Where I Stand—Brian Greenspun: Saddam’s promises could turn into big problems

Thursday, Dec. 18, 1997 | 10:08 a.m.

AMERICA, WE HAVE a problem.

When Houston had a problem, it was real, understandable and, fortunately, within the capability of the United States to find and implement a solution to salvage the lives of the astronauts and the future of the NASA space program. And, just like the cavalry in olden days, the brilliant and creative minds of the U.S. space program rode to the rescue -- on national television no less.

We face a different kind of problem today. It emanates from Iraq, an oil-rich and leadership-poor country that poses a threat which, while not immediately as compelling as that which Apollo 13 faced, is every bit as dangerous. This problem, however, could affect millions of people if it is not resolved rather than the handful of astronauts whose lives were at risk far out in space.

The United Nations' chief weapons inspector for Iraq, Richard Butler, said that talks between his inspector teams and Iraq yielded no breakthroughs in terms of the U.N. demands that its inspectors be able to enter and inspect a number of presidential palaces which have been ruled off limits by Saddam Hussein. When Butler headed back to New York on Tuesday he disputed Iraqi claims that they have destroyed everything they had that remotely resembled a biological weapon.

"In the biological area, I am sorry to say, Iraq said they destroyed everything," Butler reported. "That is not quite what our information says ... so we do have a problem here."

In the parlance of the diplomatic corps, Butler's words spoke volumes about the amount of distrust he had in anything Saddam might have said and, at the same time, his concern over his apparent inability to proceed in the arena of words much past the stage of polite disbelief on which the current characters are acting.

The fact remains that Hussein believes he holds all the cards in this latest showdown over who controls Iraq's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction. He believes as much because he has developed a "special" relationship with some of our allies on and off the U.N. Security Council. It is called money. And those he owes, like France and Russia, are interested in getting paid. They can't get paid if Saddam can't sell oil and he can't sell oil unless he complies with the U.N. requirements for inspections and destruction of his mass annihilation capabilities.

The argument is circular but it always comes back to what is really at stake. If you believe that Saddam is telling the truth -- that he doesn't have any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons -- then you have to accept the fact that he is entitled to sell his oil after proper inspection by the U.N. teams.

If, however, you have a sneaking suspicion that Saddam is not quite truthful -- i.e. lying through his teeth -- then you have to do the prudent thing which is demand that his country, including his 78 palaces under which hundreds of acres of mass destruction could be hidden, be open to independent U.N. inspection. To do less is to put Americans and the rest of the world's people at grave risk.

That means that Ambassador Butler and his group must have the ability to do their jobs. And regardless of how much money the Russians and the French have at stake, our security interests demand that we know the truth whatever the consequences. If that means armed intervention then that will be Hussein's choice not ours. For we have no choice but to do what is necessary to ensure the safety of our people.

In the hands of an unstable dictator, chemical or biological weapons could destroy much of the human life on this planet. Such a prospect leaves little room for compromise.

So, when Ambassador Butler says "we have a problem" the rest of the world better take heed and listen. And if they choose to turn their backs to their allies -- that's the United States -- and their greedy little hands toward Saddam Hussein, then they must be re-taught the lessons of self-interest.

It is in America's interests to make sure that weapons of mass destruction are not being assembled and readied for use by countries like Iraq. We have the ability to protect that interest. And we have the will to pursue it.

Saddam is betting on the fact that we don't. He's been wrong before.