Ex-U.N. Inspector Assails U.S. Policy

U.N. weapons inspectors were poised last month to uncover concealed Iraqi ballistic missile components and other contraband but were thwarted by the Clinton administration, former inspector Scott Ritter told members of Congress on Thursday.

Ritter, who resigned last week, said the inspectors had come up with “hard evidence” on where to find the missile parts and locate documents showing how Baghdad hid other weapons of mass destruction. But he said the raid, scheduled for Aug. 8, was called off after the administration decided not to risk a confrontation with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s government.

Ritter’s remarks to a joint meeting of the Senate Foreign Affairs and Armed Services committees were his most explicit explanation of the circumstances surrounding his decision to resign as one of the United Nations’ most senior arms inspectors. Administration officials have disputed Ritter’s characterization of the events.

Ritter said the U.N. inspection program has been so crippled by the loss of U.S. support that it is essentially moribund. Without renewed inspections, he said, Iraq will be able to rebuild its chemical, biological and ballistic missile programs within six months. He said it would take longer, perhaps three years, for Iraq to produce a deliverable nuclear weapon.

Unless the inspection program receives the backing from the United States and the U.N. Security Council necessary to resume its work, Ritter said, “we will have, in fact, lost the Gulf War. . . . But even worse, Saddam Hussein will have disgraced the body of the Security Council.”

The hearing was held over the objection of Senate Democrats who wanted to delay Ritter’s testimony until Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Defense Secretary William S. Cohen were available to present the administration’s side. Albright and Cohen will talk to the committees next week.

In a television interview earlier this week, Albright said the administration’s policy has “managed to keep the strongest sanctions regime in the history of the world on Saddam Hussein.”

Other officials said the administration was reluctant to risk a confrontation with Iraq over the proposed Aug. 8 inspection for fear of creating a backlash that would undercut the sanctions. These officials said Hussein almost certainly would have blocked the inspection if Ritter and his colleagues had tried to go ahead, forcing the U.S. government to either back down or resort to military force.

In his comments on Capitol Hill, Ritter conceded that Iraq was unlikely to have permitted the inspection. But he said the U.S. government and its allies should have followed the policy laid out by President Clinton in April threatening stern measures if Baghdad interfered with U.N. inspections.

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) told Ritter that Albright and other administration officials must balance a number of issues in deciding whether U.N. inspections are worth risking a war that Washington might have to fight with far fewer allies than it marshaled in 1991 when a broad-based coalition drove Iraqi forces out of Kuwait.

“I envy your ability to have such clarity on this issue,” Biden said. “But I can see how the secretary of State might have a different assessment.”

Biden told Ritter, a former Marine Corps officer, that war-or-peace decisions are made by people “above your pay grade.”

But few Democrats were willing to challenge Ritter head-on. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) agreed with Ritter that it was a mistake for the administration to threaten firm action to enforce U.N. inspections and then pull back.

“The United States, at this time, can’t afford to be a paper tiger,” she said. When Ritter said that no member of the Security Council appeared willing to challenge Iraq last month, Feinstein said, “There were at least five paper tigers--everybody backed down.”

Republicans criticized Clinton sharply for talking tough but failing to follow through.

“Seven months ago, the secretary of State threatened force if these inspections weren’t allowed to be completed,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). “And now, apparently . . . the secretary of State is arguing against the completion of the inspections.”

Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) said: “The use of force must be a credibly viable option. . . . There must be no exceptions, no waffling, no seepage in our determination and leadership. If there is Iraqi noncompliance and noncooperation, we ought to not just threaten force but employ it. We should consider doing so with or without international cooperation.”

Also Thursday, chief U.N. weapons inspector Richard Butler told the Security Council that Iraq had refused three times in the last month to allow inspectors to monitor sites they had visited previously, tightening restrictions Baghdad had announced in early August.

Iraq said Aug. 5 that it would no longer cooperate with U.N. inspectors. It said they may monitor previously declared sites but could not conduct intrusive inspections.

But Butler said some previously declared sites were now off limits as well. He listed three incidents, including one Tuesday when an inspection team was barred from a site known to contain missile components that had already been under surveillance by the U.N.

Butler’s report came as the U.S. and Britain introduced a draft resolution that would punish Iraq for freezing cooperation with inspectors by suspending regular sanctions reviews until Iraq reverses the decision.

But the resolution says if inspectors are allowed to get back to work, the council would be willing to consider a comprehensive review of Iraq’s previous compliance.