(00:00:01) Our topic during this hour of midday is the Persian Gulf and recent developments. There are certainly some interesting ones within the past couple of days. The United Nations will take up a resolution. The security Council will take up a resolution this coming Thursday that would authorize the use of force. If Iraq does not leave Kuwait secretary President Gorbachev of the Soviet Union has issued his strongest warning yet to Iraq that it should leave we'll be talking about these developments during the hour with Martin Samson from the University of Minnesota political science department whose area of interest and expertise is the Middle East Professor. Welcome nice to have you with us you and know how Ismail who is a member of a group called Middle East peace. Now also a member of women against military Madness. She's active in Arab American politics and is a national board member of the american-arab anti-discrimination committee in Washington. You are quite active in things. Are you meant (00:00:57) well, there aren't very many of us to go around here. (00:01:00) So if you got it. We'll all of it yourselves against try. What do what do you make of this United Nations security Council resolution. What will it mean Professor? Let's begin with you the draft in the paper. This morning strikes me as a fairly weak statement that the statement is that there is a grace period until either January 1st of January 15th, depending upon which of those dates is agreed upon at that point the grace period ends and all necessary means then are the use of all necessary means is endorsed by the security Council in regard to to Iraq per the earlier resolutions still it's quite unusual. Yes. All right wing item, then calls upon member states to support in appropriate ways that declaration included in what is item 2 of the draft has published this morning. It's gonna be very interesting to see does the vote of Security Council Members permanent members such as the Soviet Union if indeed they support this in favor of the second item mean as well that / the third item the Soviet Union is now willing to provide Willing to be in fact an active participant in the use of force against Iraq if it comes to that you described it as fairly weak, but isn't it unusual for the security Council even go that far? Well, unanimity in the Security Council is not something than has happened frequently since the end of the second world war and it certainly continues that I think rather dramatic change that we've seen in the past months in regard to Security Council resolutions. No I Ismail does it mean War? (00:02:28) Yes. Well, I have really been very pessimistic about this from from this day in August when American troops landed in Saudi Arabia. I think it was an irreversible act and up until that point. There may have been a possibility of a peaceful resolution but the presence of American troops and on Saudi soil makes it very very difficult and I know you know, and I know in my heart of hearts that there will probably be war and I don't know that the United Nations resolution really is going to make much difference to tip it one way or the other we talked about how unusual it is for the United Nations to act in unanimity the way it has and and and how unusual it is to even come up with a resolution such as we've had this morning. But you must remember that this is the result of very very heavy-handed lobbying on the part of President Bush and bigger. They have actually been been using their Top Guns. So to speak in lobbying all of the member states to vote for that resolution. So actually if they did not come up with anything like that. It would have been a deep embarrassment for the United States and as it is it was quite a weak statement. (00:03:48) What would you like to see happen over there? Are you perfectly satisfied that Saddam Hussein retains (00:03:52) Kuwait or no? Absolutely not absolutely not. I think this is going to have to be reversed and it will happen it will happen. The proper Forum was the United Nations and I think that President Bush has really overlooked an incredible resource in the United Nations. There was a spontaneous unanimity unanimity before the early voting of American troops where the whole International Community was United in imposing sanctions. Shinzon Iraq, and they would have worked already. We see the impact of the sanctions. There's no way that Iraq could survive in a in a blockade. There's no way they could survive if they were so totally ostracized and isolated from the International Community, but you need time in which to to for the sanctions to become effective and you know, it seems to me that the time would be something that we can afford a lot more readily than the lives of our children and I'm sure that this would have worked (00:05:04) know how Ismael and Martin Sampson are with us as we talk about Persian Gulf of developments today. And if you would like to join the conversation will open the phone lines now in the Minneapolis st. Paul area 2276 thousand is the number two two seven six thousand in Minneapolis st. Paul Elsewhere One 865 to 97001 865 to Nine seven zero zero anywhere within the sound of our voices outside Minneapolis st. Paul and Beyond the borders of the state of Minnesota as well. We're in Samson if there is fighting how long do you think it might last? Well, it depends upon the context I think in which the fighting begins there are so many kinds of things that could trigger a confrontation depends also on whether the United States choice is to respond for instance with fairly limited airstrikes whether its massive airstrikes, whether it's significant air strikes followed by ground Invasion, and so forth. My own sense is that in either case. It's unlikely to be a short operation that the list of kinds of things one might want to achieve prior to a Kuwaiti or Nawrocki departure from Kuwait is fairly lengthy. Secondly if we use ground troops invading Iraq or going into Kuwait my expectation is that that's going to be a very long activity. And your you want (00:06:25) oh, I think it's going to lead to a protracted war on very many friends destroying Iraq itself is not going to be a major challenge for for the American troops. I mean, we understand it's going to be a very nasty war and it's going to have really catastrophic results as far as very high casualties both Arab and American but that is not the end of it. I'm afraid the destruction of Iraq is going to trigger a series of rebellions throughout the Arab world that are going to lead the United States in a protracted war on very many friends and it will be it will destabilize the very governments that the United States has gone to Saudi Arabia to protect in the first place. And so I think that it is going to engulf the u.s. In an endless war and a very very long presence in the (00:07:24) Least lots of folks on the line with questions. Let's get to these collars and see what their questions are today. Go ahead your first. Hello. (00:07:31) Yes. Hello. I was inside Kuwait during The Invasion and regarding what Miss mail is saying, I think that when she talks about waiting for sanctions to work the only problem with that is that there's Kuwait he's and also foreign Nationals inside Kuwait that are going to suffer and they already are suffering and I don't think that waiting is the solution because those those innocent people are the ones who are going to suffer from this and when she talks about the a long drawn-out war and how the US will suffer from Arab opinion. I think that if they don't act they will suffer because Iraq is not being supported by Arabs they are Against him against The Dumpling seen in this and I think that action must be taken okay to get to her for first point. I understand that. She has been really traumatized by the whole Invasion and who wouldn't I have a lot of Sympathy for the Kuwait. He's I'm a Palestinian and I know what occupation means I know what suffering under a military occupation means and it is very dehumanizing process. And I don't you know, I don't even wish to imply that I'm diminishing that the suffering of this I would ease of the Kuwaiti has but one one has to keep this in perspective. We're talking about the suffering of the kuwaitis, but it in order to alleviate that we were talking about the killing of 50 60 thousand Americans and maybe three times At number of Arabs you have to keep it in perspective and you have to and you know measure what cost. What is the price of acting Now versus Holding Out for a peaceful solution that might take a little longer and save all of these lives. And in my question I have I have no doubt about which way I would go as for her point about Arabs not supporting this again. She has come from a Kuwaiti environment and it is understandable that qualities are all very upset with Saddam Hussein, but this is not my understanding of the situation at a there are a few other governments that support President Bush and when President Bush talks about an Arab Alliance this you have to keep in mind that there are very many Arab countries in the Middle East that do not come out of a democratic tradition and what governments do has really no bearing and how the masses You the Arab masses in general are very much opposed to the American intervention. They are all United in opposing Saddam Hussein's occupation of Kuwait. But at that point this seems too pale and in compare in comparison with a new situation that that might be confronted with and that is the renewed Western colonialism on their own territory. And that is how they view the American troops are very reminiscent of British and French Colonial troops in the Middle (00:11:00) East Martin Samson. What do you think about the Arab Alliance? How strong is it? Well, I think there's a fair amount of support for the Embargo. I think there's a fair amount of support. It's not unanimous, but I think there's a fair amount of Support also for a policy of opposing araki threats to Saudi Arabia a lot of that support evaporates. I think the moment there's an attack on Iraq. Secondly my expectation would be that Our governments that may openly support that but whose commitment of tanks and planes and troops and so forth. It's going to be a relatively modest Martin Samson from the University of Minnesota whose area of expertise is the Middle East and no highest male who is a member of women against military Madness and middle east peace now with us as we talk about the developments in the Persian Gulf today next to your question, please you're on the air. (00:11:51) I would like to ask if the guests see any way at this point any reasonably graceful way that George Bush could withdraw our troops from the area and and return to the economic boycott boycott kind of position because this escalation seems to be leading to a craziness that none of us want. How can we back up at this point? (00:12:13) - am I think graceful overstates the possibilities? Secondly, I think the that withdrawal complete withdrawal is probably not a good idea. I'm very pessimistic that a boycott can continue without an American role in protecting Saudi oil fields against you Rocky efforts to retaliate against Western and Northern consumers of oil who were very very dependent upon oil coming out of that and that Source the reason I think graceful overstates the possibilities available to Bush is that there's quite colorful variety of opinion in this country in regard to what should be achieved. I think if there's somehow a diffusing of the occupation of Kuwait if you Rocco withdraws, there's a restoration of the former government or perhaps even more attractive there is a significant four or five steps in the direction of a more democratic kind of regime in Kuwait and and as well as citizenship for non Kuwaiti, so we've been residents there very long period of time that's going to disappoint a lot. People in this country who I think are now focused on the chemical weapons that Saddam Hussein has who concern about what in general should be a concern about nuclear proliferation during the 1990s to a lot of different countries of which in fact Pakistan, maybe the next rather than Iraq whose concern of that sort has focused on Iraq. There's going to be I think a fair amount of political criticism of bush if this ends without a military quote decapitation and quote of Iraq, No, I just meant a lot should Saddam Hussein do at this point. We've talked a lot about what the United States should do. What about Saddam Hussein? (00:13:49) Well, there is very little that Saddam Hussein can do he can either capitulate which is not in his nature or he can you know, what we call the Masada complex, you know go all the way and you know go down in flames of glory and the the question we should ask here is not what Saddam Hussein should do the really obviously Saddam Hussein does not the only card he has is to force a war and he knows that a war is going to be suicidal and I the thing is we have never we have not given him a way out of this President Bush kept saying give up all of Kuwait release all the hostages withdraw. You know the List of Demands on Saddam husein are extensive and there is nothing in it for him. I mean there is there's no there's no incentive for him to go along. He is doomed if he does and he is doomed if he doesn't and probably my my sensing of the situation is that he will probably prefer to go down as a martyr and probably go down. Well, I mean not that he is but he will be perceived as one and go down in a big flash of Glory. The point is you have to give him an incentive to leave. There should be a way when we talk about graceful as graceful as one can get is to just give him room to maneuver maneuver and save face and I don't think that there's anything terribly wrong with that if he can't we can get him out of Kuwait at and avert an all-out War. In doing that it's called diplomacy. (00:15:45) Well shouldn't he thought of those things before I went in? (00:15:47) Well, of course, but he has grossly grossly miscalculated and there are a lot of theories as to why what made him think that he could get away with it from from the American ambassador in Iraq down to very very many theories about that. But I don't think that in his in any way shape or form did he imagine that he would get the kind of reaction that he did but he got himself in a pickle and we are President Bush is not giving him any way to get out of this pickle. (00:16:17) No, I asked me all and Martin Sampson are with us today as we talk about Persian Gulf developments and you're on the air now. What's your question? Where you calling from? First of (00:16:23) all, I'm calling from Cornucopia, Wisconsin. All right, just a quick question as a sign of good faith. Shouldn't the United States begin paying back millions that it owes in back dues to the United Nations and maybe one more quick question. Isn't it? Isn't it a little bit hypocritical to utilize the United Nations after its. Fact the United States has shown towards it with Jean Kirkpatrick. And when Bush was Ambassador and in the case of Nicaragua and and just the millions and back to use that it owes. (00:16:54) All right, Martin Samson, let's have you - no, I think it's not a show of good faith. I think the United States has a responsibility to come through with its Financial Obligations to the United Nations, and I don't really see that as a particularly controversial issue. Is it hypocritical? Well one can I think launch that kind of attack on lots and lots of international situations every one of which I think we should have reason to be grateful that a mechanism like the United Nations exists and that it's impossible that is possible. In fact to have fairly extensive diplomatic discussion part of it open part of it not open in regard to very serious challenges of this kind (00:17:32) I agree with the caller. I think it is very hypocritical and I think that the American government is using the United Nations at this point because it just suits its agenda. It is in its best interest to use the the UN in whatever way it sees fit at this point. What is interesting is that it is really cool nursing very many of the member states to go along with what the United States wants of the UN. I mean the United States idea of working with the UN is follow me. I will give the shots. I will call all the shots and you do what I tell you to do. We can talk about that roll another session. I have a lot to say about that, but I would like also to add at this point that part of the hypocrisy is that the UN has a series of resolutions that are have been voted by the International Community in relation. For instance with the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and yet the United States completely ignored and never called for the implementation of these resolutions and only two weeks before Order the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq the United States even vetoed a resolution that was calling on the UN to send an observer to to the occupied territories to look into the status of Palestinians in the occupied territories. So there is a lot of hypocrisy there. You cannot be selective you either take all of the UN resolutions on mass and support them on principle, but you can't be selective in CL support this but not that (00:19:13) all right back to the telephones or you have one more comment. Yeah, I guess I'm in disagreement with the notion of the u.s. Succeeding somehow in a coercive policy. I'd love to know what the coin of the coercion is how it is with the the United States with its relative economic power declining a lack of military Monopoly in many many respects. All of a sudden can orchestrate unanimous agreement among the permanent members of the security Council. I think one really doesn't get very far at all and understanding this unanimous support for what is now. Ben 10 resolutions pertaining into Iraq and depending upon the vote on Thursday might be on 11th on the basis of American coercion. American diplomacy has always been very active in trying to Rally support. There is not a precedent for this kind of of unanimity. (00:19:59) I think again, we have to be careful there indeed was spontaneous unanimous support for the sanctions and for the condemnation of the occupation that I am not at all challenging that was unanimous. And that was there is there's no question there. I am talking about using the UN as a pretext to use all-out war on Iraq that I maintain that there's a lot of coercion there (00:20:30) but there's an obvious choice. I mean United States doesn't have to result a resort to the United Nations there certainly is an option available to Washington sure to launch a unilateral attacked day after (00:20:39) tomorrow, but it looks good something different is happening here. It looks good. (00:20:42) Let's let's leave the discussion at this point come back to it later. Get some more phone calls on here your next. Hello. (00:20:48) Yeah. See I'd like to identify myself as a reservist here in Minnesota. And I do have two questions like to address to both your guests. The first one is isn't the president and perhaps the rest of the nation ignoring article one of our Constitution and my second question is with effective un sanctions in place isn't an American war at this point on Justified and I'll hang up and listen. (00:21:13) Well the relevance of the Constitution to the phenomenon of War I think is a very controversial issue Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to declare war but there's no definition in the constitution of what in fact war is in our history. There have been scores and scores of use of military force. We've only had five Declarations of War. There is an ambiguity that we certainly confront now in regard to Authority ultimately To make a decision. If for instance, there is no Rocky attack on Saudi Arabia to respond to that attack and it's an area that constitutionally I think is very unclear (00:21:55) again, you know, this this seems to me epitome of American foreign policy at the misguided foreign policy of the United States. The United States here is Bush spending all of this time and energy trying to get the UN to sanction the use of force, which is almost tantamount to a declaration of war in the same time. He continues to ignore the US Congress. He continues to ignore all calls to get a similar mandate from the US governing body and it really does not make sense. Also, it is very clear that domestic support for an all-out war on Iraq has really eroded considerably since the Can deployment with the first deployment of troops it was very clear that the American public was behind the president, but our stated objectives at that point was to defend Saudi Arabia from further attack President Bush made a point of saying that it was defensive and not offensive with the second deployment. He very clearly shifted the objective from defensive to offensive and what we are seeing right now is a very rapid increase or decrease in support for u.s. Involvement in Iraq. And that is very clear. So instead of him but channeling his energy is with the International Community. He really should be paying more attention to (00:23:24) Congress. No highest mail from the american-arab anti-discrimination committee and Martin Samson from the international relations program at University of Minnesota are with us today and we'll take your question next at (00:23:35) all. Hello. I have a brief statement and comment for your guests my comment is that According to a recent report on your Morning Edition Syria and the areas of Lebanon controlled by stereo are major sources of hashish and heroin coming into our country and that Syria is also a major trench shipper of heroin coming from the mujahideen in the afghanistan-pakistan region. My question is are we not again employing the services of yet another drug running dictator and a nylon Noriega to prosecute another very questionable War. Thank (00:24:25) you. No I smell is take you first and then Professor (00:24:28) Mark. Well, you know I of course, I agree. We're making very strange alliances in the Middle East today. We're making strange alliances the hole Global situation and again, I guess the whole purpose is to suit President Bush's agenda, whatever that may be and obviously it is not synonymous with the American agenda. I don't believe from what I have been reading and hearing lately. So yes, I agree with the (00:25:04) caller about that Martin Samson. I think that's a charitable description of Assad. I mean, I think one can can can muster or many additional adjectives that would be accurate. It's a love story of as well though. I think of a point that this is not a single issue foreign policy and that in fact, it's very difficult to run a policy toward the Middle East on the basis of a single issue what you might do if you were specifically concerned about drugs might be somewhat different from what you would do if your policy was exclusively concerned about human rights, which might be quite different from what you would do if your policy was exclusively concerned about energy security, which of course is one of the core issues that we confront here and one of the really important reasons, I think for the broad support The United Nations against the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait what you might do if your objective was nuclear non-proliferation, and then you were only concerned with that again might be very different now. We confront a situation where it's really not a single objective is a multiplicity of objectives many of which it seems to me indeed are not only a part of the American foreign policy agenda, but that appropriately or part of the American foreign policy agenda, (00:26:06) but I would like to add here that it is probably it says a lot about American policy American foreign policy in the Middle East we must never forget that Saddam Hussein himself was an ally of the United States and up until August 2nd. It was American foreign policy to support him. And this is what makes the whole reaction to Saddam Hussein. So very hypocritical in the eyes of very many. Of the third world countries as well as our European allies (00:26:49) back to the telephones again and your question now go ahead please you're on the air. (00:26:53) I read something one place. I've never heard about it since then and that is that turkey could call a halt to this in a big hurry with all the dams up there we hear about oil, you know for Japan and Germany and but water is the real problem over in that country as far as when I've been able to understand and hear this turkey sits with all the dams bang. They could close them down and it would be more effective than this blockade of the food materials. Second thing is for many of us in American and it seems to be an awful lot of women feel this way that we didn't elect Bush to be president of the world. We'd like to see him take care of United States first and it just doesn't seem as though it's Possible to get through to him II wish I knew how to hang the Congress to the fire. I understand they have two people two sons involved in all of Congress over there. (00:27:55) All right, let's hear from Professor Sampson. First time the issue of turkey wild turkey has a very extensive project of building dams in the eastern part of its country, which is a very impoverished area. There's hope that the dams are going to provide industrial and economic and agricultural kinds of benefits than that impoverished part of turkey very badly needs. It's a horrendous precedent to begin to use projects of that kind exclusively for Conflict for purposes. And I'd be quite astonished if a Turkish government is willing to in fact consider setting in motion a chain of events which indeed might diminish water flow to Iraq next summer or something, but would also lay the seeds of enormous resentments on the part of subsequent Iraqi leaders in might indeed precipitate eventually an attack on dams, which Sooner or later become very difficult things to defend if you have a determined opponent, that's one point second point is that if you cut off that water part of it is water that flows through Syria, one of the few things that the syrians and Iraqis have agreed upon in the past six months is is a concern about lat turkey reducing the flow of water coming out of the Turkish part of Asia and going into the Fertile Crescent. Any comment on that or short? No, no, (00:29:08) except that. I do agree that it will set a very dangerous precedent. And I don't think that the Arab world will will take this very kindly and I think that it would it would set a very very dangerous chain of events that would endanger turkey. I mean that turkey would have to pay a very high price for eventually. (00:29:28) It's about half past the hour. We'll continue our conversation on the developments in the Persian Gulf talking about events in the Persian Gulf Martin Samson from the University of Minnesota's political science department international relations program is with us as area of interest and expertise is the Middle East and know how Ismail a member of a group called Middle East peace now and other Arab American kinds of activities on to this next question and you're on the air hole, (00:29:53) there's another issue involved here besides the fact that I may have missed something but it's never been clear to me why it's considered wrong for Kuwait to remain the 19th province of Iraq the sanctity of The boundaries that were created in the first place by Western power. I'll listen for your answer. Well, I guess the my only response to that is that it is morally wrong to rule a people against their will and if the people of Kuwait I have no desire to be part of Iraq and have no desire to be the 19th province of Iraq, then it's morally wrong and for that I do not support it. This is not to Discount many of the historical claims for over Kuwait by Iraq. They there's been there. I'm not going to go into whether or not they are valid but the claims are there and we should not really discount those. My position is to tutorial disputes should always be settled in peaceful negotiation. But ultimately know Should be governed and ruled against their will Martin (00:31:10) Samson. Well, four quick points. Then the point of non-aggression I think is a very important principle. Secondly the kinds of doubts that can be raised in regard to the legitimacy of the borders of Kuwait in many many cases can be focused with equal fervor on the legitimacy of the borders of Iraq a number of which also are the products of lines drawn in Europe rather than exclusively Middle East historical processes. A third point is that there's an irony now already I think is that Kuwait was quite pleased that our Iraq him. So I was quite pleased that Kuwait remained an independent entity during the Iraq Iran War that Kuwait was not a 19th Province insulated it from attacks by Iran that meant that tremendous amounts of money accruing from oil sales coming out of Kuwait could be then routed to Iraq to bolster the Iraqi war effort had it been the 19th Provost province in the 1980s. I think it's very likely that Iran would have moved to shut down a lot of that production for thing though is A different kind of point and I think the fourth point is a question of how long one can expect in the Middle East and they symmetry between many states with very very high standard of living standards of living and on the other hand a number of states with very low standards of living and very large and rapidly growing populations. Let me ask you the question about the the United States has been using as a major justification for its action that you cannot appease an aggressor like Saddam Hussein. He has chemical weapons. He is attempting to develop nuclear weapons. He has used every weapon in get his hands on he's an unstable force in the Middle East and you simply have to draw the line and if you don't draw it now, it's going to be drawn later at a much higher cost. Well, I think appease and contain are somewhat different Notions there a number of kinds of things one can do. I think that include not destroying your Rocky military capability and thereby creating a power vacuum that plays into the hands of Iran plays into the hands of Syria and causes for us further on down the road. (00:33:18) Well, I think that each situation has its own unique background and I think one of the major blunders in United States foreign policy in the Middle East is that it continues to treat it as an oil-producing desert devoid of historical background and and history and culture and politics and whatever and you have to take this into into consideration what you may call a piece moment. Our primary objective should be the liberation of Kuwait. We should really keep keep track of that and our primary objective really should be trying to do it peacefully and in peaceful means and I see absolutely nothing wrong with doing that if we can somehow try to do it in a way that would allow an opportunity for face-saving for both parties. And and this is not the way Arab politics works. I think you know about a month ago. Even the King fire head of Saudi Arabia made some suggestions to the effect that no Arab country should deny in other Arab country access to to a Waterway. And of course, the implication was we might possibly give the islands of booby and werba to Saddam husein. Those are totally worthless Islands to Kuwait. They are uninhabited they are not used but they would give Iran Iraq access to the Persian Gulf and Arab politics works a lot that way there's a lot, you know, it's an extension of the tribal council where you sit in and if you know, you try and resolve differences by trying to find a way out and face-saving is extremely important in Arab culture and that Is one of the reasons why Saddam Hussein would rather go down in flames then to appear to you know to have lost on all accounts and not have anything absolutely to show for it. My question is what's wrong with that if it will liberate Kuwait and it will help the world. Avoid Another War. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that all the arabist sin the state department by the way, the diplomats who have spent a lifetime serving in the Middle East and studying the Middle East have advised Bush to give this route some some consideration, but from what I hear what I read in the Washington Post yesterday that President Bush deliberately has excluded them from his inner circle. It doesn't listen to any of the state department Middle East experts (00:36:09) we have about 20 minutes left and the phone lines are pretty jammed. I'll mention the I'll mention the number again. It's 2276 thousand the Twin Cities. I swear one 865 to 9700 but the lines are busy and you may have trouble getting through. Let's go to your question now go ahead please (00:36:26) hi there. I'm calling from Minneapolis. And I wanted to say that I really respect Senator Nunn for conducting the hearings on the gulf crisis. But I wonder if the UN boats to give the United States the power to go to war. Where does that leave Congress? Where does that leave us? We have to pretty much go behind the UN at that point, don't we? (00:36:50) Slightly different version of a question we had earlier who knows what comes out of the vote which I understand is on Thursday, but judging from the draft that's in the paper this morning. Frankly. I'm much less impressed than that by the power of what what appears to be under discussion in the UN. It's not a declaration of war. It refers to necessary kinds of measures presumably those are not measures that subvert processes in this country in regard to who should have the authority to dispatch troops. Whether it's appropriate American policy do that and so forth. (00:37:23) All right, the unite the United Nations resolution in question really has does not does not override the the authority of Congress to wage war anything. It really did not make much difference whether they were able to pull it through in the UN or not Baker and and President Bush kept saying while they were lobbying for it kept saying that if we didn't get it it would really would not make much difference and now that they have it. Still would not make much difference. It's just trimming. It's just the frosting on the cake. It just gives it's just a public relations thing for Bush to say, I've got a mandate as some kind of a mandate in his case. He will say I have an international mandate to act but clearly what is really more much more important than an international mandate is an American mandate to go (00:38:10) into war, of course if this works and if Saddam Hussein is significantly threatened by the resolution that comes out of the UN that he decides to withdraw from Kuwait to in there is no fighting and so forth will be delighted now Noah Ismail told us a little while ago that she her gut feeling was that that Saddam would rather go down in flames then back down. What do you what's your view? I would disagree with that mean face-saving certainly is a very important part of that culture. So is the role of intermediaries and so is is a capacity to retain an agility so that you get out of situations that appear to be a very very difficult kinds of situations. It's not surprising to me that about a month ago there were ideas. Broached by very important people in the Saudi regime that pointed towards some kind of a negotiated settlement in regard to Kuwait giving you rock some kind of basis at least to claim a slight change in the status of Kuwait or something of that sort. And I'm not I'm not pessimistic if time is permitted and if the International Community sticks by its tactics of embargo rather than going The Next Step, which will not be anonymously supported by the International Community of an attack on Iraq. I'm not so pessimistic that in fact, there isn't going to be a more constructive outcome of this. Okay back to the phones and your question, please hello. You're on the air where you calling from. (00:39:30) I'm calling from Rochester is here. Yeah, I would just like to say that the assertion that George Bush's lobbying efforts are the reason for the International Community coming together against Saddam Hussein are are absolutely Nicholas the fact of matter is the world Community the world leaders see this guy and the danger that that he poses 21 the new community that will happen post-cold war and it's kind of matter of George Bush's is given the situation. Well, it's either now or later. So, you know, I do believe that Saddam Hussein is seen for the danger that years and the world Community is coming together. (00:40:32) Okay. Thank you for your comment. Let's have a quick reaction here from Ohio smell first. (00:40:36) I disagree there is certainly a resistance to aggression in the Middle East the Middle East as it is is a very very volatile region. Jim and the balance is so precarious the political balance in the Middle East is so very precarious that anything that might upset that balance will certainly be viewed as very very dangerous indeed and it is and I'm sure that the International Community realizes how dangerous that is, but you know the invasion of Kuwait is why did that why is that so different from the invasion of Iran by Kuwait 10 years ago. The world did not react react in there was no atmosphere of Hysteria then but at that time the United States and the West were really threatened by the fundamentalism of the Ayatollah Khomeini, and and so they just let Saddam Hussein do what he did from the standpoint of morality and principles of aggression. It is no different from the invasion of Iran. And that was wrong and I at that time I stood up against Saddam Hussein at that time, but not only did the United States and the International Community allow the war to continue for eight years supplying both sides with with arms and allowing the war to continue for that long at the price of about 1 million dead on each side again this question of hypocrisy pops up. What is so different now, I mean, what is Saddam Hussein doing differently now that he did that he has not done before. (00:42:25) How about that little red (00:42:26) oil? Oh, yeah, of course a little war oiled. The question has been if Kuwait was growing potatoes if they were potatoes in Kuwait instead of oil would we be doing what we were doing (00:42:36) in the answer is obviously no, I mean, this is not a Panama. It's not an Afghanistan. It's not a Lebanon. I the the whatever diplomatic prowess the United States has in regard to this effort certainly was not evident during the time of the Iranian Revolution and the concerns It states had about Iran at that point. I think what explains the interest of the United Nations and the United midi is not either the Diplomatic prowess of the United States north some Universal sense that Saddam Hussein uniquely poses himself as a boogeyman that can swore it would otherwise will be a smooth calm and clearly defined New World Order. I think the explanation most powerfully resides in that three letter word. You just mentioned namely oil that the demise of Kuwaiti oil production were there. No Panic in the oil Market itself isn't such an important thing. There was something like this 3 million barrels a day Surplus in the world oil market during the second quarter of 1990 and Kuwait. Simply disappearing itself does not threaten automatic or does not automatically provoke a rapid climate oil prices once however, there is a threat that manifests itself against the Saudi oil fields. We have an entirely different kind of situation if there's a disruption and abroad Way of oil coming out of Saudi Arabia either in the form of workers being frightened so that they don't work in the field because they're threatened with chemical weapons or destruction of oil-producing structures or items of that sort. The international implications are very very profound. It isn't simply that that you and I resent having to pay an extra 40 or 50 cents a gallon for gasoline. It isn't just that a crimp is put in the way of life of the very affluent industrialized states of Europe Japan in the u.s. It's also the poorest states of the world which have massive debts, which are least able to cope with higher energy prices would find themselves in a situation analogous to what happened in 73 74 only much much worse with are very weak economies, even further undermined and challenged by oil at 40 50 or more likely if there's a destruction of Saudi oil fields oil at 70 80 plus dollars a barrel. I think it's that issue of oil which in a curious way brings together nations of the In nations of the north that is really the most powerful explanation of why the International Community regards the episode in Kuwait very differently from how it regarded Panama or Afghanistan or the Iraq Iran War well in lebanon's and natural resources have throughout history been a source of War have they not? Yes. They have there's I think a regrettable element here, then that this country began in 73 74 to awake to the realities of its oil dependence. We were reminded of that in 79 80 81 A decade is now slid by without an energy policy paper the other day commented that the Bush's Administration after two years in office to put together an energy policy is now at a stage of having winnowed proposals down to a mere 60 and there still is not a clear-cut bold domestic effort in this country aimed at reducing American Some oil from the (00:45:50) Gulf. Well, you know, this is the bankrupt policy that we are also we really should concentrate on it is instead of trying to develop alternative sources of oil instead of trying to trim our own dependence on oil use our technology to develop what we've got conserve. What we are doing is we feel entitled to the resources all or you know of others and this is the what I was referring to that it will lead to a protracted war in the Middle East because the people of the Middle East although initially they were all very very shocked and very upset with with Saddam Hussein. But right now what they are seeing is that the the west and the United States at the Forefront for some reason feels entitled to the to to the oil in the Middle East and very often President Bush or other American officials keep talking about Oil our oil and it is not American Oil. It is Arab oil and I think this is what the Arab masses resent most of oil is that crass exploitation. (00:47:02) Let's go back to telephones here with about 10 minutes. Left. Noah is male and Martin Sampson are with us as we talk about Persian Gulf developments and you're on the air. Thanks for (00:47:09) waiting this moment of the Daniel for the foreign policy of the United States in the Middle East one year. They were the friend of Saddam Hussein against Tyrion. And another year. They were all the friend of the official as antagonists are react. Isn't it some kind of for the long run the nurses in the Arab world will find out and we'll know for sure that American is no friend of the (00:47:40) Arabs. Okay. Now I smell (00:47:43) well, you know, of course the opportunism and the self-serving policy, you know of the United States in the Middle East is very evident. The the Arab masses have an added grievance against the United States and that the United States has always supported Israel Over Arab countries consistently in spite of the fact that the Saudis and kuwaitis have always tried to to comply with what the United States asked of them in regards to the output of oil and and and and so forth and in spite of the fact that the air Inherently are are not supportive of Communism and they their their Instinct would be to support the West over over the Eastern Bloc. But yet they have they felt betrayed by the United States time and time again in that every time they had a confrontation with Israel the United States supported Israel Over the Arabs. And so now they see that Israel. The United States is asking Israel to play a very passive role because it is, you know, it it is in its interest right now to Ally itself with with Arab governments and after all those years that we've heard sit down half. His asset is a terrorist and we now see President Bush meeting with him in Geneva. And that makes her very very strange bedfellow bedfellows. And the point is not wasted the Arab masses can clearly see through that. (00:49:30) Arne Samson, well, I think the pattern it's a pattern of kin I think to what one sees consistently in Middle Eastern politics of alliances being formed short while there may be a longer while later on the alliance's rearrange themselves as the shuffling back and forth. It's something that I think has an older pattern me I said she was very supportive of the Shah of Iran in part because of concern about any Rocky regime that was being supported by the Soviet Union then during the 1980s the u.s. Tries to undermine Soviet influence in Iraq with some success. We begin to support Saddam Hussein. Now, we are talking openly with with with Assad. It's I think analogous in a general way to earlier policies of the United States deciding indeed Franco was worth working with it, even though we stand for democratic governments and one guys that the support of Spain in a NATO kind of world was very important American policy at various times was comfortable working with kernels in Greece. There's a very controversial history of various kinds of groups that we have worked with in Central America. I See that as something particularly novel in regard to American Middle East policy the notion of friend of the Arabs quote unquote is really a very powerful term and I think a perplexing one given the diversity of the Arab world. The number of regimes the kinds of crosscurrents there the notion of a state being a friend across the board with all of those regimes that a single point of time. I think stretches the imagination. It's also the case that there's a multiplicity of American concerns toward that region 1 indeed is the security and survival of Israel. Another is access to oil for Western economies without which I might add the major source of foreign currency going into the Middle East and into the Arab world of course would disappear. (00:51:20) All right, which actually puts the American interest as almost opposing are of interest and it is not that that Arabs. The Arab agenda is for peace in the Middle East. But when when all the efforts for a peaceful resolution for a peaceful conference to solve the question, the painful question of the Palestinians have come have consistent consistently been ignored by the United States that says a lot to the Arab masses. There's also another point that you have to consider that when the United States choose chose actually to Ally itself officially with an Arab government. It'll I'd itself again with the government of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait two of the most oppressive feudalistic regimes in the Middle East and and and again that that certainly is noted by Arab masses in Egypt and Jordan in Tunis in Algeria in in Syria. It cannot be (00:52:28) undermined. Well, we haven't Be respectful of the debates in the Arab world over what in fact constitute Arab interests are Arab interest in the form of secular governments of the kind that predominate now in the Arab world. Are they instead in the form of religiously oriented regimes of a kind that for the most part is not at the moment evident in the Arab world. Is there an interest in the form of Maintenance of separate states that came out of European Colonial colonialism, or is it in the form of unification for a single state? Is there an interest in the form of keeping the oil to itself using the oil only for domestic Arab purposes, or is it in the form of as part of an interdependent World economy selling that oil accruing a tremendous amount of hard currency that can be used in many ways. The fourth kind of question I think is whether Arab interest basically is in the spread of the wealth that accrues from the sale of Arab oil or whether Arab interest is in a continuing concentration of much of that wealth in a very small number of thinly populated states. Well, those are interesting questions as to where we can get some help. (00:53:30) Who's those are all questions very pertinent very interesting questions, but they are there to be posed to Arabs and it is up to Arabs to answer those questions. It is not up to the United States to determine what Arab interests are but that (00:53:42) was my point that we need to be respectful. I think of that debate in the Arab world rather than from the outside prejudge Arab interests as what the regime in Cairo says Arab interests are or what the Saudi regime says or the regime in Damascus where the regime in Oman or the regime in Baghdad or whatever (00:53:57) right except that I am talking to you as an Arab who is very familiar with the Middle East and I can tell you what the Arab sentiment in general is going and I and that is probably what the arabist in the state department would have been able to communicate to President Bush except that he does not want to listen. I think primarily the Arabs want to be responsible to write their own history and not to have it written for them. I think this is this is what is the bottom line of all of this (00:54:27) debate. Let's leave this element of the discussion. Onto one more listener question here in the remaining time. We have quickly, please. Where are you calling from? I mean Think Loud. Yes, sir. (00:54:38) Bob a couple of things up. First of all, I think it's it's often being overlooked in the discussions about how a transitory Saddam Hussein into any other regime tends to be after all look at that's what's happening in the world. Now the second thing is I don't think enough attention is being paid to ways to handle these matters under international law where of course Arabs will be participating and maybe it wouldn't be Saddam Hussein advocating the Arab cause and the Jordan the Kuwaiti border questions and whatever else is going on and of course through international law and the UN we can approach what are the parent real problem which are oh, I don't know what terms to control world energy and things about the (00:55:23) bomb. Okay couple of quick comments from our guests and that'll wrap up. The are I think one of the Mysteries of the Arab world is the stability of a Of the current regimes why it is that the 1960s are an era of such tremendous instability and then we find that for over 20 years approximately 20 years Assad is around. So you have the same regime in Damascus the same regime in Baghdad the same regime in Oman, not much change in the regime in Cairo and so forth my own view. In other words is that this is an area of quite remarkable political stability or maybe political stagnation is a better way of putting it and that that's one of the underlying problems now is male the last (00:56:01) or take I take completely the opposing view. I don't see that there is any stability in the Middle East? In fact, when I go to visit one gets the impression that the Rumblings of of of a volcano are almost erupting to the surface one has an ominous feeling that there is going to be an incredible explosion and an incredible happenings in the Middle East never the law. The longevity of the regimes that you have mentioned are due to dictatorship on are due to the fact that they are imposed on the people and they are not supported by the people. There is no democracy and that is one of the major reasons why stability instability is, you know is actually predominant in the Middle East. I don't know where where you get (00:57:01) to the point about the stability is that these regimes have been around for a very long period of time. I'm an agreement though that the clock is ticking and I think part of the audience that lo and behold of all people this dictator Saddam Hussein finds in support of his actions is indicative of the point. You're making about a broad broad feeling in the Arab world that it's time for a change. I also see the clock is ticking indeed Kuwait as a way of it has it has run out. Thank you both very much for coming and we have been visiting about the situation the Persian Gulf. So our midday know how is male member of a group called Middle East peace. Now also member of women against military Madness who's active in Arab American politics and Professor Martin Sampson from the University of Minnesota political science department, the international relations program there whose area of interest and expertise is the Middle East. This is midday on Minnesota Public Radio. I'm Bob Potter.