 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Key senator: Bush will get U.N. support
By SARA FRITZ, Times Washington Bureau Chief WASHINGTON -- Sen. Richard Lugar, the leading Republican voice on foreign policy in Congress, thinks President Bush is on the verge of winning U.N. Security Council approval to use force to disarm Iraq. The Indiana Republican made the prediction in an interview with the St. Petersburg Times after meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov. He said Ivanov, who met Friday with Bush and other top administration officials, seemed willing to support a tough, new resolution. Lugar suggested that Russia and France, two key nations with veto power on the Security Council, will support the president's policy because, if successful, it will allow them to pursue previously negotiated oil deals with Iraq. Both countries have up to now expressed resistance to a new resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. "I think they will because they understand the dilemma that the world faces here," he said. "They will continually ask the question, 'Why has this all come up in the last two months? . . . Why in September of 2002?' But after you sort of get over that syndrome, they also understand that the president is very vigorous at this moment in pursuing this." Also as a result of Bush's determination, Lugar said, Congress will soon approve a resolution giving the president broad authority to intervene militarily in Iraq. But he expects that Congress will rewrite a resolution Bush proposed before passing it. Lugar is the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which will hold three days of hearings next week on Bush's request for a congressional resolution. Here is an edited text of the interview: Q: Is war with Iraq inevitable? A: No. It is possible the Security Council will fashion a resolution that brings about what is called "coercive inspection," that is, inspection that is truly effective because it's backed by multinational military. That's what our congressional resolution should support. So it is conceivable that we could have disarmament without war. And it's even conceivable without regime change. Q: What makes you think war can be averted? A: When I visited with Foreign Minister Ivanov of Russia and suggested that a new resolution might be required. It was his hope that the resolutions the U.N. already has would be enforced. But he admitted that in the event that they are not, some additional resolution that puts teeth into them may be required. I felt that was significant. He and Secretary (of State Colin) Powell discussed that, and they will be discussing it a great deal more with their Security Council colleagues. Q: Is Bush going to get the U.N. resolution he wants? A: I think there is a reasonable chance that he will. I say that simply on the basis of having listened carefully to the Russian foreign minister. But it won't come easily. Q: So you think the allies will come around to supporting Bush? A: Yes, I think they will because they understand the dilemma that the world faces here. They will continually ask the question, "Why has this all come up in the last two months? We know there is a problem. It has to be dealt with some day; it's not going to go away. But why in September of 2002?" But after you sort of get over that syndrome, they also understand that the president is very vigorous at this moment in pursuing this. Q: Is that what has turned Congress around? A: I think so. The president has been involved in a full court press. That's all that he talks about. Everybody realizes it has to be dealt with. You might wish it hadn't come up this summer to spoil your vacation but, on the other hand, here we are. So having gotten over that, they will understand that they probably want to be with the United States. Our allies really want to take part in the rebuilding of Iraq. If you are the Russians and the French you really do want to take part because you have oil deals (in Iraq) that you have not been able to work because of sanctions in the past. When I was in Russia, they said, "We want you to understand that we have interests in Iraq." Q: Will Congress rewrite Bush's resolution? A: I suspect the resolution will be modified. In fact, it may be rewritten completely by members of Congress. The administration was asked by the leadership to suggest some language, which they have done. The president said he would welcome changes. Q: Are you surprised the sentiment in Congress has suddenly turned favorable? A: It's only been recently that some members of Congress have said, "Well, we're getting ready to go home for the election campaign and so we'd rather get to it sooner rather than later." This is quite a sea change in congressional views in the last 10 days. But we really all still want to ask and hear about the hypotheticals: What happens after Saddam? Who are the Iraqi political leaders? What kind of prospects are there for this democracy or stable government that we all have called for? The president's resolution talks about a stable and secure Iraq, as if this is almost bound to happen. But of course, in our first two hearings, we found it's not bound to happen at all. It's going to take a very sophisticated exercise, hopefully of many countries who have staying power, who have some idea how Iraq might be a success story in the Middle East and, specifically, know how we get our hands on the weapons of mass destruction. We also need a new government in Baghdad that keeps the geographical security of Iraq -- that is, it doesn't split up or become unduly influenced by its neighbors. Q: What other questions still must be answered? A: There are questions of cost. If we do not have allies or many of them, then a disproportionate amount of the cost of whatever activity we take, if it's extended peacekeeping with a coercive bent to it, there is probably a lot of expense attached to this. The other day I saw Lawrence Lindsey (Bush's top economic adviser), who suggested out of the blue that $100-billion might be the cost of this over time. Maybe that's not out of line with inflation, compared to the $61-billion that is often quoted as the cost of the last war. Also quoted is $48-billion that other countries paid. By subtraction, that means it cost us $13-billion. Now it is a very large difference if our share is $13-billion or closer to $100-billion. So it's a reasonable question what the impact of this is on our economy at a time of uncertain recovery and many other demands for public expenditures which probably will need to go forward anyway. That means a different kind of financing of our government debt that we had anticipated. Q: What about the costs in terms of civilian lives? A: This can't be calculated until we have some idea of the tactics that would be employed. What Iraq will do is equally difficult for us to anticipate. Internally, Saddam has killed people who seem to be disloyal. People are predicting an internal rebellion, and that would have a lot to do with how many people are lost. Q: What impact would a war with Iraq have on U.S.-Arab relations? A: For the moment, the war would be distinctly unhelpful to our relations with Arab nations. Saddam has been unusually effective in terms of his own public diplomacy, in attempting to gain support from people in the region, if not from nation-states. We could have done better. The fight between the Palestinians and Israelis still requires diplomacy. We are trying to get an excellent Security Council resolution regarding Iraq to find a multinational solution. While that doesn't solve the Arab problem, it does take some of the starch out of those (in the Arab world) who say the U.S. is acting unilaterally. It counters what Saddam has been doing. Q: Is Iraq serious about its offer to open the country to inspectors? A: I think that was a tactical move to try to give some solace to those in the U.N. who were looking for some possible reason to support Iraq, to at least offer the argument that, "See, they really are more reasonable than you thought and, therefore, we ought to take more time." U.N. inspectors, absent somebody who really leads them to what they are looking for, are going to have modest success. Of course, there could be defectors. There could be intelligence sources developed on the scene. But it's not really clear as you send these people out into a big, complex country, what they are supposed to do. It could be a very, very frustrating task. Q: How do you explain the connection between Iraq and the war on terrorism? A: The war on terrorism has two facets, one of which is to root out terrorist cells, people who are not nation-states who have specific agendas that are universally destructive as they try to make their point by killing people and undermining nation-states. The second thing that we have all been after for quite a while is finding and destroying weapons of mass destruction. Why? Because if a terrorist intersects with weapons of mass destruction, there is no return address. It's this intersection between the terrorist cells and terrorism in the form of the weapons that might be used that gets you to Iraq. I am not one who believes that Iraq has been sponsoring deliberately a lot of al-Qaida activity. Q: What will the political impact of this be in November? Some think this gives the Republicans an edge, but others note that the American people prefer divided government. A: I doubt whether the divided government thesis works in times of war. I think probably there is more of a unity factor there. But I just note at this moment, Americans by and large are talking about a potential war and Iraq, but they are also talking about the economy, about jobs, health care, the promise of the education reform and, in many states, environmental issues. My opinion is we will still have a very close election and, I would say, unaffected by the war and probably determined on other issues.
 © 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 
|
From the Times wire desk
From the AP |
