Iraq’s Arsenal a Peace Barrier, Mubarak Says

The Middle East can never enjoy real peace as long as Iraq maintains its potent arsenal of missiles and chemical weapons, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said Saturday.

And, without setting a deadline for the current economic sanctions to force an Iraqi capitulation, Mubarak strongly suggested that the military threat posed by Baghdad must be eliminated within a matter of months.

With Secretary of State James A. Baker III standing at his side, Mubarak said he would prefer diplomatic measures to neutralize President Saddam Hussein’s threatening weaponry but that military means may prove necessary.

“You know we are against chemical weapons, against the presence of missiles,” Mubarak said “ . . . I think peace will never go with the presence of all these forms of weapons in the area.”

Asked if he thinks there is any chance that Iraq will give up those arms unless it is defeated militarily, Mubarak said, “We would like, first of all, to try peaceful solutions. We shouldn’t go through war solutions at all unless that is a hopeless case.”

By suggesting that the five-week-old gulf crisis cannot be resolved until Iraq surrenders its missiles and chemical weapons, Mubarak went far beyond U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for Hussein’s regime to end its occupation of Kuwait and restore the exiled emir to power.

Iraq has scorned the U.N. sanctions, insisting that it will never reverse its annexation of Kuwait.

Hussein’s regime is even less likely to agree to give up its chemical weapons capabilities without a fight. However, if Iraq reverses course and ends its occupation of Kuwait, there would be tremendous pressure to end the economic sanctions, making it unlikely that Baghdad could be persuaded peacefully to destroy its chemical arms.

Egypt has sent several thousand troops to the multinational force in Saudi Arabia, probably making it the second-largest foreign contingent on the ground. While refusing to disclose exact numbers, Mubarak said Egypt will soon expand its contribution.

“We are supporting the Saudis as much as we can,” he said. “We will send them the forces needed which is agreed upon. We sent some forces now. We are intending to send other forces in the very near future.”

So far, the Bush Administration has said that a military offensive cannot be ruled out if the U.N.-imposed economic boycott does not force Hussein to end his occupation. But Washington has set no deadline.

However, Mubarak said the crisis must be resolved--either peacefully or by armed force--within the next few months.

He said he could not predict that the crisis would end in one, two or three months “but I’m telling you that doesn’t mean it is going to stay for one year.”

Mubarak and Baker met alone for 90 minutes in a lavish 19th-Century palace overlooking the Mediterranean which once was used by King Farouk, the free-spending libertine who was Egypt’s last monarch.

Immediately after the meeting, Baker flew to Helsinki, Finland, to attend President Bush’s summit meeting today with Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev.

Mubarak said he had told Baker that he hopes Bush and Gorbachev will be able to avoid any sort of disagreement on their approaches to the gulf crisis. He said that if there were differences “this would be a hell of a problem in this area.”

During a hectic three days in the Middle East, Baker discussed the crisis with the king of Saudi Arabia, the president of the United Arab Emirates and the deposed emir of Kuwait as well as with Mubarak.

Baker told reporters that he discussed the possible use of military force at every stop.

However, it seems clear that no consensus has emerged on military measures. A senior Saudi official said the kingdom opposes the use of force unless Iraq attacks Saudi Arabia, but a member of Kuwait’s exiled Cabinet said military action probably will be needed to end the occupation and it should be undertaken as soon as possible.

Before leaving Washington, Baker suggested the creation of some sort of Persian Gulf security structure, including long-term American participation, to contain Iraq’s military might even if the crisis ends peacefully.

In response to questions from the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday, Baker compared his proposed structure to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The next day, in an appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Baker said that consideration of the plan was still in its early stages and that the NATO analogy might not be apt.

Saudi officials, perhaps alarmed by a banner headline in the English-language Saudi News saying Baker had proposed “a Gulf NATO,” told Baker they did not want a NATO clone in their region but were willing to discuss other approaches.

After his meeting with Mubarak, Baker said, “We don’t have anything specifically in mind. . . . The president (Mubarak) and I discussed the importance of states that are located in the region giving some thought to what form of security arrangements can best guarantee peace and stability in the Persian Gulf after we get beyond the current crisis.”

As for long-term deployment of U.S. forces in the area, Baker noted that Washington has had at least a token naval presence in the gulf since 1947.

In one consequence of the crisis, Mubarak hinted that he may be ready to end Egypt’s support for Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat, who embraced Iraq’s invasion.

“The (Israeli-Palestinian) peace process is not only for Yasser Arafat but the Palestinian people,” Mubarak said. “So, anything that is done by Yasser Arafat doesn’t mean we are going to stop dealing with the Palestinian problem.”