Last Chance for Iraqi Compliance

Last chance for Iraqi compliance
Dianne Feinstein
San Francisco Chronicle
Friday, February 14, 2003

In light of Saddam Hussein's long history of stonewalling and subterfuge, the report that the chief weapons inspectors are delivering today to the U.N. Security Council is unlikely, on its own, to halt the rush to war.

The time has come for the Security Council to compel Iraqi compliance—and this can only be done by a council willing to stand united and back up its resolutions with action.

I have always supported a multilateral approach toward Iraq and I strongly believe that war must be a last resort. This is why I would urge the Security Council to act to:

Significantly increase the inspections force and set clear guidelines on how future inspections should proceed, to ensure the prompt destruction of all weapons of mass destruction;

Provide military backup to assure full and free movement for the inspectors;
and

Specify precise time lines and deadlines for Iraq to comply with a set of specific demands.

At a bare minimum, the Security Council should demand full accounting and verified destruction of the large amounts of missing materials, including:

2,245 gallons of anthrax bacteria, 4 tons of the VX and 100 to 150 tons of Sarin lethal nerve agents;
at least 7 mobile laboratories to make germ weapons;
unmanned aerial vehicles with a 300-mile range, able to carry biological agents, which could threaten not only Iraq's neighbors but even the United States;
two rockets believed to exceed the 93-mile limit imposed on Iraqi missiles; and
intercepted aluminum tubes capable of making or being adjusted to make centrifuges to enrich uranium.

Iraq's decision to allow U2 reconnaissance flights over its territory is a positive step, but a relatively small one. If it is to matter, this latest Iraqi move must be backed by guarantees for the safety of these flights, despite continued U.S. and British patrols of the no-fly zone. Such assurances were provided in the mid-1990s, under similar circumstances.

As then-President Bush did with the Persian Gulf War in 1991, America should pursue a multilateral approach for three reasons: first, to bestow the legitimacy needed to be effective; second, to assure that our action does not turn the Muslim world against us; and third, to share costs that range anywhere from $50 billion to $200 billion. When coupled with the costs of reconstruction and rebuilding, numbers will likely be higher—perhaps substantially.

Human casualties, on the other hand, are much harder to measure. Fifty percent of Iraq's 24 million people are under age 19 -- and 47 percent of these are under age 15. Full-scale war could wipe out a generation of young people.

And what about the American families who will lose sons and daughters? How many lives will be lost if Hussein uses biological or chemical weapons against our forces or our homeland? These are questions with terrible answers.

There is also the continuing war on terrorism, which shows no sign of abating. Osama bin Laden is still alive, along with two-thirds of his leadership. He is calling for all Muslims to attack "Western infidels" wherever they may be. Al Qaeda's capability to do so remains strong. We need to stay the course in Afghanistan, where the situation is far from stable and where al Qaeda and Taliban are waiting for an opportunity to return and destroy the fledgling democratic government. Those behind Sept. 11 must be rooted out. The war on terror cannot be won if we fail to do so.

I also believe that North Korea poses a much more consequential threat to peace and stability than Iraq. An isolated and belligerent nation, it already has nuclear weapons and the delivery systems to use them. Furthermore, it has threatened to use these weapons. Today, 800,000 troops are mobilized on the border with South Korea, with enough heavy artillery to kill millions and cause serious destruction to Seoul.

In the case of North Korea, the administration believes diplomacy in a multilateral approach can be effective. However, with Iraq, the administration is focused on military action. That is why I joined several of my colleagues two weeks ago to introduce a resolution that stated:

The U.N. weapons inspectors should be given sufficient time to carry out their work, and collect the data, necessary for a thorough assessment of the level of compliance by Iraq;

The United States and other member nations of the Security Council should work together to exhaust all peaceful and diplomatic means for disarming Iraq before launching an invasion;

International emissaries should be given adequate time to pursue ways to persuade Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq voluntarily and avert war; and

The United States should seek a specific authorization for the use of force from the U.N. Security Council.

Despite our strong belief that this resolution should be passed by the Senate, if brought to the floor today, sadly, it would fail. Therefore, it is up to the U.N. Security Council. It must be ready to act.

As long as Hussein sees a divided world community, he is almost certain to continue his course of denial and deception. In the end, Hussein must be presented with a clear and binding ultimatum, backed by a united Security Council, if war is to be avoided.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is a member of the Senate's Select Intelligence Committee.