U.S. often selective on moral stands

Published: Wednesday, Aug. 28, 2013 - 12:00 am | Page 6A

WASHINGTON – The United States helped protect the last Middle Eastern tyrant thought to use chemical weapons.

That dictator was Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Because he was fighting Iran in the 1980s, the Reagan administration fed him secret intelligence. And because his country bought U.S. crops, farm-state politicians fought off sanctions.

Now, amid allegations of chemical weapons use by Syria, the Obama administration is preparing a case for military action. Moral assertions will be paramount, as in Secretary of State John Kerry's declaration Monday that "our sense of basic humanity is offended." History offers a harsher perspective. From Iraq and Syria to Rwanda and Armenia, morality as a motive in U.S. foreign policy is more contingent than absolute.

"It's quite selective. The government knew of the fact that Iraq was using chemical weapons and did not deter them," Joyce Battle, an analyst at the National Security Archive, a nonpartisan research center, said Tuesday. "But when it's thought to be in U.S. interests, the government will adopt a moralistic stand when it wants to justify its policies."

Put another way, foreign policy calculations are invariably cold-blooded, notwithstanding moral declarations. Stirring words can be worn like a new cloak during a campaign, then set aside for action.

The perennial Armenian genocide resolution conflict showcases how this works. Presidential candidates invariably declare to Armenian American audiences they will formally recognize as genocide the slaughter that took place in the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923. Samantha Power, a foreign policy adviser to candidate Barack Obama in 2008, made this campaign-season pledge on Obama's behalf.

"He's a true friend of the Armenian people," Power assured Armenian Americans in an early 2008 video, calling Obama an "acknowledger of the history" who would have a "willingness as president to commemorate it."

Once in office, though, Obama followed the urgings of military and diplomatic leaders who cautioned against alienating Turkey, a crucial U.S. ally. Obama has since refused to use the word "genocide" in his annual Armenian statements. Power now serves as the Obama administration's U.N. ambassador.

The inconsistent U.S. response to allegations of Middle Eastern chemical weapons use further underscores how morality comes and goes.

Kerry asserted it was "undeniable" that the Syrian military used chemical weapons on a Damascus suburb. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and Doctors Without Borders put the death toll at at least 300.

While not publicly endorsing a casualty total other than to say it was on a "staggering scale," Kerry declared with black-and-white certainty, "There must be accountability for those who would use the world's most heinous weapons."

The United States took a different approach in the 1980s, when the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations publicly denounced Iraq's chemical weapons use but stopped short of firmer action.

A Nov. 1, 1983, State Department memo unearthed by Battle of the National Security Archive noted, "We have recently received additional information confirming Iraqi use of chemical weapons."

Hoping to constrain Iran, the Reagan administration provided what Battle called "quite extensive" military intelligence to Iraq during parts of the 1980-88 war between the Middle East neighbors.

Citing CIA documents and interviews, Foreign Policy magazine reported this week that "the Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps and other intelligence."

Members of Congress publicly chided Iraq over chemical weapons while fighting against more vigorous action that might impinge on U.S. businesses, as when farm-state lawmakers in 1990 challenged efforts to stop Iraq's use of U.S. credit guarantees to buy U.S. farm products.

"I understand the blood pressure behind this," Republican Pat Roberts, then a member of the House of Representatives, said during one 1990 House debate. He added, "We do sell to Iraq about a million tons of wheat and 450,000 tons of rice, (so) I wonder who we're hurting here."

Five days later, Iraq invaded Kuwait, and Congress and the White House changed their tune.

The African nation of Rwanda provides a heart-wrenching examples of coldblooded national calculations.

More than 500,000 people were slaughtered during a 3 1/2-month bloodbath that started in April 1994. The Clinton administration remained aloof during the genocide that targeted the Tutsi. Politically, officials were wary about additional U.S. casualties in the year after the deaths of 18 U.S. soldiers in Somalia.

Bureaucratically, they were leery about making a commitment, as when Defense Department officials in a May 1, 1994, memo cautioned against use of the word "genocide."

"Legal at State was worried about this yesterday," stated the memo, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the National Security Archive. "Genocide finding could commit (U.S. government) to 'do something.' "

Four years later, President Bill Clinton traveled to Kigali, Rwanda, to apologize to the survivors.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

Read more articles by Michael Doyle

Sacramento Bee Job listing powered by Careerbuilder.com
Quick Job Search
Sacramento Bee Jobs »
Used Cars
Dealer and private-party ads


Price Range:
Search within:
miles of ZIP

Advanced Search | 1982 & Older