is asked to consider 
the authorization for the use of force, it is a request that we 
consider very seriously. I might add that most of those who are making 
this request from the White House have never served in combat 
themselves. Certainly the Secretary of Defense has not. Certainly the 
Communications Director of the White House who made the flippant 
statements this week that one silver bullet is cheaper than going to 
war, in referencing a possible assassination in Iraq, is one of the 
most appalling comments I have ever heard from a White House official. 
If he had been in the service of Franklin Roosevelt or Harry Truman or 
John Kennedy, he would no longer have a job.
  The resolution this Congress will be asked to consider next week is a 
work in progress. Initially it started with inspections where we had 
the broad support of the international community. And all we needed to 
do was expand that a little bit and be rigorous, as we have done 
before, working with our allies around the world. But, no, the ante was 
raised by the White House conveniently 4 weeks before an election now 
and the objective is regime change.
  The President has said it, it is not disallowed in the resolution 
that is brought up to us; and I want to speak tonight a little bit 
about how the United States, not just through this resolution but 
through the rhetoric that has been spewing out of Washington here 
across the Islamic and Arab world, is going to increase terrorism, is 
going to increase hatred toward the United States of America. When the 
President of the United States uses terms like dead or alive, do you 
think General Omar Bradley would have ever said that? General Hugh 
Shelton, would he have ever used those terms so publicly?
  When you have not been to war, you are loose with your rhetoric.
  Senator Warren Rudman, who helped produce a report with Senator 
George Mitchell about the rising threat of terrorism around the world, 
sobered our membership when he came up here a few months ago and said 
though he had traveled the world as a Senator, he did not realize until 
he got into the issue of terrorism how much he found America hated 
around the world.
  Tonight I want to place in the Record a longer analysis of what is 
really wrong with U.S. policy towards that region of the world, but let 
us be clear where the hatred comes from and what spawns the terrorism.
  First of all, we have the lack in the Middle East and Central Asia of 
a real resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This has been 
with us in the free world for over 50 years. We do not have a peace 
process under way. Every night we see in the newspapers or we see on 
television more killing of Israelis by Palestinians or vice versa.
  There was a great cartoon, a sad cartoon, in one of the newspapers 
recently showing Mr. Sharon and Mr. Arafat holding hands and falling 
together down a deep cavern and blaming one another as they fell to 
their certain deaths.
  We as a world need to organize in order to resolve the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict. Without it, terrorism will continue not only in 
that region of the world but will find its way creeping into our 
homeland as we saw on 9-11.
  The other major issue deals with U.S. ties to the oil kingdoms in the 
Middle East on which we have become even more dependent than during the 
oil crises of the 1970s and the Persian Gulf War in the early 1990s, 
and importantly to the repressive regimes that our dollars help 
support. There is a very rude awakening in the Middle East and Central 
Asia for a different way of life and America is fast becoming the 
excuse for the repression under which the majority of people live all 
in undemocratic regimes.
  So my first advice tonight is please, Mr. President, do not position 
the United States as the common enemy that serves as a unifying force 
against which all the disparate malcontents and discontents of the 
Middle East and Central Asia can unite. We saw a sign of that in our 
homeland last year. But not only our homeland, across the world 
American embassies are being built like bunkers. Our diplomats are 
being killed more and more, every 10 years more of them are killed, 
whether it is Africa, whether it is Malaysia, whether it is the Middle 
East.
  To achieve long-term stability, the United States' policy toward the 
Arab and Islamic world must be shaped multilaterally and affirm our 
belief in democratic principals. Unfortunately, the Bush 
administration's policies continue us down this dangerous path.

                 Allies Working Toward a Secure Future

       To achieve long-term stability, U.S. policy toward the Arab 
     and Islamic world must be shaped multilaterally and affirm 
     our nation's belief in democratic principles. The Bush 
     Administration's initiatives will lead to neither. Indeed, it 
     is positioning the U.S. to be the common enemy in a volatile 
     region where terrorism grows with each passing decade of war 
     and remembrance.
       Bush policies--such as threatening regime change or the 
     ``one bullet policy'' on Iraq--are destabilizing and pose a 
     real threat to U.S. long-term interests. These irresponsible 
     policies inject the U.S. into the festering antipathy of 
     disparate forces whose common denominator is growing anti-
     Western sentiment.
       Thus, a resolution that employs all diplomatic and economic 
     means to draw broad multilateral support to allow U.N. arms 
     inspectors access to conduct robust investigations of Iraq's 
     suspected weapons sites is of paramount importance. As a 
     first step, Congress should support the recently negotiated 
     international agreement allowing inspectors to return to Iraq 
     after four years. Especially in this region of the world, 
     former Senator George Mitchell emphasizes the importance of 
     diplomacy in the Mitchell Report, ``Whatever the source, 
     violence will not solve the problems of the region. It will 
     only make them worse. Death and destruction will not bring 
     peace, but will deepen the hatred and harden the resolve on 
     both sides. There is only one way to peace, justice, and 
     security in the Middle East, and that is through 
     negotiation.''


                              first strike

       Based on the lack of verifiable evidence presented to 
     Congress and the American people, the President's proposal to 
     pre-emptively, or unilaterally, strike against Iraq is 
     unacceptable. Due to the predictably destabilizing effect on 
     the region, the U.S. should avoid a first strike. Dr. Mark 
     Juergensmeyer, Director of Global and International Studies 
     at U.C. Santa Barbara, ``It is essential that a multilateral 
     force be deployed if action is contemplated.''
       If America goes to war, the cause must be just and better 
     justified.


                        toward a changed region

       Powerful Islamic stirrings inside undemocratic regimes in 
     the Middle East and Central Asia, including violent forces 
     operating outside nation-states (like Al Qaeda), create 
     conditions for emerging revolutions. In responding to these, 
     the U.S. must act in a manner that is true to our founding 
     principles as the world's oldest democratic republic. We, 
     too, have been a revolutionary people aspiring to a better 
     way of life.
       We must not wed ourselves to monarchy, dictatorship, or 
     repression. As a superpower, the U.S. must position itself 
     for long-term, relations with many emerging nations. The U.S. 
     should not become the inheritor of a new world order in the 
     Middle East and Central Asia, nor an occupying force. Simply 
     put, U.S. dominance there is not unilaterally sustainable.


                grave and gathering vs. imminent threat

       Congress must ask: what is the ``imminent threat'' to the 
     U.S. that justifies a war resolution now? The President, in 
     his remarks before the U.N., stated, ``Iraq is a grave and 
     gathering danger.'' He did not say ``an imminent threat.''
       What has Iraq done differently in the last 4 months than 
     the prior year to warrant invasion now? Yes, Iraq is a 
     secular state that seeks greater domination over the Arab 
     world. But intelligence briefings have indicated that Iraq 
     has fewer military capabilities than it did 10 years ago. 
     Secretary Rumsfeld has stated that Iraq's army is only 40% of 
     what it was 10 years ago. The Central Intelligence Agency and 
     Defense Intelligence Agency have verified that Iraq's 
     chemical and nuclear capabilities are substantially less than 
     10 years ago. However, in the area of biologics, Iraq is 
     likely ahead of where it was 10 years ago.
       The international community has the opportunity to use its 
     united efforts to require Iraq to abide by U.N. resolutions 
     requiring immediate access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid 
     itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range 
     missiles.

[[Page H7009]]

            there is a distinction between al qaeda and Iraq

       Congress must ask the Bush Administration to distinguish 
     between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The carnage that took place on 
     September 11, 2001, was committed by members of the Al Qaeda 
     terrorist network. Al Qaeda's primary objective is to rid the 
     Middle East of all foreign influence and impose strict 
     Islamic religious rule based on its particular interpretation 
     of the religion. Iraq, rather, is a secular state headed by a 
     military dictator, Saddam Hussein, holding the second largest 
     oil reserves in the Middle East. Saddam's chief objective is 
     to control the entire region's oil reserves and eventually 
     gain greater power in the Arab world.
       America's war on terrorism began as a clear campaign 
     against Al Qaeda, not Iraq. Neither Congress nor the American 
     public has been presented with any evidence of a connection 
     between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Though some terrorists may be 
     ``present'' especially in the northern zone of Iraq, which 
     Hussein does not control, there is no linkage of evidence 
     between them and the government of Iraq. The President 
     asserted in his draft resolution that members of Al Qaeda are 
     ``known to be in Iraq'' and that Iraq may give weapons to 
     terrorists. His statements are filled with innuendoes, not 
     facts. No intelligence information has been presented to 
     Congress to add certainty to the President's statements.


       oil is the primary underpinning of u.s. ``vital'' interest

       Congress must ask: For how long will Americans be asked to 
     die for ``vital interests'' centered in the oil kingdoms? The 
     economic underpinning of Iraq is oil--the second largest 
     reserves in the world. 95% of Iraq's economy is oil driven. 
     Americans might ask the question: ``Why has the U.S. become 
     bogged down in this region so many times in modern history?'' 
     and ``Why have all of America's major recessions in the past 
     30 years been triggered by rising oil prices?'' In fact, 
     rising oil prices triggered our current recession, and prices 
     are rising again.
       During the 1970's, two Arab oil embargoes drove the U.S. 
     economy into deep recession. President Jimmy Carter tried to 
     move America toward energy independence, calling the 
     challenge the ``moral equivalent of war.'' But as world oil 
     prices dropped through O.P.E.C. price manipulation, America 
     lost its edge on energy independence. Though conservation and 
     alternative energy development progressed, their pace was not 
     sufficient to meet demand.
       In the early 1990's, America went to war over Iraq's 
     invasion of neighboring Kuwait's oil fields and port access. 
     In October 2000, the USS Cole, a Navy destroyer protecting 
     the oil shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf, was suicide 
     bombed in Yemen's harbor. Even now, as the President 
     contemplates invasion, 8% of America's oil originates in 
     Iraq.
       Oil is not worth one more American soldier's life, nor any 
     more disruption to our national economy. America needs a 
     national commitment to become energy independent again in 
     this decade, much like the space program of the 1960s that 
     led America into the heavens. Ms. Robin Wright, Foreign 
     Diplomatic Correspondent for the Los Angeles Times has 
     stated, ``To build a more peaceful world, the U.S. must deal 
     with the oil issue. It must also deal with the political 
     destiny of people in that part of the world who want to have 
     some say in their futures.''


                naked aggression in not the american way

       Yes, Iraq is in gross violation of U.N. resolutions calling 
     for inspections, but America should not pressure Iraq 
     unilaterally, without maintaining that same broad-based 
     international support. It was proper for President Bush to 
     deliver an address at the United Nations. Our nation has 
     always sought to be a constructive partner among the 
     community of nations. We need to maintain this policy of 
     engagement with the nations of the world.
       Naked aggression by a superpower with no evidence presented 
     to its lawmakers is discomforting to the American people and 
     not the way to forge alliances in a troubled part of the 
     world. America, surely, does not wish to be perceived as the 
     ``bully on the block'' in the most oil rich region of the 
     world where not one democratic state exists.


                         a plan for the future

       As a first step, we should support International Strategic 
     Partnership to Eliminate a Common Threat (INSPECT), an 
     alternate resolution encouraging the President to support the 
     recently negotiated inspection plan between the Iraqi 
     Government and international representatives calling for a 
     robust team capable of ensuring that Iraq is no longer in 
     violation of international agreements. The resolution rejects 
     any unilateral military action by the U.S. until Congress is 
     able to grant its approval. In addition, the President must 
     submit a report to Congress, at least every 30 days, on 
     matters relevant to this resolution. According to David 
     Albright, President of the Institute for Science and 
     International Security. ``Nuclear threat is not imminent. 
     Because the threat is not imminent, inspectors could be 
     beneficial.''

                          ____________________