|
Bill in Congress Says Iraq is a "Mounting Threat" to the U.S.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 (IslamOnline) - A new bill introduced earlier this month in Congress categorizing Iraq's refusal to let in weapons inspectors as a "mounting threat" to the U.S., found wide support Wednesday in the House Committee on International Relations - only one congressman present voted against it.
Although he supported the bill's substitute, which was a marked change from the original "outlandish" language calling Iraq's refusal "an act of aggression against the United States and its allies," Rep. Ron Paul of Texas rejected much of the language of the substitute as well, saying it was "jingoistic" and "invites conflict."
"We should always promote peace," Paul said. "Resolutions like this attack peace [and] promote war."
However, in a statement read aloud at the start of the hearing, committee chairman Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Illinois) said, "This resolution does not - I repeat, does not - seek to give the President legal authority to use force against Iraq," adding that he believed such authority already belonged to the President.
House Joint Resolution 75 was ordered to be amended to the substitute, which passed 32-1.
The bill list alleged acts of aggression by the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The first addressed the fact that "Iraq engaged the Islamic Republic of Iran, a nation of more than 55,000,000 Muslims, in a 10-year war." But as Paul pointed out, they did so with the backing of the United States.
The second statement of the bill referred to Hussein's "policy of ethnic cleansing against the Kurdish people." Paul argued that although Iraq's neighbor, Turkey, has had a similarly brutal attitude towards the Kurds, Turkey remains a U.S. ally and is not rebuked for the same act.
Paul also argued that while the bill says Iraq "consistently impeded the work of United Nations weapons inspectors… between 1991 and 1998," and after October 1998 "banned almost all [U.N.] weapons inspectors," Iraq did in fact allow U.N. inspectors with the International Atomic Energy Agency in January of 1999.
Those inspectors, Paul said, destroyed some poisonous gases, but said that throughout the process Iraq "provided the necessary cooperation effectively and efficiently."
He also mentioned the stance of former United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter, whom he said had visited Iraq nearly 30 times and found "absolutely nothing" in terms of a military threat from Iraq to the United States.
Countering the response of Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-New York), who said that the 1999 inspection covered only a fraction of Iraq's arms, Paul insisted that the point was U.S. method in dealing with Iraq.
"Why do we not deal with Iraq just like we ask everyone else to deal with their problems?" he asked, citing U.S. pressure on parties in Northern Ireland, and in Israel and the Occupied Territories, to dialogue and negotiate with each other rather than pass threats.
Many of Paul's arguments demanded that the U.S. treat Iraq's case in a manner consistent with its treatment of other countries - like Turkey, or as it asks other countries to resolve issues through negotiation.
But committee members supporting the bill - nearly everyone else in the room - attempted to justify the differential treatment by citing Iraq's refusal to comply with ceasefire terms that it had agreed to itself.
"A search for consistency is not going to protect the American people," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-California), who insisted that to act with some inconsistency was not to "throw out the rule of law," as Paul argued.
Ackerman said that the U.S. deals with Iraq differently "because they're in violation of their own agreement."
And Hyde also said that Iraq was a different case because of the threat of nuclear development.
In light of continued U.N. economic and travel sanctions on Iraq, which according to the U.N. itself have caused the deaths of nearly 500,000 children over the past decade, Paul argued that the suffering of the Iraqi people must be taken into consideration.
But other representatives tried to place the blame for their suffering entirely on Hussein's policies, rather than the sanctions themselves. Some argued that the U.N. sanctions were actually better for the Iraqi people.
Ackerman said that although "some people here say that sanctions hurt the Iraqi people… We must be clear and emphatic that only Saddam Hussein hurts the Iraqi people."
If Hussein acted in accordance with the U.N. resolutions, "the sanctions would be lifted," Ackerman said. "He lifts them when he keeps his word."
And Rep. Brad Sherman (D-California) said that the "so-called sanctions… are just a trust fund." He said that if the sanctions - what he said "are actually protection for the Iraqi people" - were lifted, Saddam would use the money for his own purposes, such as "building palaces."
If this were the situation, Sherman said, "the people of Iraq would thank God for those so-called sanctions."
Other representatives took their time to voice support of the resolution, with only a few questions and challenges.
Rep. Nick Smith (R-Michigan), suggested that the wording of the resolution stating that "Iraq" was responsible for the listed accusations should be changed to "the regime of Saddam Hussein," so as to avoid placing responsibility on the suffering population of Iraq as well as on their president.
But bill co-sponsor Rep. Tom Lantos (D-California) said that although it may occasionally be appropriate to refer to the regime itself, "we refer to countries by their name," and Sherman said that there was "no need for a balanced resolution."
Although a number of representatives present at the hearing, including Paul, Nick Smith and Benjamin Gilman (R-New York), recognized the dire situation of Iraq's population - under Hussein and the sanctions - the bill itself does not do so, except for mentioning Hussein's use of chemical weapons against "his own people."
|
