DIPLOMATIC SUCCESS? February 23, 1998 The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer Transcript

---

At a press conference today, President Clinton remained cautious in his assessment of the agreement reached between U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Margaret Warner speaks with four foreign policy experts about the deal.

---

A RealAudio version of this segment is available. NEWSHOUR LINKS: Online Forum: Has diplomacy succeeded in the iraq crisis? February 23, 1998 Secretary Albright discusses the U.N. brokered deal with Iraq. February 23, 1998 A report from Amman on the impact of the deal on Jordan. February 20, 1998 A panel of experts examine the crisis from the Iraqi perspective. February 19, 1998 An exploration of public support for the use of force in Iraq as compared to past conflicts. February 18, 1998 Four diplomatic veterans discuss the possibility of an attack on Iraq. February 17, 1998 Analysis of the U.S. military arsenal in the Middle East. February 16, 1998 How significant a threat does Saddam Hussein's country really pose? February 11, 1998 Ambassador Richardson discusses the ongoing crisis with Iraq. February 10, 1998 Members of Congress discuss the U.S. government's support of military action against Iraq. February 9, 1998 Regional commentators give local perspectives on the growing crisis with Iraq. February 4, 1998 Secretary of State Madeleine Albright tries to marshal support for a possible attack on Iraq. January 30, 1998 The U.S. tries rallying support for military action against Iraq. January 14, 1998 Iraq's U.N. Ambassador, Nizar Hamdoon, defends his country's actions. January 13, 1998 Amb. Butler discusses the latest disagreement with Iraq. December 18, 1997 Amb. Butler discusses Iraq's continued defiance of U.N. inspections. December 1, 1997 Margaret Warner leads a discussion on the proposals to ease the impact of international sanctions on Iraq. November 25, 1997 Is Saddam Hussein illegally hiding weapons throughout Iraq? Online Forum: What's the best way to deal with Iraq? November 20, 1997 U.N. Ambassador Richardson on the possible resolution of the Iraq crisis. November 17, 1997 Arab perspectives on the Iraqi crisis. November 14, 1997 Sandy Berger the National Security Adviser, discusses the Iraqi crisis. November 13, 1997 Newsmaker interview with Deputy PM Aziz who defends his country's expulsion of U.N. weapons inspectors. November 12, 1997 U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson discusses the Security Council's vote to impose stricter sanctions on Iraq. November 11, 1997 Four foreign policy experts debate how best to deal with Saddam Hussein. November 10, 1997 Defense Sec. Cohen discusses the situation with Iraq. November 3, 1997 U.N. Ambassador Richardson discusses tensions between the U.S. and Iraq. Browse the NewsHour's coverage of the Middle East. OUTSIDE LINKS United Nations Iraq-ArabNet

MARGARET WARNER: And now four more views: John Bolton was Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs in the Bush administration; William Maynes had the same job in the Carter administration and also has been editor of Foreign Policy Magazine; Robert Pelletreau was Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs earlier in the Clinton administration; and Jim Hoagland is the foreign policy columnist for the Washington Post.

John Bolton, after listening to the president and Madeleine Albright, do you think this was a good outcome for the U.S..

Mr. Bolton: "The idea that we're going to give him (Saddam Hussein) one more chance I think is a waste of the strategic assets in the Gulf, a waste of public opinion we had in this country, and a blown opportunity."

JOHN BOLTON: No. And to borrow the Secretary of State's words, I think she was dead wrong on just about everything she said. It's a bad deal for two principle reasons: First, we have seven years of evidence that Saddam Hussein has absolutely no intention of complying with the resolution dealing with weapons of mass destruction. And the idea that we're going to give him one more chance I think is a waste of the strategic assets in the Gulf, a waste of public opinion we had in this country, and a blown opportunity.

Second, I think this whole affair represents the re-emergence of the policy of assertive multilateralism, is a policy that the Clinton administration announced in its first year. It was a disaster. I thought it was abandoned, but I think the dispatch of Kofi Annan and the acceptance, even tentatively, of the deal he has brought back is a mistake.

When Javier Perez De Cuellar went to the Gulf in 1991, he went with very clear views from us that he had no negotiating leverage because we didn't intend to be put in the position the Clinton administration now finds itself. I think it's a real disaster in the making.

MARGARET WARNER: He was the previous secretary general, or two previous.

JOHN BOLTON: Two before.

MARGARET WARNER: A bad deal?

ROBERT PELLETREAU: No. I find the news from Baghdad encouraging at this point. We need to look at the fine print. We need to focus on performance and compliance, and that is what we're going do to. But as an outcome, this immediate mission from the secretary-general I find the news encouraging.

MARGARET WARNER: What about John Bolton's point that Saddam Hussein's track record is such that it makes it pretty impossible to believe that this is going to really be carried out?

ROBERT PELLETREAU: We are in an overall construct of a long-term policy of containment. It takes patience. It takes perseverance. It tries the patience sometimes of policy makers. We were in a construct of containment of the Soviet Union for over 40 years. It shouldn't take that long with Iraq, but we must focus on the fact that Iraq continues to be a threat to its region, and utilize our assets to contain that threat.

MARGARET WARNER: What do you think of this outcome? You heard the secretary say, in fact, the U.S. was getting more out--the U.N. was getting more than it ever had from Saddam Hussein in the way of compliance?

Mr. Hoagland: "We don't know enough yet to really say whether it's a bad deal."

JIM HOAGLAND, Washington Post: Well, I think the Secretary misspoke on that point. After all, Saddam Hussein agreed in 1991 to full, unfettered access as a condition for ending the Gulf War, as a condition for a cease-fire, almost immediately went into violation of that, has continued to be in violation of it ever since, and here we are today still trying to get him to live up to those original promises.This is one more set of promises.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad deal, though. We don't know enough yet to really say whether it's a bad deal. The secretary lifted a little bit of the veil on the gap that exists in the agreement that Kofi Annan brought back. That gap is primarily a lack of any procedures as to how this special team that will operate under the U.N. Special Commission--UNSCOM will operate.

That still has to be spelled out. It has to be negotiated. I wouldn't be surprised to see Tariq Aziz flying to New York, or perhaps Richard Butler, the UNSCOM chairman, going to Baghdad for one more round of negotiations. That kicks in for another week or two.

By that time, the optimum military conditions that prevail beginning this week will be gone or will be reduced. They won't be gone. So I think it comes down to this. Will Saddam Hussein have to pay something for this four months he's bought by delaying and obstructing, or is he actually going to be rewarded through this deal, and what happens around this deal for defying the United States? If you look at the Secretary of State and the President's statement, I see no convincing indication there that they see any kind of punishment in store for Saddam Hussein.

MARGARET WARNER: What do you conclude, listening to the President and the Secretary?

Mr. Maynes: "If he doesn't comply, I think the United States is going to find a lot more support now than it had at the beginning of this crisis for the kinds of actions that we thought we were going to take."

WILLIAM MAYNES: I think it's basically a good deal. I think you have to be realistic about what options were facing the United States. We have all kinds of people in the Pentagon who've been talking to the press and telling them quite candidly that the best tool we have is actually people on the ground who can carry out these inspections.

We've got a written agreement from the Iraqis now to carry out the inspections. The administration has managed to--with great difficulty--to bring the international community basically over to the position that the United States holds, and it was much like trying to herd fish, because all of them wanted to go in various directions. But they did get them there. And they've got them on board, and it seems to me that in terms of whether Saddam is going to pay a price, if he's got inspectors in his bedroom, that is quite a high price for a leader whose power structure depends upon this image of somebody who's invulnerable, can't be touched.

In fact, he has been cornered, and if he complies, it will be a big victory, I think, for the surveillance regime. If he doesn't comply, I think the United States is going to find a lot more support now than it had at the beginning of this crisis for the kinds of actions that we thought we were going to take.

MARGARET WARNER: What about those two points--one that your colleagues here have made, or particularly Bill Maynes, that, one, that the U.N. can accomplish more with the inspectors than it ever could by bombing, and two, that if Saddam were to break this, the U.S. would probably have a much greater coalition for military action than it had now?

JOHN BOLTON: Well, even if the U.N. inspectors did have the kind of access they had before, we know already that their inspections failed to turn up large programs and biological weapons, in particular.

They have lost four months during which Saddam Hussein has undone much of the past seven years' work, and I think the only conclusion one can draw from seven years of history--and this didn't happen overnight--this is almost seven years we're talking about--is that the inspection regime was never going to get to the point that we could feel comfortable Saddam Hussein would not have weapons of mass destruction.

So I don't believe a return to the status quo ante is progress. I think it's a defeat, and that's why I have come reluctantly to the conclusion that the only way to deal with Iraq is to get a new regime in place.

As to Bill's second point about international support for the effort, I think President Clinton had all the support he needed as of about 48 hours ago to take the first military step. I think it's going to be very difficult--leave the international side aside--I think it's going to be very difficult to rev up American public opinion again in three months, when the President says, remember that problem we had, we thought it had been solved, it's a problem again. I don't think it's going to be that easy.

MARGARET WARNER: How do you see that point about, one, how we make, or how we're assured that Saddam Hussein complies and what the actions would be if he didn't?

Mr. Pelletreau: "As we get into the implementation of this agreement, the strength that lies behind the diplomacy is going to be very evident."

ROBERT PELLETREAU: Well, we have a very strong presence out in the Gulf right now. And that presence isn't going to be a passive presence. It's going to be flying every day in the no-fly zones. There's going to be a very active surveillance and monitoring, and military readiness that everybody can see. It'll be very visible to Iraq.

As we get into the implementation of this agreement, the strength that lies behind the diplomacy is going to be very evident.

MARGARET WARNER: How confident are you about making sure Saddam Hussein complies?

WILLIAM MAYNES: Well, we've got the forces out there. If he doesn't comply this time, as I said, I think the administration has managed to line up all of the people who were headed off in other directions, and I think we have very strong support for it. As far as John's point about whether we'll be able to rally the American people to strong measures,

I think the polls show that notwithstanding some of the dissent out in Ohio, there was very strong support for using military force, according to the latest public opinion polls. I think he defies the entire world this time when he signed a written agreement to let those inspectors, and there will be a very strong reaction.

MARGARET WARNER: Based on what you heard from Secretary Albright, what do you conclude about what Saddam Hussein is getting out of this?

JIM HOAGLAND: Well he's certainly getting more participation by other countries in the direction of UNSCOM. Up until now UNSCOM has depended largely on the United States and to some extent Britain for support and for engagement.

Now you have France, which claims paternity of a great part of this agreement, and I think with some justice; you have Russia, which has built up some chips with Saddam Hussein now; and most of all, you have Kofi Annan, who is a very elegant, very smart man of great integrity but who now has put himself in the position really of standing bail for Saddam Hussein and of--

MARGARET WARNER: Doing what?

JIM HOAGLAND: Being the bail bondsman for Saddam Hussein.

WILLIAM MAYNES: That's very unfair.

JIM HOAGLAND: I don't think so, Bill. He has put himself in the position of making the case for this agreement. If Saddam Hussein finds ways to dilute the control of UNSCOM through this agreement, Kofi Annan will have to go along with that.

MARGARET WARNER: What do you think?

Mr. Bolton: "I think that the Iraqis are not going to stand in the schoolhouse door and defy the UNSCOM inspectors."

JOHN BOLTON: I think that the Iraqis are not going to stand in the schoolhouse door and defy the UNSCOM inspectors. I think they're going to subvert it in the phrase of my old boss, Jim Baker, cheat, and then cheat, cheat, cheat, and then retreat. It is a very difficult line to draw. And that's why the President inartfully but I think sufficiently has gathered international and domestic support for the use of force now. Having squandered this opportunity, it is not at all clear to me that he can rally support in the future.

MARGARET WARNER: But do you think that the agreement that--and we don't know the details here--but that there is a danger that, as Jim Hoagland says, that these other diplomats that are being added to the teams are going to be in a position--how concerned are you that they are in a position to subvert this?

JOHN BOLTON: Very easily. Do you remember the Soviet concept of the troika, where the Secretary-General was to be replaced by three people, troika being a Russian word for "three horses pulling a sleigh." Find the Russian word for five horses pulling a sleigh if diplomats from each of the perm five countries are going to accompany the UNSCOM teams, leaking the destinations, the times they go.

I think this is a prescription for disaster. But it's going to be one that's going to be very hard to pin down, and articulate, and that's the genius of accepting UNSCOM plus, or any of these variations.

MARGARET WARNER: Does that trouble you?

ROBERT PELLETREAU: This is one of the elements of the fine print that has got to be examined. One of the bottom lines of the United States and Britain was that UNSCOM would continue to have operational control; that the inspectors could carry out their inspections in an unfettered way. And that is something that's going to have to be probed, and then it's going to have to be tested. I think all these questions are legitimate questions.

MARGARET WARNER: Let me ask you about something else that Sec. Albright said in response to a question from Jim. He asked her about the speech she'd given last year in which she simply said we can't imagine sanctions ever being taken off as long as Saddam's in power. Do you see a shift now in the U.S. view of that or not?

WILLIAM MAYNES: Well, I thought that the way she phrased that, it moves us a little closer to the position that was taken by Britain yesterday, where the British foreign secretary said if, you know, if there is compliance in these arms control resolutions, that these sanctions could be lifted.

MARGARET WARNER: Is that a good idea?

WILLIAM MAYNES: Well, I think that that is the only thing that we can get international support for. We cannot get international support for continuing to punish the Iraqi people to the extent that they've been punished. Now Saddam Hussein has been primarily responsible for that, but if he takes away from the table the issue that concerns most people in the region, which is these weapons of mass destruction, I think you will see very strong support for lifting the sanctions.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you see a shift in policy, and is it a good idea?

Mr. Hoagland: "...this crisis has exposed the erosion of support for international sanctions, for the sanctions against Iraq, and for the kind of military action that Bill Clinton was proposing."

JIM HOAGLAND: I think there's been a slight softening. I don't see any great shift in this, but if you look at this from the short-term perspective, Saddam Hussein has gained some things. He has gained four months of delays. He's chipped away a little bit its support on sanctions, and most of all, this crisis has exposed the erosion of support for international sanctions, for the sanctions against Iraq, and for the kind of military action that Bill Clinton was proposing. I think what's lacking here is any kind of a long-term strategy, any kind of long-term program, particularly a political program of opposition to Saddam Hussein endorsed by the United States government, that would justify keeping the sanctions on, and would eventually justify military action, if we have to take that step.

ROBERT PELLETREAU: One of the elements that we haven't really taken into account is how successful these sanctions have been over the past seven years. Saddam Hussein and his army today are a far less capable force than they were in 1990. There's been tremendous progress made in uncovering their weapons programs of mass destruction and their army has had to cannibalize to keep going.

There hasn't been a single new weapons system introduced into Iraq during these whole seven years. That's very reassuring.

JOHN BOLTON: And that was one of the principal elements behind keeping the sanctions in place after the Gulf War, not only to take care of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction but over time to degrade what was left of his conventional force. That's why Saddam's two goals are so complimentary.

Get rid of the sanctions so he can beef up his conventional forces and break the system of weapons inspections so he can get on with mass destruction. I think he's made progress on both fronts with this deal.

MARGARET WARNER: Briefly, in the time we have left, another issue that Jim raised with Madeleine Albright, did the Kofi Annan mission amount to U.S. subcontracting, as Trent Lott put it, its foreign policy to the U.N.?

JIM HOAGLAND: Not totally. You have the military dimension of this, but you have to remark how passive American diplomacy has been in this crisis. They've left it basically to the Russians to go shake the tree in Baghdad and get something for the French to come along and embroider, and then Kofi Annan goes in and does the deal. The United States basically lost control of the diplomacy of this crisis and had to resort to intimidation through military means to produce the result. Those military means are very important. They produce the result, but American diplomacy is sadly lacking in this crisis.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you agree with that analysis?

WILLIAM MAYNES: I don't agree with it. The United States has no direct tie with Iraq. We weren't willing to send someone there. Yet, it was possible to get a negotiated settlement for this, and, in fact, Kofi Annan did not go there with just an open deck. He went there with very clear instructions that were given by the five members of the--five permanent members of the Security Council. And I know for a fact that the United States played a leading role in setting that agenda.

Unless we were willing to send Madeleine Albright to Baghdad, somebody had to go, if you were going to pursue a diplomatic settlement. And we got one that is honorable and will meet our objectives. So, I don't see--I don't see any validity in the idea that we subcontracted out our foreign policy.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Well, thank you all four very much.

REGIONS TOPICS RECENT PROGRAMS ABOUT US FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS / FEEDS:

Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station.
PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.