Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem. And in taking this to the United Nations, the President's clear determination to act if the United Nations can't provides strong leverage undergirding further diplomatic efforts.

But the problem of Iraq is only an element of the broader security challenges facing our country. We have an unfinished, world-wide war against Al Qaeda, a war that has to be won in conjunction with friends and allies, and that ultimately be won by persuasion as much as by force, when we turn off the Al Qaeda recruiting machine. Some three thousand deaths on September 11" testify to the real danger from Al Qaeda, and as all acknowledge, Al Qaeda has not yet been defeated. Thus far, substantial evidence has not been made available to link Saddam's regime to the Al Qaeda network. And while such linkages may emerge, winning the war against Al Qaeda may well require different actions than ending the weapons programs in Iraq.

The critical issue facing the Unites States now is how to force action against Saddam Hussein and his weapons programs without detracting from our focus on Al Qaeda or efforts to deal with other immediate, mid and long-term security problems. In this regard, I would offer the following considerations:

- The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations. The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway.

- The President and his national security team must deploy imagination, severage, and patience in crafting UN engagement. In the near term, time is on our side, and we should endeavor to use the UN if at all possible. This may require a period of time for inspections or even the development of a more intrusive inspection program, if necessary backed by force. This is foremost an effort to gain world-wide legitimacy for US concerns and possible later action, but it may also impede Saddam's weapons programs and further constrain his freedom of action. Yes, there is a risk that Inspections would fail to provide the evidence of his weapons programs, but the difficulties of dealing with this outcome are more than offset by opportunity to gain allies and support in the campaign against Saddam.

If efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, the US should form the broadest possible coalition, including its NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if possible, to bring force to bear.

Force should not be used until the personnel and organizations to be involved in postconflict Iraq are identified and readied to assume their responsibilities. This includes requirements for humanitarian assistance, police and judicial capabilities, emergency medical and reconstruction assistance, and preparations for a transitional governing body and eventual elections, perhaps including a new constitution. Ideally, international and multinational organizations will participate in the readying of such post-conflict operations, including the UN, NATO, and other regional and Islamic organizations.

Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, unless information indicates that further delay would present an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. This action should not be categorized as "preemptive."

Once initiated, any military operation should aim for the most rapid accomplishment of its operational aims and prompt turnover to follow-on organizations and agencies.

If we proceed as outlined above, we may be able to minimize the disruption to the ongoing campaign against Al Qaeda, reduce the impact on friendly governments in the region, and even contribute to the resolution of other regional issues such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iranian efforts to develop nuclear capabilities, and Saudi funding for terrorism. But there are no guarantees. The war is unpredictable and could be difficult and costly. And what is at risk in the aftermath is an open-ended American ground commitment in Iraq and an even deeper sense of humiliation in the Arab world, which could intensify our problems In the region and elsewhere. I look forward to answering questions and helping the Committee assess the costs and risks of the alternatives before us.

U.S. POLICY TOWARD IRAQ

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, Wednesday, October 2, 2002.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Curt Weldon.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CURTWELDON, A
REPRESENTATIVE FROM PENNSYLVANLA

Mr. WELDON [presiding]. The hearing will come to order. Today the Committee on Armed Services continues its review of United States policy toward Iraq. . This morning's hearing marks the fifth in a number of planned public sessions designed to educate and inform the committee and the American people on the various issues surrounding Iraq's continued violation of numerous United Nations resolutions, its illicit development of weapons of mass destruction, and the threat that Saddam Hussein poses to the United States, the Middle East, and the international community. The committee has received a series of classified briefings from the intelligence community on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and conventional military capabilities. We also have heard from former United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) inspectors about Iraq's illicit weapons programs and Saddam Hussein's persistent efforts to thwart United Nations (U.N.) inspections. The committee also received testimony from an Iraqi defector who was a key player in Saddam's nuclear weapons program. He told us how the Iraqis built and sustained their weapons of mass destruction programs through the acquisition of sensitive Western technology, including items from U.S. firms. In separate hearings the committee also discussed U.S. policy toward Iraq, with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, several retired U.S. generals and two distinguished foreign and defense policy experts. Today, however, we will hear from two individuals who are foreign and defense policy experts in their own right, have published widely, and are well known for their policy ideas and insights: Dr. Eliot Cohen, professor and Director of Strategic Studies at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University; and Dr. Michael O'Hanlon, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution. Gentlemen, thank you both for agreeing to appear today. We look forward again to your testimony. And before we begin, I wanted to give Mr. Skelton, the Ranking Democrat on the committee, the opportunity to make any comments he may have, and then I have a special introduction before we actually begin the hearing. Mr. Skelton. [The prepared statement of Mr. Weldon can be found in the Appendix on page 385.]

STATEMENT OF HON. IKE SKELTON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM MISSOURI, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I take this opportunity to welcome old friends, Dr. Cohen and Dr. O'Hanlon, with us today. I ask that my prepared statement be put into the record. Congress is facing a constitutional duty sometime within the very near future, and as we speak, a series—or a proposed resolution upon which a debate will follow is being glued together. You and your testimony can be very, very helpful to us in taking us through whole steps that should come to pass rather than our country taking off on a horse and riding off into the sunset. The United Nations has a specific role. It is basically the creature of the United States of America. The Constitution gives us a specific role when it comes to conflicts and wars, and consequently, your testimony will be very helpful to us. And a special thanks for your being with us today. [The prepared statement of Mr. Skelton can be found in the Appendix on page 388.] Mr. WELDON. I thank my friend and colleague for his statement and for his ongoing leadership in providing a balanced approach to the issues involving the President's request for support for Iraq. At this point in time, before our hearing begins, I have the very distinct pleasure and honor to introduce a longtime friend of mine. In fact, I hosted him several years ago for one week in Pennsylvania. He is the current chairman of the Russian Federation Council's International Affairs Committee. Mikhael Margelov from Russia is here. So he is the equivalent of the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He started out as an advisor to both President Yeltsin and President Putin. He had his own company in terms of political consulting in Russia when I first met him at Columbia University at a conference three or four years ago. We have been together at a number of conferences, and we met this morning to talk about Russia's interest and concerns about Iraq. Mikhael, would you like to just say a few words to the Members of Congress here? I mean, I did not ask you to appear as a witness. Perhaps I should have done that, and perhaps you would have accepted. But if you would just like to stand up and say a few words, we have to break in five minutes. But I think my colleagues might be interested in having—in getting a chance to know you. P He is a good friend and a close advisor, I might add, to President utin. Mr. Skelton, do you have an objection to that? Mr. SKELTON. No. Mr. WELDON. Without objection. Special witness before the House Armed Services Committee, the Chairman of the we can never get our Senators over here, Mikhael, so we have to go over to Russia to get a Russian Chairman of the Senate Committee to come over and testify.

STATEMENT OF MIKHAEL MARGELOV, CHAIRMAN, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, RUSSIAN FEDERATION COUNCIL

Mr. MARGELOV. Well, first of all, thank you, Curt, for such generous introduction. It is a great honor for me to be invited for such hearings. Actually I also was invited tomorrow for the hearings at the International Affairs Committee of the House, which are called Russia and the Axis of Evil, and unfortunately I got to know this morning that these hearings are postponed. So I would like to take this advantage to address you, dear colleagues, and say that I think that such a practice of Russian parliamentarians taking part in the hearings here in the U.S., and American parliamentarians taking part in hearings in Russia is quite unique, and I think we have to continue with such practice. We agreed with Senator Trent Lott on Monday that in the beginning of the year 2003, a senatorial delegation will come to the Council Federation to Moscow to take part in the hearings on Russian-American relations there. So I think that we have to continue such a practice. Thank you very much. Mr. WELDON. Thank you, Mikhael. I know that our committee would welcome any comments in writing that you would have on our current discussion about the Iraqi situation and relative to your country's concerns as you outlined to me this morning, about the oil interests that you have in Iraq, the financial obligation that Iraq has to you as a nation, and so I would invite you to provide that information in writing on the record for us to be a part of the proceedings. Mr. WELDON. With that, I want to thank you for stopping by. And we will now turn to our witnesses. We do have to break for a series of votes. Would you like to begin now and go as far as we can, and then we have to break for one 15-minute vote and two 5-minute votes? So, Dr. Cohen, what is your choice? P., COHEN. How long would we have before the vote would begin? Mr. WELDON. I would say probably ten minutes before—probably eight minutes before we have to leave to go over and vote. Dr. COHEN. If you would like. Mr. WELDON. The floor is yours. Your statement will be entered as a part of the record. You are free to make whatever comments you would like to make.

STATEMENT OF DR. ELIOT A. COHEN, PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR OF STRATEGIC STUDIES, THE SCHOOL OF ADVANCED INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY

Dr. COHEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for inviting me to testify today before you on the question of American policy toward Iraq.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »