WASHINGTON, Aug. 25 -- Former Secretary of State James Baker Sunday became the latest Republican voice to counsel caution on Iraq policy, writing an op-ed piece in The New York Times that recommends the United States go back to the United Nations to obtain a new Security Council resolution ordering inspections before applying military force.
Baker, who headed the State Department for three years in the Reagan administration, was a key adviser to President George W. Bush's father for whom he served as White House Chief of Staff.
Baker wrote that "although the United States could certainly succeed" in forcing a regime change in Iraq, "We should try our best not to have to go it alone, and the president should reject the advice of those who counsel doing so."
Baker said a unilateral approach would mean the costs, in money and international influence "will be much greater, as will the political risks, both domestic and international, if we end up going it alone or with only one or two other countries."
Instead Baker recommended that, "The United States should advocate the adoption by the United Nations Security Council of a simple and straightforward resolution requiring that Iraq submit to intrusive inspections anytime, anywhere, with no exceptions and authorizing all necessary means to enforce it."
Technically the United Nations "already has sufficient legal authority to deal with Iraq," Baker said. Nevertheless, he went on, "Seeking new authorization now is necessary, politically and practically, and will help build international support."
Baker said the United Nations' authority was "weakened" when it failed to follow up after Saddam Hussein ejected the inspectors looking for evidence of the development of weapons of mass destruction.
Baker's advice, coming from one of the White House architects of the Gulf War coalition of countries, was similar to that of House Majority Leader Richard Armey in seeing a necessity for additional international support but sharply disagreed with Armey's view that the United States should refrain from attacking unless it is attacked.
Instead, Baker said that returning to the United Nations to regain the "moral high ground" would allow an attack "the first time" Saddam fails to comply with a U.N. inspections mandate. After that, Baker wrote, "we should apply whatever means are necessary to change the regime. And the international community must know during the Security Council debate that this will be our policy."
Baker warned that, "If we are to change the regime in Iraq, we will have to occupy the country militarily. The costs of doing so, politically, economically and in terms of casualties, could be great."
But the costs will be lessened, he said, "if the president brings together an international coalition behind the effort. Doing so would also help in achieving the continuing support of the American people, a necessary prerequisite for any successful foreign policy."
Baker agreed that Iraq poses a threat around the world and that other nations have an obligation to react to its development of weapons of mass destruction.
"While there may be little evidence that Iraq has ties to Al Qaida or to the attacks of Sept. 11, there is no question that its present government, under Saddam Hussein, is an outlaw regime, is in violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions, is embarked upon a program of developing weapons of mass destruction and is a threat to peace and stability, both in the Middle East and, because of the risk of proliferation of these weapons, in other parts of the globe," he said.
"Peace-loving nations have a moral responsibility to fight against the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by rogues like Saddam Hussein," Baker said. |end| Content: 11001000 11002000 11006000 16010000
