New York Times
March 4, 1998
A day after the Security Council stopped short of endorsing an explicit military threat against Iraq, the Clinton Administration defended its stance that the United States has the authority to use force if Iraq does not comply with United Nations weapons
inspections. At the White House today, President Clinton said the Council's resolution on Monday night warning of "severest consequences" if Saddam Hussein defied the agreement brokered last month by Secretary General Kofi Annan sent "a clear message" that Iraq must comply.
"The Government of Iraq should be under no illusion," Mr. Clinton said. "The meaning of severest consequences is clear. It provides authority to act if Iraq does not turn the commitment it has now made into compliance." His press secretary, Michael D. McCurry, was even more explicit, saying "severest consequences" meant military action. The State Department's spokesman, James P. Rubin, called the phrase the Security Council's strongest warning so far in the confrontation over inspections of Iraq's weapons.
The Administration's interpretation, however, put the United States at odds with other members of the Security Council. In speeches Monday and in interviews today, diplomats said they supported the resolution only because it did not call for automatic military strike if Iraq balked again. Brazil's representative on the council, Celso Luiz Nunes Amorim, said today that there was "great resistance" to any language that would clear the way for an American military attack. "It is fair to say that majority of the Council has the view that the authority of the Council is still needed for any military action," Mr. Amorim said.
While the diplomatic concerns remained at the forefront, the Administration submitted the bill to Congress today for the American buildup in the Persian Gulf. The Office of Management and Budget asked for a supplemental appropriation of $1.36 billion to cover the unanticipated expenses of building up the force since the Iraq crisis flared last November and keeping it in the gulf through September, if needed. The $1.36 billion comes on top of $680 million already budgeted for the annual costs of enforcing the "no-flight" zone over southern Iraq.
The costs cover everything from the fuel to transport troops and equipment to the $150 a month bonus the 36,000 combat and support troops receive for serving in a combat zone. The cost would rise even more in the event of an attack. The Pentagon announced today that it had ordered all troops now in the region to begin immediately receiving vaccinations for anthrax, one of the biological agents Iraq is accused of having developed. Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen had announced late last year that the Pentagon would give the vaccine to all 2.4 million active duty and reserve forces, but he said he decided to speed up the vaccinations for those in the gulf. The American commander for the region, Gen. Anthony C. Zinni of the Marines, said he intended to keep the force in the Persian Gulf at its current strength - with more than 300 aircraft and two dozen warships, including two aircraft carriers - until the accord with Iraq can be tested. "I think we need to look at the first inspections and to see the results," he told the Senate Committee on Armed Services today.
In addition to the costs for Iraq, the Administration's request included $487 million more to keep American troops in Bosnia after June. The President's budget director, Franklin D. Raines, said the $2.49 billion request also included money for emergency disaster relief for the flooding in California, tornadoes in Florida and ice storms in New England. In addition, the President is seeking two items opposed by many in Congress: $18 billion for the International Monetary Fund and nearly $1 billion in back dues the United States owes the United Nations. Last year money for the I.M.F. and United Nations was bogged down in an unrelated dispute over abortion, but Mr. Raines said tonight, "I don't believe that the Congress would let an extraneous issue prevent them from providing the funds necessary to support our military operations."
Although Mr. Annan's agreement averted military action, officials in Washington have remained skeptical that Mr. Hussein will comply with the weapons inspections, including those of "presidential" sites he had declared off-limits. The reaction among the Administration's critics in Congress has been outright hostile.
In his remarks, though, President Clinton said the Security Council's resolution put Iraq on notice. "No promise of peace and no policy of patience can be without its limits," he said. "Iraq's words must be matched by deeds. "General Zinni also defended the agreement before the Senate's Committee on Armed Services, saying that only the threat of a military strike had forced Mr. Hussein to back down. Even so, he predicted that Mr. Hussein would challenge the inspectors again. It was also he who asked the Pentagon to speed up the vaccinations for anthrax, suggesting he and other military commanders still suspect Iraq might someday retaliate against American forces.
