GOP Finds Little To Applaud In U.N. Deal With Iraq
Members say pact aimed at defusing crisis over weapons
inspections diminishes U.S. prestige and leaves Saddam plenty of
leeway
By Donna Cassata, CQ Staff Writer
President Clinton's endorsement of the United Nations' pact with Iraq to
allow weapons inspections may have staved off war, but it incensed
congressional Republicans, who said they were dismayed with administration
policy.
GOP critics, who already held Clinton's record on foreign affairs in
low regard, began carping about the deal with Iraq even before U.N.
Secretary General Kofi Annan returned from Baghdad on Feb. 24.
They complained that the negotiations allowed Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein to remain in power and left his influence on the nature and scope
of future inspections unclear. Saddam proclaimed the accord a triumph over
the United States.
"I feel like we remain at the end of Saddam Hussein's yo-yo," said Sen.
Gordon H. Smith, R-Ore., a member of the Foreign Relations Committee.
The deal, worked out by Annan but reportedly based on "red lines" set
out by Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, creates a new inspection
team to examine Iraqi sites suspected of hiding chemical and germ warfare
components. Annan will decide who serves on the team, which will include
diplomats as well as inspectors when it visits Saddam's so-called
presidential sites.
"The secretary general is calling the shots. The United States is not,"
said Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., who assailed the agreement
on the Senate floor Feb. 25. He demanded that the administration reject
it.
"We cannot afford peace at any price. It is always possible to get a
deal if you give enough away," Lott said.
The next day, other Senate Republicans echoed their leader's attacks.
Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms of North Carolina said
Annan "gave away the store." Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado said,
"We've just concluded the second Gulf War, and we've lost without firing a
shot."
On top of deep-seated suspicions toward the United Nations in some GOP
quarters is the real concern that the pact will create a parallel
bureaucracy for inspections, with Annan in charge.
And the secretary general left several Republicans livid with his
post-trip comment that Saddam is someone "I think I can do business
with."
But not all Republicans were uncomfortable with the U.N. secretary
general brokering a peace agreement.
"I think as long as the secretary general of the United Nations is
operating within a framework established by the American president, we have
nothing to fear," said House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.
And a few in the GOP ranks said they believe the United States gained
leverage with its allies if and when Saddam reneges on the accord:
Countries that had been reluctant to back military force prior to the
agreement will be hard-pressed to say no to the United States when Saddam's
defiance creates another crisis.
"If he violates it, they'll stick with us the next time," said Virginia
Sen. John W. Warner, a senior Republican on the Armed Services
Committee.
The Clinton administration urged patience, arguing that the pact would
be tested and if Saddam balks, military force is still an option. Clinton
ordered a contingent of U.S. aircraft carriers and thousands of American
personnel to remain in the Persian Gulf.
"This is the time to keep an eye on the ball and not bash the United
Nations," Albright said in direct response to Lott's criticism.
Richard Butler, head of the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) of weapons
inspectors, embraced the accord and disagreed with congressional charges
that his power will be undermined.
"The arrangements are entirely satisfactory to the organization I
lead," Butler said Feb. 26. To suggestions that the pact was the beginning
of the end of UNSCOM, he said, "I view that much as the legendary reports
of Mark Twain's death when he was still alive. He said they were somewhat
exaggerated."
Democrats congratulated the administration for averting war and
cautiously accepted the agreement, acknowledging the difficulty of trusting
Saddam. They stressed that the administration's policy of diplomacy backed
by force has proven to be the proper course.
"It's the best of all solutions -- inspections with unlimited access,"
said Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., the ranking minority member on the House
Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. "The question is how long it's going
to last."
The most vocal exception was Democratic Sen. Ernest F. Hollings of
South Carolina, who faces a tough re-election in the fall. Hollings told
Albright at a Senate hearing Feb. 26 that the accord cannot be enforced
until Saddam is deposed.
Lost Sovereignty?
Throughout the crisis, a skeptical
Congress has found it difficult to agree on a course, even a resolution
expressing support for the administration threat to use force, if
necessary, to force Saddam to allow weapons inspections. (Weekly Report, p.
397)
Consensus proved just as elusive after Annan's diplomatic initiative.
Lott suggested that the administration had once again "subcontracted"
its foreign policy to another organization, in this case the United
Nations.
Sen. John Ashcroft, R-Mo., who may have his own designs on the White
House in 2000, said the U.N. and Russia set the agenda during the crisis.
"U.S. foreign policy should not be written at the U.N., subcontracted to
Moscow, or [made] a servant to multilateral interests," Ashcroft said.
Democrats dismissed those comments as purely partisan.
"When George Bush turned to the United Nations [in 1991], they were
cheering," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill. "It's a double standard."
Said Murtha: "It's not a partisan thing. This is damned important to
our national security. I'm sorry to see that."
Annan's mediation and the reputation of the United Nations will come
under close scrutiny when the administration submits its emergency
supplemental spending bill to Congress in mid-March.
The administration plans to request $1.02 billion to pay part of
the U.S. debt to the United Nations, which now totals $1.5 billion.
But at a meeting of House Republican assistant whips Feb. 25, some
suggested that the expense of supporting the U.N. agreement with U.S.
troops and warships should be subtracted from the dues owed the United
Nations.
Deputy Defense Secretary John J. Hamre said the cost of Persian Gulf
operations since last fall has been "well over $600 million," and
Murtha estimated that the final tab could be $1 billion.
"When do we get full credit for our advanced costs?" asked Rep. Mark
Foley, R-Fla.
But other Republicans, including House Appropriations Committee
Chairman Robert L. Livingston, R-La., said it would be difficult to rally
allied support for any policy on Iraq while the United States remains a
deadbeat. "It's counterproductive," he said.
Other lawmakers suggested that the United States ask its allies to help
defer the military expense as many did in 1991.
Efforts to Explain
Senior administration officials
attempted to explain the agreement and reassure doubting lawmakers on Feb.
24, even as Annan made his case to the U.N. Security Council.
National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger met in Lott's office with
about a dozen GOP senators that morning. Albright briefed Democratic
senators at their weekly policy luncheon. Defense Secretary William S.
Cohen, who served as a Republican senator from Maine (1979-97), joined his
former colleagues at their closed-door lunch.
"Please don't conclude that we've swallowed this agreement," Albright
told the Democrats, who applauded her statement.
© 1998 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All rights reserved.
|