In Washington the agreement met with partisan blasts. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) called the deal "appeasement," and assailed it on the Senate floor, saying "The secretary general is calling the shots. The United States is not." Sen. Lott claimed that the Clinton Administration has once again "subcontracted" its foreign policy to the United Nations. Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) dismissed this charge as purely partisan, noting that Republicans cheered when President Bush turned to the U.N. in 1991 to provide multilateral support for war against Iraq.

Following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the 1991 Desert Storm war, the United Nations at U.S. urging imposed an economic embargo on Iraq. The sanctions were to remain in place until the international community was satisfied that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction had been totally eliminated. A U.N. team has conducted inspections to look for evidence of weapons of mass destruction, particularly chemical and biological weapons. Iraq frequently has refused to cooperate with the inspections, denied access to sites, and harassed the inspectors.

Meanwhile, the sanctions have devastated Iraq's economy and standard of living. While food and other humanitarian goods are technically exempt from the embargo, the sale of petroleum to gain foreign currency to pay for them was restricted until recently to $2 billion every six months. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, many of them children, have died as a result of shortages of food, medicine and clean drinking water.

On Feb. 20 the U.N. Security Council approved an increase in the oil-for-food program that will allow Iraq to sell $5.2 billion of oil over six months to buy food, medicine and other necessities. Iraq has said it cannot reach that target for oil production because of a lack of maintenance and spare parts caused by the sanctions.

In a 1996 report, Michael Nahhal, relief coordinator in Iraq for the Middle East Council of Churches, states: "The West wants to punish the leaders of Iraq, but the ones bearing all the burden are ordinary people who have no say nor any part in the decision-making of the system under which they are obliged to live. Their suffering is tremendous. Decades of progress in development have been undone, social structures are decaying into primitive configurations ... To simply stand aside and bear witness is insufficient."

We may hope that Annan's deal with Saddam Hussein will provide breathing space for a more reasoned analysis of the Iraq situation to emerge. The need is to identify strategic routes to a diplomatic resolution that could both control the threat posed by Iraq's leadership and restore the well-being of the Iraqi people.

Such an analysis is complicated, however, by the ongoing debate about the role of the United States in the United Nations. It is affected as well by linkages between the Iraqi crisis and the unresolved Israeli-Arab conflict, and by the larger threat that weapons of mass destruction pose to the Middle East region and beyond.

The U.S.-U.N. Debate: On March 2, the U.N. Security Council passed a new resolution on Iraq that endorsed Annan's agreement. France, Russia and China wanted the resolution to state that the full council should determine whether Iraq has violated the inspection agreement before any individual country is empowered to take action. The final version is a "fuzzy language" compromise that stops short of giving the United States a specific go-ahead to use force. Nonetheless, U.S. officials are interpreting the resolution as not prohibiting the launching of attacks by the U.S. if Iraq again breaks its promises to cooperate.

The U.S. attitude reflects a long-standing unease about international cooperation versus sovereign rights. Following World War I, President Woodrow Wilson's grand plan for a League of Nations was rejected by the U.S. Senate. Senators in 1998 still bristle at what they perceive as "lost sovereignty." Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Mo.), for example, says that "U.S. foreign policy should not be written at the United Nations, subcontracted to Moscow, or [made] a servant to multilateral interests." When this session of Congress takes up the Administrations request to pay the debt owed the U.N., these themes are likely to resonate.

Lawmakers will be hard-pressed, however, to dismiss the supremacy of the U.N. role in relation to Iraq. The Gulf War of 1991 was a U.N. operation, albeit led by the United States. The cease-fire agreement was embodied in U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 that established the weapons inspection regime and imposed economic sanctions. It is almost inconceivable that the current inspection and destruction of Iraq's weapons could take place under any authority other than that of the United Nations.

The threat posed by Iraq and by Saddam Hussein's duplicity cannot be dismissed. Iraq did not admit any biological work until the defection in 1995 of Saddam Hussein's son-in-law. It was then revealed that Iraq had perfected seven different lethal agents, "weaponized" them and created warheads.

There is a strong and understandable desire among many Americans to get "rid" of Saddam Hussein and end the problem. Calls for an air and ground war to eliminate Saddam Hussein, capture Baghdad and install a new government have drawn only limited public support. But schemes for covert or overt action to assassinate Saddam or organize an opposition to overthrow him abound in the op-ed pages of major newspapers. Counter-arguments point to the weak and fractious nature of the Iraqi opposition and the risk of unleashing dangerous chaos.

There is a legitimate fear that once the U.N. reports that Iraq has complied with provisions of the cease-fire resolution and lifts economic sanctions, Iraq will again be able to fund its weapons programs with the proceeds of oil sales. Yet the U.N. sanctions, now in place for seven years, have brought a human tragedy of immense proportions that cannot be ignored. Ending the economic sanctions must be a policy objective along with ensuring that Iraq will not produce, import or use weapons of mass destruction.

Links to Israeli-Arab Conflict: An implicit bargain was struck between the United States and many Arab states in 1991: You support the U.S.-led U.N. action against Iraq, and we will work actively for an Arab-Israeli peace.

Now that the Madrid/Oslo peace process has broken down, there is growing anger over a perceived double standard in enforcement of U.N. Security Council resolutions. Israel defies the resolutions, yet receives aid and sympathy from Washington; when Iraq is defiant the United States threatens force. As a result, many Arab states, while openly disapproving Saddam Hussein's leadership, have been reluctant or unwilling to endorse the proposed bombing of Iraq.

King Hussein of Jordan finds himself in a particularly severe predicament. His signing of a peace treaty with Israel the major concrete result of the process begun in Madrid has become the target of increasing criticism in Jordan. Whatever economic gains Jordan realized as a result of that treaty are offset by the huge losses of trade with Iraq and the burden of caring for refugees.

Throughout the Arab and Muslim world, leaders and ordinary citizens emphasize the double standard. The American Muslim Council, in a Feb. 5 statement, asks the United States to examine its present lack of even-handed application of U.N. Security Council resolutions. At the same time, the statement is clear in its condemnation of the Iraqi president, referring to "the repressive regime of Saddam Hussein" which has "displayed contempt for its people."

Catholic, mainline Protestant and Muslim representatives were at the forefront of opposition to the bombing campaign being prepared in February. But evangelical and other conservative Protestant groups were silent, as were Jewish organizations who, according to Ira Rifkin of the Religious News Service, "view Iraq as a threat to Israel's safety." Worst-case scenarios have Israel directly involved in this round of hostilities.

A New "Unifying Threat": At a meeting of the NATO foreign ministers in Brussels two months ago, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, using Iraq as an example, declared that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of "rogue states" should be the new "unifying threat" that binds Europe and the United States in the post-Cold War era.

Albright's proposal to extend NATO's reach to the Middle East and Central Africa has met with little support from Europeans. But a new and broader focus on banning weapons of mass destruction throughout the Middle East deserves further consideration.

The double standard applied to Israel and the Arab states is nowhere more obvious than in relation to weapons of mass destruction. It is generally known, although never stated by the United States or Israel, that Israel possesses significant stores of such weapons undeclared and uninspected. Israel has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty despite much urging led by Egyptian president Mubarak.

In a Feb. 4 statement, the Middle East Council of Churches said, "While recognizing the potential threat of nuclear and biological weapons, and other weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq may possess, it is also known that other states in the region and throughout the world possess such weapons, yet are not subjected to sanctions. The MECC does not condone the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, but calls for a consistent international standard for the prevention of such proliferation, and rejects the hypocritical stance which singles out Iraq."

Although it has received little attention, paragraph 14 of U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 (the 1991 cease-fire agreement) poses the weapons question in regional terms. It notes that "the disarmament actions ordered by the resolution to be taken by Iraq represent steps towards the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all missiles for their delivery and the objective of a global ban on chemical weapons."

Paragraph 14 could provide a mechanism to continue international monitoring of Iraq's weapons programs even after U.N. inspectors declare Iraq to be in compliance. If serious attention were directed toward the goal of a regional arms control zone, this could bring a new regional dynamic and help to restore Arab states commitment to a comprehensive peace process with Israel.

The American crusade against Saddam Hussein has raised the image of a bullying superpower. Leadership by the United States, within the U.N. framework, toward region-wide arms control in the Middle East would go far toward restoring respect for our nation within the international community.

ACTION

Write or call your Representative and your two Senators. Urge Congress to:

• Accept the leadership of the United Nations and the diplomatic efforts of U.N. Secretary General Annan in regard to Iraq;
• Avoid calling for or authorizing independent U.S. actions against Iraq;
• Pay the U.S. debt to the U.N. of $1.5 billion. The Administration is expected to request $1.02 billion to pay a portion of that debt as part of a supplemental spending bill.

Honorable ________ U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20510

Honorable ________ U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Capitol switchboard: (202) 224-3121

Send a copy of your letter to:

Mr. Bill Richardson
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
799 U.N. Plaza
New York, NY 10017

Talking points:

1. The economic sanctions should be removed when the U.N. has ascertained that Iraq has complied with the requirements regarding the destruction of weapons and the capacity to produce them. The goalposts for removing the sanctions must not be moved by the United States. The expansion of the oil-for-food exemption is helpful, but insufficient to resolve the crisis.
2. U.S. church people are deeply concerned about the suffering of the people of Iraq. Long-term economic sanctions that create a humanitarian crisis are not an acceptable policy option.
3. The United States and the U.N. Security Council are applying a double standard in requiring Iraq to comply with resolutions while turning a blind eye to the possession of nuclear weapons by Israel. Our country should provide leadership toward establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and achieving a global ban on chemical weapons, as called for by UNSC Res. 687. Curtailing Iraq's weapons should be a first step toward regional arms control.
4. Diplomacy should persist in order that bloodshed may be avoided. Only when there is a broad international consensus that there is no other solution should our government even consider participating in military action.