
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: MONDAY, April 3, 1995                   TAG: 9504050022
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-6   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

THE RESPONSE TO IRAQ

THE CLINTON administration has responded well, so far, to Iraq's outrageous sentencing of two captured Americans to eight years in prison. Indeed, recent speculation about improved chances of early release would appear to confirm the wisdom of the U.S. response.

Instead of blowing up the affair into a "hostage crisis," a la the debacle that crippled American foreign policy and Jimmy Carter's presidency 15 years ago, U.S. officials have remained cool while trying quiet diplomacy - backed, it can only be hoped, by firm resolve.

The United States has urged Iraq to release, on humanitarian grounds, the two men who are said to have mistakenly trespassed on Iraqi territory. Appropriately, the administration has also refused any direct linking of the men's fate with discussion of easing United Nations sanctions against Iraq.

This situation is not anything on the scale of Carter's hostage problem; in fact, official use of the word "hostages" is being avoided. Still, the dilemma is acute.

If the United States makes a big deal of the prisoners' plight, Saddam Hussein will conclude that toying with them has given him leverage. On the other hand, the president already is faced with criticism, leveled by two Republican presidential candidates, that he has failed to issue an ultimatum warning of military consequences if the men are not freed.

The president has done well to ignore such talk. As White House press secretary Mike McCurry said last week, in the face of criticism by Pat Buchanan and Sen. Richard Lugar: "I think based on recent history, there's probably little doubt in the mind of the government of Iraq that the United States has military options at its disposal."

Far better than raising the stakes, by threatening force, is to maintain the current low-key approach. Clinton should emphasize that the Americans' seizure will not affect U.S. policy - except to offer more evidence, as if any were needed, that Saddam cannot be trusted and that international sanctions should remain in effect.

This evidence should be cited, in particular, to the French and Russians, who have been pushing to end the sanctions on Baghdad.

To be sure, the embargo's toll, in terms of regular Iraqis' suffering, is reportedly great. And Iraq has complied on some of the conditions it agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. A number of countries in addition to Iraq stand to gain from a lifting of the trade embargo.

Saddam himself, however, is the one holding his country hostage - by not coming into full compliance with U.N. conditions, and even refusing offers of humanitarian aid to his people. The dictator continues to build his military, not to mention new palaces and resorts, while torturing and killing minorities and political dissidents.

International inspectors have yet to be convinced that Iraq has relinquished all weapons of mass destruction and is permitting complete international monitoring. Baghdad should not be allowed to resume oil sales without complying fully with U.N. conditions - whether or not the two Americans are released.

by CNB