Baker Says Iraqi Threat Calls for Defense Alliance

Secretary of State James A. Baker III called Tuesday for creation of a NATO-style security structure, including long-term participation of U.S. military forces, to prevent renewed Iraqi aggression even if the present crisis ends without open warfare.

A new security framework would be essential if the crisis is resolved peacefully because such an outcome would leave intact Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s powerful military force, Baker said as he delivered the Bush Administration’s most detailed assessment of the month-old crisis.

Baker told the House Armed Services Committee that the Administration continues to hope that the U.N.-imposed trade embargo will eventually force Hussein to withdraw his forces from Kuwait. But he warned Congress and the public that results from the economic sanctions will not come quickly.

And he said the nation must “avoid at all costs the siren song” of a negotiated end to the crisis that would remove Iraqi troops from Kuwait in exchange for even minor changes in the borders or government of Kuwait. He said it is vitally important to deny Hussein even the illusion of success from his invasion.

A senior State Department official explained: “Saddam Hussein can’t become the wave of the future. He can’t be seen as succeeding in this crisis. The Arab masses are looking for a hero, and Saddam can’t become that hero.

“If we can’t succeed in making clear that Saddam won’t be the wave of the future, then it’s going to be a more violent Mideast and a more violent world,” the official said.

While Baker reiterated a stance of no concessions, he did say that if the ousted Kuwaiti government is restored to power, the United States would not object if it discussed the border or changes in its form of government.

Baker refused to spell out Washington’s probable response if the sanctions fail to achieve their objective. But he made it clear that forceful action would be required even if Hussein succumbed to the economic pressure.

“In the long run, even if you assume that (the sanctions) do work and we are successful in moving (Hussein) out of Kuwait, there has to be a very clear re-examination of the overall security structure for this region, the balance of power in the region and the prospects for equilibrium in the region,” he said. “That is something, it seems to me, that we are going to be faced with in any event.”

Baker supplied few details of his plan. But in response to repeated questions, he said the new structure must be adequate to restrain Hussein or his successors even if Iraq were to succeed in adding nuclear weapons to its already potent arsenal of conventional and chemical arms.

When California Rep. Mel Levine (D-Santa Monica) suggested that no regional organization would be able to deal with a nuclear-armed Iraq, Baker replied by comparing his plan to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. “It worked in Europe,” he said. “The Soviet Union had nuclear weapons going back to Stalin’s time.”

Baker said it was impossible to predict how long the United States would have to maintain military forces in the region. But he left little doubt that he anticipated a long stay.

“If we’re going to build a new regional security structure, what role should the United States play in that regional structure?” he asked. “Certainly we ought to play some role. And therefore there would be some continuing (military) presence there. Maybe it wouldn’t be a ground force. Maybe it would be a naval presence. These are questions that have to be addressed down the line.”

Baker also bluntly told the lawmakers that in the post-Cold War world, Washington may be called upon repeatedly to play the leading role in international efforts to deter aggression.

“America must lead, and our people must understand that,” he said. “We remain the one nation that has the necessary political, military and economic instruments at our disposal to catalyze a successful collective response by the international community.”

At the White House, meanwhile, Press Secretary Marlin Fitzwater announced that the Administration has decided to forgive Egypt’s approximately $7-billion weapons debt, which will result in a $750-million increase in the federal deficit this year.

“It’s a response to essentially two factors,” Fitzwater said. “The first is the fact that (the Egyptians) are a participant in the multinational forces . . . and secondly that there is an inordinate and immense impact” on Egypt as a result of the conflict.

Baker said that the U.S. government has known, at least since 1982, that Cairo’s troubled economy would never be able to repay the debt. When lawmakers asked why the debts of other countries were not also written off, Baker replied that none were as hard-pressed economically as Egypt.

Baker said the Kuwaiti royal family, from its exile in Saudi Arabia, is “providing financial aid to support our military effort and to help alleviate economic disruptions that have occurred in such states as Egypt.”

He said the U.S. effort will cost about $6 billion for the rest of this year--a figure substantially smaller than some earlier estimates.

“Leadership sometimes does cost,” Baker said. “It does not seem that $6 billion is too much even if we didn’t get any help from others for . . . the noble goal of resisting aggression.”

Fitzwater also sought to portray a somewhat hazy relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States as to the control of military forces.

He said the arrangement had been developed to preserve the U.S. chain of command, from the President to his troops, while ensuring Saudi sovereignty.

The Saudis produced some nervousness at the Pentagon when they said publicly that the United States cannot launch offensive operations against Iraq from bases in Saudi Arabia without first gaining approval of King Fahd.

“We would not launch any kind of operation without close consultation with our Saudi hosts,” Fitzwater said. But he added, “Certainly we have the right of self-defense, and if our forces are attacked, they have the right to respond. In other situations, we would consult with the Saudis, and we do constantly.

“Nobody has a veto,” he added.

Baker’s appearance on Capitol Hill was intended to respond to suggestions that the Administration has failed to spell out its objectives in dispatching the largest U.S. force since the Vietnam War to Saudi Arabia and the waters of the Persian Gulf.

He said Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait was “one of the defining moments” of the post-Cold War era. He said the United States and the world “must seize this opportunity to solidify the ground rules of the new order.”

“This is not about increases in the price of a gallon of gas,” Baker said. “ . . . It is about a dictator who, acting alone and unchallenged, could strangle the global economic order, determining by fiat whether we all enter a recession or even the darkness of a depression.”

Although the U.S. response, so far, has been aimed at preventing Iraq from seizing Saudi Arabia, Baker said the American umbrella extends to all of the oil-rich ministates of the region.

Both Baker and Fitzwater insisted that the economic embargo has been effective so far, despite continued indications that some goods are reaching Iraq either by air or by an overland route through Jordan.

“The world has basically shut down the export of oil from Iraq,” Baker said. “Very little is getting through, probably none.”

Fitzwater said the sanctions “are working against Iraq.”

“There is very little leakage of the sanctions on an overall basis,” he said. “It is not a major problem in terms of the total effectiveness of the sanctions, which we believe are beginning to bite.”

The White House chose, as it has in the past, to praise the efforts of Jordan’s King Hussein to uphold the embargo even though there are reports of continued shipments to Iraq. And Fitzwater said that when he cited “major compliance,” that assessment included Jordan.

As a footnote to the crisis, Baker said the Administration has returned Iraq to its list of governments that promote international terrorism. The Baghdad regime was removed from the list several years ago in the midst of a U.S. effort to improve relations between the two governments. Other nations on the list include North Korea, Cuba, Libya, Iran and Syria.

Times staff writer James Gerstenzang contributed to this report.