Say It Ain’t So: Clinton’s Pledge To Restore Moral Compass In Foreign Policy Abandoned Before The Inauguration?

(Washington, D.C.): In the course of a press conference yesterday, President-elect Bill Clinton sounded a breathtakingly conciliatory note toward Saddam Hussein — one that sounded eerily reminiscent of the Bush Administration policy he strongly condemned during the campaign. He said:

"Certainly based on the evidence we have, the people of Iraq would be better off if they had a different ruler. But my job is not to pick their rulers for them. I always tell everybody I am a Baptist. I believe in death-bed conversions. If [Saddam] wants a different relationship with the United States and the United Nations, all he has to do is change his behavior." (Emphasis added.)

 

The New York Times interpreted the Clinton line as one which countenanced "a normal relationship with the Iraqi leader provided he behaved in accordance with international norms." Such a position would be sharply at odds with the definitive rejection of accommodationist policies toward tyrants that was a centerpiece of candidate Clinton’s foreign policy platform:

"From the Baltics to Beijing, from Sarajevo to South Africa, time after time [President Bush] has sided with the status quo against democratic change; with familiar tyrants rather than those who would overthrow them; with the old geography of repression rather than a new map of freedom…."

 

The Times story — topped with headlines saying "Clinton Backs Bush on Iraq But Offers Olive Branch," and "Clinton Says He is Ready for New Start With Iraq" — precipitated backpedalling by Secretary of State-designate Warren Christopher and even the President-elect today. Christopher, noting that he was not a Baptist, said he "was not very optimistic about any redemption for Saddam Hussein."

Later today, in response to press queries, Gov. Clinton testily asserted that his remarks of yesterday never addressed the question of normalizing relations with Iraq. In his answers, however, the President-elect simply muddied the water:

"There is no difference between my policy and the policy of the present Administration. What I said was — nobody asked me about normalization of relations — I was asked whether the world could live with Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

 

"I said what I said many times. I will judge him by his conduct. That is precisely what the Bush Administration has done. They have said we cannot normalize relations with Iraq as long as he is there. But they haven’t bombed him every day. They decided to bomb him because he violated the U.N. cease-fire accords. That is my position.

 

"I will evaluate what I do based on his conduct. I have no intention of normalizing relations with him…."

 

In other words, the best that can be said about the Clinton position is that it will perpetuate the mistakes being made by the Bush Administration. Worse yet, the Clinton team’s seeming confusion — not to say fumbling — concerning the President-elect’s hope of "depersonalizing" the conflict with Saddam while encouraging his "conversion" will probably compound those mistakes. Real danger attends the possible perception in Baghdad (and elsewhere) that the new U.S. president will prove more tractable, or at least too distracted, to deal effectively with the Iraqi despot.

Unfortunately, that danger is probably enhanced as a result of Gov. Clinton’s statement yesterday that "the [United States’] firm policy saying that political assassination is illegal…is the proper policy." In other words — whether Saddam "behaves" or not — a Clinton Administration apparently will not make his removal from power, through violent means if necessary, an objective of U.S. policy.

No less troublesome a departure from the Clinton campaign’s abhorrence of the practice of coddling tyrants was the President-elect’s hedged praise of the so-called "peace conference" concerning the catastrophe in the former Yugoslavia.

"I am somewhat hopeful about the peace conference even though I know some of it could just be maneuvering. Even if it is just maneuvering, there is something going on there, and there is a chance — just a chance — that is will take on a life of its own and bring some resolution."

 

The Center for Security Policy believes that there certainly is "something going on" in the Geneva "peace conference." Regrettably, however, what is "going on" is rank appeasement of the Serbian aggressors — and brutal coercion of their victims to effect an ersatz (or at least temporary) "settlement" of the Bosnian crisis and stave off the needed international military intervention.

Any lingering doubts on the true character of this process were dissipated by remarks made yesterday by Cyrus Vance, the U.N. special envoy and mentor to Secretary-designate Christopher: He described Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic as having "worked hard" and "contributed much" to ongoing peace talks; according to today’s Washington Post, Vance said "he was ‘thankful’ to [Milosevic] even though other U.S. and Western diplomats consider him a war criminal." Not since Neville Chamberlain bought a worthless "peace in our time" with Czechoslovakia’s freedom have the truth — and Western values — been more odiously betrayed.

The Center urges the President-elect to renew his commitment to a policy that actively opposes tyrannical thugs like Saddam and Milosevic — rather than perpetuating the appeasement and accomodationist approaches he so rightly condemned the Bush Administration for pursuing in international affairs. Bill Clinton’s willingness to bring an early end to the predations of the Butchers of Baghdad and Belgrade will be an important test not only of his willingness to honor his campaign pledges but, far more importantly, the quality and adequacy of his foreign policy leadership.