Morton H. Halperin Foreign Policy Analyst Urges Caution With Iraq by John Shaw When Morton H. Halperin testified last summer before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during its high-profile hearings about American policy toward Iraq, he had an impact that all witnesses dream about: Senators leaned forward in their chairs and listened carefully to his comments. Halperin, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and the director of the Open Society Instituteís Washington office, told the congressional panel there is an alternative to a U.S.-led war with Iraq. Speaking softly but forcefully, Halperin said that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein presides over a grim, ruthless regime. But he argued that Hussein can be contained with a firm American policy, that containment of Iraq is vastly preferable to war, that such a war could lead to numerous casualties, and that even if the United States won the war, it would then be responsible for occupying a devastated and ruined nation. Halperin advocated a policy he described as ìcontainment plus,î which calls for tightening the economic embargo of materials that would assist Iraq in its weapons of mass destruction and other military programs, as well as reducing Iraqís receipt of hard currency outside the United Nations sanctions regime. He pressed for the return of U.N. inspectors to ensure that Iraq was complying with relevant U.N. resolutions and advocated forging an international consensus for military action with Security Council approval if Iraq failed to cooperate. Halperin emphasized that any American attack of Iraq would likely trigger the very behavior the United States says it most fears: Husseinís use of weapons of mass destruction. Finally, he urged lawmakers to consider the enormous difficulty and expense the United States would face if it occupied Iraq and was responsible for keeping the country intact. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the current chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), then the head of the panel, both seized on several of Halperinís comments. The two lawmakers said they were especially troubled with the challenge Halperin spelled out about keeping Iraq functioning after Hussein left the scene. They added that it was crucial to prepare for the problems of a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. In an interview at his office in downtown Washington, Halperin said he believes his testimony to the Foreign Relations Committee helped prompt a necessary discussion about the long-term implications of the United Statesís Iraq policy. ìI think it helped shape a wider debate,î Halperin said. ìWhen you discuss foreign policy, you have to offer an alternative. You canít just say to the American people there is nothing we can do regarding Iraq.î Halperin said he tried to offer a firm and responsible policy toward Iraq and felt it was imperative to acknowledge that a U.S. attack would almost surely prompt Hussein to use his most lethal weapons. ìWe must acknowledge the risk that weapons of mass destruction would be used against our troops and civilians. The most likely catalyst for Saddam Hussein to employ his weapons, nuclear or otherwise, is an imminent American attack,î he said. Halperin said he has tried to encourage U.S. officials to realize that the tight focus on Iraq has diverted the governmentís attention from the more urgent war against terrorism. He believes the United States should devote its limited attention and resources to shoring up the worldwide coalition against terrorism, settling disputes between Israel and the Palestinians and between India and Pakistan, helping Indonesia, Nigeria and other countries cope with ethnic and religious conflict, staying the course in Afghanistan, reducing poverty in the developing world, and altering procedures at home for dealing with terrorist threats. ìThese are urgent tasks that are much more central to reducing the risk of terrorist attacks than the early removal of Saddam. We should allow containment to keep him in his box while we work creatively on these more urgent tasks,î he said. Halperin believes the Bush administrationís near obsession with Iraq has also diverted its focus from other challenges, such as tackling the global AIDS crisis, overhauling foreign aid programs, and supporting democracy around the world. ìI can see the case for focusing on the anti-terror campaign. But if that is what they were doing, I would have more sympathy. But going after Iraq is a diversion from terrorism, which is the central issue and the rest of the agenda.î Halperin said he is uncertain of how events will unfold in the Persian Gulf in 2003. He is encouraged that there appears to be a shift in U.S. policy from regime change in Iraq to removing Husseinís weapons of mass destruction. Halperin credits Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and several Republican senators, especially Lugar and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), for helping engineer this shift in the administrationís policy and paving the way for the U.N. Security Council resolution that was approved by a unanimous vote in November. ìThe resolution was a compromise within the U.S. government and within the U.N. system between people who want to avoid war in any way and those who want war no matter what. And President Bush was in the middle. This is a classic case of a president making minimal decisions,î Halperin said. The foreign policy analyst believes that in the end, Hussein is more committed to his personal safety than to keeping any prohibited weapons. ìAbove all, Saddam wants to survive. The weapons of mass destructionóif he has themóare only helpful to keep the United States from attacking. He has every reason to do everything he can to keep us from attacking,î he said. Halperin is one of Americaís most respected foreign policy analysts. A New York native, he grew up reading the New York Times and dreaming of a career in international affairs. He studied political science at Columbia College and earned a masterís degree and doctorate in international relations from Yale University. He has been a university professor and think-tank analyst, and has held a number of senior government posts in the State and Defense Departments and on the National Security Council. Halperin has written important books on nuclear policy, bureaucratic politics and foreign policy, and dozens of major articles about international affairs. In his most recent stint in government, Halperin headed up the State Departmentís prestigious Policy Planning Staff from 1998 to 2001. ìIt was an interesting and exciting experience. But it was the final years of the Clinton administration, and it was hard to persuade people to take on new things,î he said. One idea Halperin developed and pushed was the Clinton administrationís Community of Democracies initiative that was launched in Warsaw in 2000 when more than 100 countries pledged to uphold democratic principles. A second meeting of the Community of Democracies was held in South Korea in November 2002. Halperin is one of the leading authorities on international strategies to strengthen and protect the worldís democracies. ìPromoting democracy is the key to American security and prosperity. We want to live in a world in which people are free,î he said. Halperin recently served as the staff director of a Council on Foreign Relations task force that studied current threats to democracy. The panel, which was chaired by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former Polish Foreign Minister Bronislaw Geremek, concluded that democratic governments, international organizations and nongovernmental organizations have not responded effectively when fledgling democracies have been threatened by coups or erosions in the democratic process. The task force argued that democracies need more than rhetorical support from the international community when their survival is at stake. It recommended that established democracies should increase development assistance to new democracies, create democracy erosion indicators for international financial institutions, encourage new democracies to adopt strong domestic laws that guarantee elections, human rights and independent judiciaries, and persuade regional organizations to adopt democracy clauses. Halperin said established democracies need to help the fledgling democracies stay on the right path, and that international development aid should be targeted to reduce poverty and consolidate democracy. In addition to his work at the Council on Foreign Relations, Halperin is the Washington director of the Open Society Institute, a foundation created by George Soros to support an array of human rights initiatives. The Open Society re-established its Washington office in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. The organization focuses on violations of civil liberties in the United States, and supports criminal and civil justice reform. It is also seeking to shape the debate over global economic policies, such as those involving international development assistance. Halperin is a stalwart champion of the view that civil liberties must be protected during times of national crisis. He said he is concerned about the erosion in civil liberties in the United States since the Sept. 11 attacks. In particular, he said he is troubled by government actions to control debate and limit access to information, incarcerate large numbers of people, and rush sweeping anti-terrorism legislation through Congress in 2001. Halperin also questions presidential assertions of the inherent authority to limit liberty, most notably by the order on military tribunals. ìThe administration, encouraged by the easy passage of the anti-terror legislation, has taken a number of actions that indicate the balance between national security and civil liberty has shifted dramatically to the detriment of liberty without any guarantee of security.î John Shaw is a contributing writer to The Washington Diplomat.