U.S. should encourage Iraqi progress

There are two ways to contain Iraq. One, as the Clinton administration recently demonstrated, is to deter war. The other, which it has neglected, is to encourage moves toward peace.

Yet Washington refuses to acknowledge Iraq's progress on arms control -- a serious and potentially dangerous mistake. It may be good domestic politics, but it poorly serves America's international interests. Refusing to recognize positive Iraqi moves discourages further cooperation and drives a wedge between America and other members of the UN Security Council.

Baghdad seriously damaged its credibility last month by staging menacing military maneuvers near Kuwait. After that ploy backfired, Iraq reversed course and recognized Kuwait's sovereignty and borders. But its earlier threats devalued that concession; Iraq must now firm up its assurances that it will never again engage in such provocative conduct toward its neighbors by agreeing to restrict its troop movements, give advance notice of future exercises and admit outside observers.

Still, three-and-a-half years after the end of the Persian Gulf War, it is time to acknowledge that Washington is not about to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Besides, no better successor is in sight. If Iraq is to be influenced, the U.S. needs to talk to the present regime.

Instead, the Clinton administration labels Iraq a "rogue state", responsive only to brute force. Iraq is surely an aggressor state; but it can also respond rationally to diplomatic incentives. For two years it has cooperated with UN arms inspectors, and its motive for this cooperation is clear. The resolution ending the Persian Gulf War stated that by complying with arms control requirements alone, even if it ignored other UN resolutions, Iraq could reclaim the right to sell oil on the world market.

The Bush administration was not prepared to live up to America's side of the deal, and neither, it seems, is the Clinton administration.

UN inspectors are now satisfied that Iraq's most dangerous weapons have been located and destroyed. They are ready to begin an aggressive long-term monitoring program to assure that Iraq builds no more such weapons. A majority of the Security Council's permanent members, eager to do business with Iraq, are prepared to lift oil sanctions after six months of successful monitoring, assuming problems like supplier information and accounting for missing Kuwaiti nationals can be resolved.

The U.S., supported only by Britain, will not agree. Washington, though it never says so directly, has made it plain that it will not consider relief so long as Saddam Hussein remains in power. That is no way to encourage Iraqi cooperation on arms control, or to encourage allies to maintain sanctions.

This is an awkward moment for the Clinton administration to reconsider its hard line on Iraq. But if it does not, the U.S. may face even more awkward problems from Iraq down the road and a breakdown of the allied unity on which containment of Baghdad ultimately depends."

-- The New York Times