Senator Maria Cantwell's Statementon the Iraq Resolution
Senator Cantwell supported the resolution on Iraq. While Senator Cantwell has strong reservations about any use of force, she feels that it is important for Congress to show its support for disarming Saddam Hussein as we go to the United Nations seeking an international coalition. Senator Cantwell did not vote for war with Iraq, and strongly prefers a diplomatic outcome, which she continues to urge the President to secure with the United Nations.
Senator Maria Cantwell's statement follows:
Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss SJ Res. 46, the Lieberman-Warner-Bayh-McCain resolution and the issue that everyone of my colleague agrees on -- that Iraq is in serious violation of its U.S. and U.N. agreements prohibiting its possession of weapons of mass destruction.
My colleagues all agree Iraq must be disarmed.
What my colleagues can't agree on is how to best achieve this goal.
Let me add my views.
I believe that the best way to deal with the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is to build a multinational coalition and engage the United Nations.
But we can't ask the United Nations to disarm Saddam Hussein if we are not willing to disarm him ourselves.
Today's vote for the Iraq resolution is a statement of national resolve to disarm Saddam Hussein. By showing our unity as a nation, we help the United States unite the world against Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
History has shown that we have been very patient with Saddam Hussein.
First, let us remember that the United States and 34 other nations were at war with Iraq in 1991.
After three months of war, the U.S. coalition lost 556 lives and suffered 502 casualties, including seven young men from my home state. 100,000 Iraqi lives were lost. Ultimately, we negotiated a cease-fire agreement with Iraq that ended our military campaign.
This cease-fire was approved in return for Saddam Hussein's promise that he would unconditionally accept the destruction and removal of all biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and to allow U.N. inspectors to verify the elimination of these programs.
This cease-fire agreement was even signed by the Iraq government.
Mr. President, we staked lives, resources, and diplomatic weight on that promise; and it is the repeated, habitual lying and breaking of that promise and the implications of non-compliance that brings us here today.
If military action is eventually taken by a UN-backed effort or multinational US effort, that military action would not be a pre-emptive strike, but the enforcement of the Iraqi government cease fire agreement.
In fact, I would say we have been in a constant battle of enforcement for 11 years.
Shortly after the cease-fire agreement in 1991, Saddam Hussein started to thwart the cease-fire.
For seven years, inspectors were sent to Iraq to verify his promise to disclose and destroy his cache of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and for seven years Hussein obstructed the inspectors efforts. David Kaye, a UN inspector confirmed they were "chasing down weapons from unwilling parties."
Saddam Hussein did hide and inspectors did find weapons of mass destruction - literally tons of them - most of which were unaccounted for in "final reports" and in clear breach of the cease-fire agreement.
Saddam Hussein even bugged the UNSCOM offices in Bahrain and New York, disguised weapons and hid them in mosques and palaces; he leaked false intelligence and blatantly lied over and over in reports required by the cease-fire.
As Sandra Mackey outlines in her book, The Reckoning, Iraq and the Legacy of Saddam Hussein, "Hussein's tactical war of cheat and retreat with UN arms inspectors gave him power to remain a world figure and gain a hold over his own people."
What has been our response and the response of the United Nations?
We've tried economic sanctions to get Iraq to comply with the disarmament agreement- and they have failed miserably.
It is the innocent Iraqi people that feel the effects of sanctions, including hunger and a lack of medical care.
Saddam Hussein not only continues to eat well - hoarding much of the aid and food imported into Iraq through the oil-for-food program -- but he builds palaces, and he devotes substantial riches toward developing weapons of mass destruction.
We've tried sending a strong message to the United Nations.
In 1994, I joined my colleagues as a member of the House of Representatives in calling for U.S. and United Nations' action on Iraq's noncompliance.
The House Resolution went even further and urged the President and the United Nations to establish a tribunal to charge Saddam Hussein as a war criminal.
That vote showed a clear consensus eight years ago when members of the House agreed that Saddam Hussein was neither a legitimate ruler nor an honest actor in the ceasefire and UN agreements.
In 1998, we also increased military pressure in the region and even conducted a military strike under President Clinton called Operation Desert Fox - hoping that the threat of force and the destruction of military installations would bring Hussein to reason and allow the inspectors back in.
While this limited military pressure produced some initial results, as soon as the United States turned down the heat Saddam Hussein went back to his old ways.
Where are we today, Mr. President?
For 11 years since our cease-fire agreement with Iraq we have tried to stop Iraq's effort to develop weapons of mass destruction.
In reality, our efforts have failed to stop his continued build-up of weapons of mass destruction.
The United Nations should never have allowed Saddam to negotiate the terms of inspections.
When he crossed the line in the sand that separated Iraq from Kuwait, Hussein demonstrated to the world his absolute disregard for international law; and his defiance of the will of the international community.
He also displayed, on a world platform, his utter disdain for the principles of human rights and a free society; and revealed to the world a frightening weapons capacity, including chemical and biological weapons and substantial progress towards developing a nuclear weapon - all of which he intended to use to advance his regional ambitions and threaten enemies.
Mr. President, Saddam Hussein is a global menace that we cannot simply wish away.
By doing nothing the world is not only failing to enforce the terms of a cease-fire that we fought for; but it is allowing a dangerous threat to grow that deserves renewed immediacy.
This immediacy was demonstrated 13 months ago, when we witnessed the devastating steps that terrorists were willing to take, know that this problem is not going away, and Saddam only increases the danger.
Some citizens say there are other countries in the world producing weapons of mass destruction and could be a source of aid to terrorists. Why worry about Iraq?
Mr. President, I know of no other country that has posed such a unique threat:
Hussein has violated the US/UN cease-fire agreement to stop development of weapons of mass destruction; He has used weapons of mass destruction in war or against its own people; and Saddam Hussein refused to help the US in the Afghanistan war on terrorism and actually applauded the efforts of Al Qaeda of 9/11/01. Mr. President, we are now considering a resolution that I believe will take a positive step towards effectively dealing with the threat of Saddam Hussein, his failure to comply with the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement, and his continued efforts to develop, procure and possess weapons of mass destruction.
This resolution will bolster the President of the United State's current efforts to urge the UN Security Council to get a reasonable mechanism for future inspections.
Mr. President, this vote tells the President of the United States that we agree that Saddam Hussein and his failure to comply with the cease-fire agreement in 1991 constitutes a serious breach in his promise; and a threat to global stability.
This vote tells the President the we firmly support your promise to go to the United Nations Security Council and get it to live up to its responsibilities to enforce a cease-fire agreement demanding that Iraq allow truly unconditional access to inspectors to verify the complete disarmament of weapons of mass destruction.
Today's vote is a statement of national resolve that Saddam Hussein must be disarmed by peaceful means if at all possible. By showing our unity as a nation, we help the United States unite the world to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
Some have called this an unconditional authorization. But, Mr. President, this is not the case.
Thanks to the compromise language that has been worked out by Senators Lieberman, Warner, Bayh, and others, I believe that the legislation that we are considering represents a very positive step that retains the important role of Congress in considering military action - a role re-affirmed in the 1973 War Powers Act.
There are conditions. The resolution requires:
a limited scope of operations to the Iraq theater; continued consultation with Congress on military action; and serious reporting requirements to inform Congress of the commencement, progress, and plans for both the operation and post-war strategies. Mr. President, I also want to state clearly that this resolution does not endorse unilateral action.
If, for some reason, the U.N. Security Council does not act, I will expect the President to make a major and aggressive diplomatic effort to enlist other partners around the globe in doing the right thing to stop the Hussein threat.
The President has promised members of Congress, including the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, that he would be committed to developing a coalition of allies for any military action.
We know how important these coalitions are and we expect the President to fulfill his promise.
Mr. President, my vote for this resolution does not mean that I am convinced of the Administration has answered all the questions. I believe the following issues must be addressed before the U.N. or the U.S. move forward with military action.
First: Continued Multilateral Approach.
The President must continue to make the disarmament of Iraq a global issue. The rhetoric surrounding Iraq earlier this summer was unilateralist; it offended allies that would have otherwise been with us; it burnished the running view around the world of the U.S. as an arrogant power; and it did serious damage to our relationships with many important powers in the Middle East Region.
The President's September speech to the United Nations reflected a new chapter and a much-needed improvement in the Administration's efforts to confront Saddam Hussein - he made clear that the priority of the Administration was to mobilize an international effort to enforce the cease-fire agreement.
Second: Successful Military Strategy.
This vote is not an endorsement of the military strategy of the President - mainly because we haven't been given one. However, there is good reason to believe that this operation, which may require forces to enter Baghdad, will prove substantially more difficult, complex, and costly than Operation Desert Storm - not only in economic costs, but most important, the lives of soldiers and innocent Iraqis.
This is a troubling scenario, and if the Administration ultimately acts within the scope of this authorization, it must be upfront and honest with Congress and the American people in explaining what we are up against.
Third: A Postwar Commitment Strategy.
This vote is also not an endorsement of the President's post-war scenarios either - again, largely because I have not seen them. We need to realize that the prospect of creating a peaceful and stable post-Saddam Iraq will be a huge, expensive, and politically volatile endeavor.
If the President does commit troops to multilateral military action, we must similarly commit ourselves to a serious and long-term strategy to bring freedom, representative democracy and prosperity to the people of Iraq. This will require a substantial financial obligation and a serious dedication of military resources that we in Congress must stand ready to support.
Fourth: Fighting the Broader War on Terrorism.
We cannot allow distractions from our specific efforts against al Qaeda and the broader threat of international terrorism. It is absolutely critical that our armed forces are able to respond to terrorist threats around the world.
If the President or UN chooses to commit troops to the Persian Gulf, I fully expect the President to make clear that our broader efforts against terrorism are not diminished. We have the most powerful military force on the planet, but if the President decides to commit troops in Iraq, he must be absolutely sure that we do not decrease our forces' capacity to fight terrorism.
Fifth: Maintaining Middle East Stability.
I remain very concerned about the effect of military action on the already volatile situation in the Middle East. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains in a disappointing and potentially volatile stalemate, and we must be aware that military action in Iraq and the possible extension to Israel poses a serious threat to the future of the peace process and broader Arab-Israeli relations.
If the Administration or the U.N. selects military action against Iraq within the scope of this resolution, we must work aggressively through diplomatic channels to ensure that such action is kept separate and distinct from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; and we must not be distracted from our task in supporting a peaceful, long-term political solution that ensures security for Israel and a peaceful, stable and secure Palestinian state as its neighbor.
Sixth: Protecting Iraqi Civilians.
We cannot not diminish the serious concerns that I have regarding the effect of potential military action on the Iraqi civilian population. The Iraqi people have been victims of a brutal, harsh and inhumane dictator who has not only stripped away political liberty and free expression, but has also contributed to the Iraqi population's economic deprivation, malnutrition and lack of medicine by diverting billions of dollars in oil-for-food resources and cash from illicit oil sales to fund lavish palaces for himself and, worse, an illegal weapons program.
Thus, if the President or U.N. determines within the framework of this resolution that military action must be used as a last resort, the President needs to take leadership and work with Congress to incorporate a substantial humanitarian component into any operation that we conduct.
Mr. President, I take this vote seriously. The men and women in our armed forces from Washington state may be called into action.
Whether it be our troops in Fort Lewis; our refueling tankers flying out of Fairchild Air Force Base in Spokane; our cargo planes from McChord; our radar jammers and P-3 aircraft out of Whidbey Island; or even the men and women of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, which have ready been in the Persian Gulf, or the thousands of other men and women serving in Washington state.
Mr. President, I hope our vote tonight and the President's multilateral efforts lead to a successful result where we would not need to use them. But if we do, these men and women will meet the task with professionalism, conviction and resolve.
Mr. President, I do not now, nor have I ever believed that military action is a preferred method to address international conflict. But sometimes it is necessary.
But as we have seen over the last eleven years, Saddam Hussein has consistently failed to live up to his 1991 commitments and this non-compliance is a dangerous failure that must be addressed.
This problem is not going to go away. If anything, it will grow increasingly more dangerous as Hussein increases his chemical and biological weapons stockpile and gets closer to having a nuclear weapon.
Mr. President, there is no question that what we are looking for is a strong and effective response from the United Nations Security Council.
This vote sends an important message to the United Nations Security Council and gives the president the domestic backing necessary get the international support we need.
By being serious, forceful, and resolute in expressing our dissatisfaction for Saddam Hussein's continued non-compliance; I think we are charting the best course for an international response.
We are taking action in this body this evening, Mr. President, and we want the international community to take action with us.
Next Article Previous Article
