A Conference to Deal With All Outstanding Middle East Problems

By Richard H. Curtiss

President Bush's prompt and decisive response to the urgent request from the Saudi Arabian government for military support has answered positively the first of three questions asked by the people of every Arab state.

Will the US come to the assistance of an Arab state when such aid is requested? Does the US have the staying power to render assistance so long as it is needed? Will the US leave, unconditionally, when the host nation feels the danger has passed?

Just as the answer to the question about our readiness to assist has been positive, I hope the answer to the question about US staying power will also be positive. I am certain that the answer concerning US willingness to leave, when asked to do so, will be positive.

It is not novel for the US to send forces overseas to deter a potential attacker. Our forces remained in European and Far Eastern bases for 45 years to deter possible communist bloc invasions which we feared would ignite a third world war. There is a general American consensus that, by doing so, they accomplished their purpose. I believe' therefore, that few Americans question the wisdom of sending defensive forces to Saudi Arabia and other Arab states of the Gulf.

Questions, I believe, revolve solely around the means to be used to force Saddam Hussain out of Kuwait. If the administration makes it clear that US military forces are in the Gulf to prevent further aggression, and that for the foreseeable future it plans to rely upon economic measures to force Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, most Americans, other participants in the collective United Nations effort, and people of those Arab states in which our forces are based will breathe a collective sigh of relief.

At present, virtually the entire world is cooperating, under UN auspices, in an embargo on Iraqi exports and imports, except for food and medicine permitted to enter Iraq for humanitarian purposes. Why, therefore, is it necessary to mass US and other troops for a possible military strike, before it is determined whether or not the embargo measures will force an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait?

This means of ending the current crisis is certainly preferable in human terms, and in economic terms as well, to military strikes. These might result in damage to Kuwaiti or Saudi oil fields. They would almost certainly bring about the physical destruction of much of Iraq's economy, probably including petroleum production facilities. A military strike might even lead to the permanent dismemberment of Iraq as a national entity. Its petroleum-producing areas, with reserves second only to those of Saudi Arabia, might actually be seized in the course of a war by neighboring Turkey or Iran.

Any such developments would face the United States, and the world, with far more difficult problems than those we face today. A seizure of Arab oil fields by a non-Arab power could destabilize not only the Gulf area, but the entire Middle East for the next 50 years. It could eventually bring down the government of any Arab power, like Egypt or Saudi Arabia, which seemed to have been implicated.

If the rationale for the extraordinary build-up initiated in November is to frighten Saddam Hussain into withdrawing peacefully, it is equally likely to tempt provocateurs seeking to benefit from a US-Iraqi war into taking some action to initiate such hostilities. There are Kurdish nationalists, Israeli expansionists, Iranians and Syrians who would not hesitate to try.

Is the US offensive buildup intended as a warning to Saddam Hussain not to harm the foreigners he is holding hostage? He has already scheduled their release.

Is the goal to relieve Kuwaitis from a brutal Iraqi military occupation? Why not reduce the military forces around Kuwait to purely defensive levels if Saddam Hussain accepts the presence of UN observers in Kuwait to halt violations of the Geneva conventions?

Few Americans question the wisdom of sending defensive forces to the Gulf.

The release of all foreign hostages and the introduction of UN observers to protect Kuwaitis under military occupation in exchange for the draw down of foreign forces to a size sufficient to protect Saudi Arabia, but not to attack Kuwait, seems a reasonable approach to preventing the accidental outbreak of war while we wait for the boycott and embargo to force Iraqi withdrawal, which in my opinion will occur very soon.

It also would reduce the huge foreign military presence in the area, which is a source of concern to traditional Muslims in many parts of the world. Further, it would enable the US to initiate a policy of troop rotation, ending what seems to be the major morale problem among US forces.

The fact that the administration has not welcomed such suggestions gives rise to suspicion that it may have another goal.

This goal, never articulated by the US but frequently advocated by Israel and its supporters in the US media, involves an immediate military attack to bring down the Iraqi government.

The Israeli government's interest in this course is obvious. It wants Iraq stripped of its army and whatever weapons of mass destruction it may possess so that they cannot later be deployed against Israel. Removing this threat also would remove some of the pressure on Israel to trade land for peace with its Arab neighbors, as the US has been urging it to do since 1967.

Few Americans are convinced, however, that it is necessary for the United States to go to war to remove weapons of mass destruction from the area, or to protect Israel. Both objectives can be accomplished more effectively by peaceful means.

Iraq has not yet developed nuclear weapons. Iraq does, however, possess chemical weapons. If the US wishes to remove all weapons of mass destruction from the Mideast, it should propose a treaty, strictly enforced with on-site inspections, to ban both nuclear and chemical weapons from the area. If Israel were included in this treaty, all Arab states would almost certainly sign on, with relief.

And then why not agree to a comprehensive peace conference called under United Nations auspices to consider all outstanding UN Security Council resolutions pertaining to the Middle East? It could deal with banning of weapons of mass destruction and protection of civilians under military occupation.

Most of the world is just as concerned about the protection of Palestinians under Israeli military occupation as protection of Kuwaitis under Iraqi military occupation.

Supporting a Security Council resolution to put UN observers into both places would go a very long way toward solving all of the problems faced by the United States in holding together our Arab and European allies while we wait for economic measures to do their work.

All this would provide a welcome signal to the American people that our stand in the Mideast is one of principle, not solely of political or economic expediency. That would signal all Americans and the world that, when US troops come home, they will have left behind a Mideast that is more secure and more stable than when they arrived, rather than a Mideast in ruins.

The foregoing is condensed from testimony by Richard H. Curtiss, editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, at a Nov. 27 hearing by the House Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs on the economic impact of the Gulf crisis.