Editorials
Monday, April 20, 1998

Inspection deal with
Saddam was flawed

IT shouldn't be surprising. The deal struck by United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan with Saddam Hussein to avert U.S. air attacks on Iraq seems to be unraveling. Under that agreement, diplomats appointed by the secretary-general would accompany U.N. weapons experts in their inspections of presidential compounds or "palaces" suspected as sites for the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction. Previously Iraq had refused the inspectors access to the compounds, triggering a crisis that threatened renewed bombing.

The U.N. Special Commission, which conducts the inspections, has reported to the Security Council that in a few cases diplomats sent along with the weapons experts sided with the Iraqis in disputes over the conduct of inspections. The report warned that "such problems are likely to reemerge in the future," especially during inspections in which the Iraqis are given little or no warning. Furthermore, the commission, known as UNSCOM, complained that the Iraqis were trying to undercut its authority by raising issues with Annan's representative rather than with the experts.

"It will be important that the secretary-general's representative be supportive of the approach of the UNSCOM inspection teams, or the chief inspector risks being undercut in seeking Iraqi compliance in future disputes over access or other matters," the report said.

Of course it was precisely in the hope that the diplomats would undercut the inspectors that Iraq demanded that they be present. Annan should have known better, but he presumably felt he had to agree in order to gain the support of Russia and China for the deal. The Clinton administration, faced with waning enthusiasm at the U.N. for the weapons inspection program, caved in and accepted the watered-down arrangement.

It was obvious that the potential in this arrangement was strong. Two months later after the deal was struck, the results are already beginning to be seen. The Iraqis will be relentless in exploiting this opening. They are already renewing their pressure for an end to the U.N. embargo.

The report by the UNSCOM chairman, Richard Butler, said Iraq is no closer to meeting the requirements for the lifting of sanctions than it was last fall, when Baghdad began to disrupt efforts to locate and destroy weapons.

President Clinton must be as determined as the Iraqis in demanding full access for the U.N. inspectors and in continuing the embargo until Iraq fully complies with the U.N.'s conditions. That may require another, more effective bombing campaign to enforce these demands if the Iraqis refuse to back down.

Starr’s decision

WHEN Kenneth Starr announced in February 1997 that he would resign as independent counsel in the Whitewater investigation by Aug. 1 to become dean of the law and public policy schools at Pepperdine University, he provoked a barrage of criticism. Many accused him of undermining the probe and placing his career ahead of his duty as the lead prosecutor. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., himself a former prosecutor, warned Starr that his resignation could have a "very serious, if not devastating, effect on the investigation."

Despite the heavy criticism of Starr's decision, aides to President Clinton reportedly cheered, believing it indicated that the investigation was winding down. A few days later Starr changed his mind, acknowledging that he had made a mistake.

Now Starr has announced that he has withdrawn from the Pepperdine job, which had been held open for him since his previous reversal. He said he had looked forward to spending "many happy years" at Pepperdine, but "the issue of public confidence is a very important one and I owe it to the American people to seek the facts (in his investigation). As for winding up his probe, he said, "the end is not yet in sight," indicating there may be a long way to go.

Democrats had claimed a potential conflict of interest because Pepperdine had received $1 million for the public policy school from a group controlled by Richard Scaife, a conservative publisher and critic of Clinton. However, Pepperdine said Scaife had no role in Starr's selection and Starr said he has never met Scaife or talked to him about the job.

The claims that Starr was obsessed with destroying Clinton were weakened by his decision to leave his job for the Pepperdine deanship, which indicated quite the contrary. By withdrawing from the Pepperdine position, Starr may be trying to sever any association, however tenuous, with Richard Scaife that could cast doubt on his integrity.

Since Starr announced he was leaving more than a year ago, the Whitewater investigation has been expanded as a result of the Monica Lewinsky allegations of sex with Clinton in the White House and the possibility that perjury had been committed. Starr's latest statement suggested that this facet of the probe may not be near completion.

The White House aides who cheered when Starr announced he was leaving probably aren't cheering now. Despite all the criticism he has taken and the calls -- some from Republicans -- for him to wind up the investigation, Starr is not going anywhere until he is satisfied his job is finished. With the White House stalling and obstructing his investigation at every opportunity, it could take quite a while for him to finish.

The investigation should not be conducted as a vendetta against Clinton but neither should it be ended before all reasonable efforts have been made to look into possible wrongdoing by the president.

---

Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited Partnership

Rupert E. Phillips, CEO

John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher

David Shapiro, Managing Editor

Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor

Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors

A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor