|
One Year Later:
Looking Toward Iraq
With David Phillips
Deputy director and senior fellow of the Center for Preventive Action, Council on Foreign Relations
Thursday, Sept. 12, 2002; Noon ET
While the Bush administration builds its case for "regime change" in Iraq, arguments rage over whether U.S. involvement in Iraq is the right thing to do. Is Saddam Hussein really a threat to the U.S.? Does he have weapons of mass destruction, and is he capable of using them against us? Is Iraq a distraction from the war on terrorism?
"If the United States plays it smart, the UN Security Council will end up endorsing an agenda to disarm Iraq and depose Saddam," wrote David Phillips in an International Herald Tribune op-ed on Sept. 9. An an expert on diplomacy, mediation and conflicts in countries including Iraq, Turkey, the Caucuses and Indonesia, Phillips was online to discuss U.S. strategy in Iraq on Thursday, Sept. 12.
Phillips is deputy director and senior fellow of the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations. His work has focused on conflict prevention and mediation and human rights as well. He is director of the Program on Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding at American Universitys Center for Global Peace, and senior fellow at the Preventive Diplomacy Program of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Phillips is also a professor at the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna and a faculty member of the New School University in New York. He served as a senior adviser to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, and works on numerous boards concerned with human rights, humanitarian affairs and peace.
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
washingtonpost.com:
In this morning's address to the UN General Assembly, President Bush said he would "work with the UN" but said that if the UN Security Council would not act together against Iraq, that the United States was willing to act alone. In your opinion, is Iraq enough of a threat to warrant a massive U.S. military undertaking -- risking retaliation from Iraq against Americans, neighbors in the Middle East and the loss of key regional allies?
David Phillips: The U.S. works through multilateral institutions when it serves America's purpose. If the Security Council approves a resolution requiring coercive inspections and imposing a deadline, the U.S. will surely let diplomacy run its course. Nobody knows the extent of Saddam's weapons program. Since there have been no inspectors on the ground for four years, it's hard to assess the extent of Iraq's threat or capabilities. We do know that Saddam has used chemical and biological weapons against his neighbors as well as his own citizens. There's no love lost between Baghdad and the United States.
Washington, D.C.:
In the intro, an OpEd piece by you is mentioned which says, in part: "If the United States plays it smart, the UN Security Council will end up endorsing an agenda to disarm Iraq and depose Saddam."
So, did Bush "play it smart" this morning?
David Phillips: The back-to-back speeches of the Secretary General and President Bush essentially convey the same message. If Iraq accepts a credible weapons inspection program, the the UN has an essential role in disarming the Baghdad regime and requiring it to fulfill its international obligations. It's important to let diplomacy proceed so that the U.S. doesn't have to go it alone. It's quite clear, however, that the Bush administration is prepared to act unilaterally if Saddam flaunts the will of the international community with impunity.
Iowa City, Iowa:
In a recent article released by UPI it was reported that Bush stated
clearly that the U.S. will play no nation-building role in a post-war Iraq
and let Iraq split apart if that is the way it shall be. Do you support
the Bush position?
David Phillips: The report is incorrect. The U.S. is strongly committed to preserving the territorial integrity of Iraq. It is also working effectively with Iraqi opposition groups to develop governance arrangements after Saddam is gone. What's envisioned is a federal democratic republic with significant power sharing, politically and economically, as well as protections of individual and group rights.
Cumberland, Md.:
Hasn't the UN demonstrated that it is, in fact, an irrelevant organization by its failure to enforce its own Security Council resolutions on Iraq -- and in fact has not Kofi Annan contributed to this failure?
David Phillips: The UN is relevant if it succeeds in eradicating Iraq's weapons program. Kofi Annan is the self-proclaimed proponent of multi-lateralism and international law. There are extensive requirements already on the books, expressed in nine Security Council resolutions since the end of the Gulf War. President Bush's speech today threw down the gauntlet. He made clear either the UN enforces Iraq's international obligations, or the U.S. will. The Bush administration has already concluded that Saddam is simply too dangerous to leave in power.
Denver, Colo.:
The more I hear about Iraq, the more the administration's case sounds like a vendetta of some sort.
I am convinced that Saddam Hussein is a evil person. I am not convinced that he is our next target.
A more suitable next target would be Sudan. I just read an article where al Qaeda has move gold assets to that country. Bush's initial statements right after the attacks said that terrorist regimes and those that harbor terrorists are common enemies.
But Bush is so obsessed with Iraq, that he is trying retain positive relations with many Middle East countries that I personally don't believe a true friends of the United States, i.e. United Arab Emerites.
I also believe the American people can see the ruse, which is to say one thing about our goals in this war on terrorism and to suddenly attempt to build a flimsy coalition against Iraq. Not only doesn't the American people buy this argument, Bush is obviously having a hard time selling it to the World Court of public opinion.
Thank you.
David Phillips: The war against terrorism initially targeted terrorist groups. By going after al Qaeda in Afghanistan, we targeted states that harbor terrorist networks. Iraq is more than a state sponsor of terrorism. It is a terrorist state. Saddam's Baath party has a long history of terrorizing Iraqis and waging offensive war on Iraq's neighbors.
Washington, D.C.:
I assume that you heard the speech the President gave at the UN. Do you feel that he has made a solid case for why the U.S., with or without the UN, needs to go in now?
While I feel that he has made a solid case for why Saddam Hussein poses a great danger, I am not certain that, based on his speech, we can justify going in right now.
Your thoughts?
Thank you. washingtonpost.com:
Text of Bush's Speech to the UN, (AP, Sept. 12)
David Phillips: Both President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have promised to release portfolios of evidence documenting Iraq's efforts to develop its nuclear capabilities. When this information is released, there will be a lively debate in the U.S. Congress, the British Parliament and around the world on ways to eliminate the peril which Iraq represents. Let's look for the evidence and then make informed judgments about how to proceed.
Oakton, Va.:
What do we replace Saddam with? Is an Islamic democratic government possible? What sort of "nation building" is Bush willing to invest in?
David Phillips: It's up to the Iraqis to determine their preferred form of government. The U.S. can help by facilitating discussions and providing information on governance models. Ultimately, Iraq's federal republic will need to devolve power from the central government to the regions. Iraq's ethnic and religious mosaic of peoples must feel that their interests are upheld. This can be accomplished through power sharing. Retaining central government conrol of the oil industry would ensure that Iraq stays together.
Baghdad, Iraq:
Dear Mr. Phillips,
I'm in Iraq with Voices in the Wilderness, an American peace group trying to end the sanctions and stop this war. My question is:
When Bush decides to bomb the hell out of Iraq, will the U.S. government -- at the very least -- promise NOT to bomb electrical power plants, and water and sewage treatment centers? The destruction of these essential civilian infrastructures during "Desert Storm" resulted in massive epidemics and directly led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis -- mostly children -- due to disease and disease-induced malnutrition.
That's not propaganda.
David Phillips: International sanctions are not responsible for the hardships faced by Iraqis. Saddam's manipulation of sanctions is to blame for his population's suffering. The UN oil-for-food program enables more than enough essential supplies to provide for basic human needs. The program has performed superbly in Iraqi Kurdistan, despite Saddam's efforts to delay essential procurements and block the acquisition of materials needed for sustainable development.
Let's hope that Iraq's infrastructure is not destroyed during the possible military action. Iraq's oil income will provide more than adequate revenue streams to meet the humanitarian needs of Iraqis and reconstruction requirements.
Cumberland, Md.:
What do you think is the problem with Scott Ritter? He originally stated that Iraq was a threat and had weapons -- and now he has done a total flip in a speech to the Iraqi Parliament? Also is he not in violation of U.S. Laws which forbids private individuals from conducting U.S. Foreign Policy?
David Phillips: Scott Ritter was irrelevant four years ago. He's just as irrelevant today. I'd be interested to learn who sponsored his trip to Baghdad?
Frankfurt, Germany:
How long would it take for the UN to mount effective weapons inspection in Iraq if Saddam Hussein accepted that as a condition of non-invasion?
David Phillips: Bin Laden's said it well. When someone sees a strong horse and a weak horse, they will by nature prefer the strong horse. The Arab world's support for Saddam is shallow. As soon as it becomes clear that Saddam is on his way out, Arab capitals will be the first to consider their self-interest and position themselves to gain from the transition.
Cumberland, Md.:
What do you think is a reasonable time frame to give the UN Security Council a chance to take action against Iraq for the violations? Should Bush have set a time frame in which the Security Council should act?
David Phillips: The demand to resume weapons inspections should include a deadline. A reasonable time frame is 21-30 days. If Saddam accepts the inspectors, the UN will have 60 days to prepare a work plan for then conducting comprehensive inspections. If at any point in this process, Saddam cheats or retreats, the UN must discontinue its dialogue with the Baghdad regime and pull out its inspection team. Any type of obstruction would constitute a green light for military action.
Burlington, Vt.:
You said that Saddam has used chemical and biological weapons against his own people and his neighbors. Certainly he used chemical weapons against the Kurds, but when did he ever use them against a neighboring state, and when did he ever use biological weapons against anybody?
Also, haven't we already effectively split up Iraq? If I understand correctly, the northern part of the country is now run by two Kurdish groups, with our support, and Baghdad has no power there anymore.
David Phillips: Chemical weapons were used in the Iran-Iraq war, and inflicted enormous casualties on the Iranian side.
The Kurdish groups have made the most of their opportunity. They are deeply grateful to the U.S. for ensuring their security. This gratitude exists in spite of the fact that the U.S. sold out the Kurds in '74 and '91. Kurdish leaders haven't abandoned their dream of independence. However, they do recognize that no one supports the establishment of an independent Kurdish state. Their dreams are tempered by geo-political realities.
Cleveland, Ohio:
We keep saying that Iraq is a threat to its neighbors, but the neighbors, except for the Israelis, made it clear that Iraq is not a threat to them. Also, We say that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons in the past, but to my knowledge he did not use them against us in 1991 despite his devastating defeat, and that tells me that deterrence has been working. By analyzing that, I reach the conclusion that we want to fight a war by proxy in the region on behalf of the Israelis to please the Israeli lobby. I would like to hear your response please.
David Phillips: Today's Financial Times describes an increased willingness by Iran to participate in regime change for Iraq. The U.S. and Iran share similar interests. Upcoming events represent a unique and historical opportunity for U.S.-Iranian cooperation.
washingtonpost.com:
That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the
discussion.
Stay tuned to Live Online:
Inside
the FBI: Internet Tipline at 1 p.m. ET
Entertainment
Guide: Got Plans? at 1 p.m. ET
Did you know that you can follow more than one Live Online discussion at
the same time? Just open another browser window and toggle back and
forth between discussions! And, if you miss one, catch up with the Live
Online transcripts.
Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with
washingtonpost.com
e-mail newsletters.
NEW! Personalize your Post with mywashingtonpost.com.
Get customized news, traffic, weather and more.
| |
© Copyright 2002 The Washington Post Company | 
