TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/082790/0827014.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 8.8 KB | 184 lines

                ì┼2                                                          THE GULF, Page 24

COVER STORIES

Saddam's Strongest Card


Though a lucky few escape, the Iraqi leader turns thousands of
Americans and other foreigners into hostages and vows to keep
them captive until the U.S. withdraws

By ED MAGNUSON -- Reported by William Dowell at the
Saudi/Kuwaiti border, Dan Goodgame/Kennebunkport and William
Mader/London


    Of all the cards Saddam Hussein was holding as he attempted
to stave off the U.S. and its allies, the strongest was the
thousands of Americans, Britons and other foreign nationals
held against their will in Iraq and Kuwait.

    Last week he played it. As the speaker of Iraq's parliament
sarcastically put it, "The people of Iraq have decided to play
host to the citizens of these aggressive nations as long as
Iraq remains threatened with an aggressive war." They would be
housed, he said, in military and civilian installations that
would be likely U.S. targets if an armed conflict developed.

    With that Baghdad put an end to all the pussyfooting about
just what the status of these foreigners was. They were not,
as the Iraqis had said before, mere "restrictees." They were
hostages, pure and simple.

    For governments with nationals caught in Saddam's grip, the
announcement was the realization of three weeks of dread.
Despite the drawn-out foreplay, there was no obvious course for
coping with Iraq's latest outrage. The U.N. Security Council
agreed unanimously that U.N. Secretary-General Javier Perez de
Cuellar should immediately work to gain the release of the
foreigners. But his main weapon is moral suasion, something
Saddam Hussein seems immune to.

    For weeks the states vulnerable to hostage taking had kept
discussions of the issue sotto voce, hoping to leave room for
Saddam to release the foreigners without needing to get
something in return. Though that hope was extinguished,
Washington remained purposefully low key. President Bush called
the Iraqi move "totally unacceptable" and urged Baghdad to
"immediately reconsider" it -- moderate words in light of the
circumstances. "Our attitude," said a White House official, "is
that we should not make the situation seem to be any worse than
it is."

    The British, on the other hand, were no longer holding their
tongues. Iraq's ambassador to Britain was summoned to the
Foreign Office and given a 20-minute dressing down. Publicly,
Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd denounced Baghdad's actions as
"disgraceful, inhumane and contrary to civilized behavior." The
threats to foreign nationals, he stressed, "will not deter us"
from continuing efforts to force Iraq out of Kuwait.

    Those efforts, however, have certainly been made more
complicated. The U.S. will be loath to do anything to provoke
Saddam into getting even nastier with the hostages. If, for
example, the trade embargo begins to create widespread hunger
in Iraq, the ban on food imports probably will be eased. "The
U.N. resolution on sanctions does not support a starvation
strategy," a senior White House official emphasized. In fact,
the resolution specifically cites food as a permissible
exception if a "humanitarian" consideration arises.

    Baghdad played to this issue when officials asserted that
if food and medicine shortages occur, foreigners will suffer
along with Iraqis. "If there were to be any reduction in the
necessities of babies, then the same calamity affecting the
Iraqi newborns will affect similarly the foreign babies," said
a government statement. It claimed that already "food cannot
be secured for aged persons in the manner that we wish."

    The vulnerability of the trapped foreigners also acts as a
serious constraint on Western military planners. Should the
Iraqis lash out against Saudi Arabia or some other target, U.S.
commanders would prefer to have the option not only of fighting
the attackers head on but of striking tactical targets in
Kuwait and Iraq. In such an event, however, "collateral damage"
-- to use the military's chilling  euphemism -- to foreign
civilians is likely.

    While some foreign diplomats suggest that Bush, in a crunch,
would have to view the captive Americans as an expendable cost
of pursuing broader U.S. interests, his advisers do not agree.
If an American were executed and others seemed in danger, there
would probably be a swift attempt to rescue by force as many
of the others as seemed possible, a daunting prospect given
Iraq's war footing and the large number and broad dispersal of
the hostages. The timing of any such dramatic U.S. strike,
explained an official, would hinge on whether "the danger of
inaction is judged to be greater than the danger of action."

    Such discussions are already making the British nervous. So
far, Washington and London have seen eye to eye on the hostage
issue, but British officials worry privately that their views
may soon diverge. Americans are quicker than most nationalities
to push their concern for the fate of individual compatriots
to the center of the political stage. Despite London's harsh
words to Baghdad last week, the British -- and West Europeans
in general -- are more patient and less likely to allow
hostages to become the focal point of policy. "Domestic
pressures may bear down on Bush rapidly to use almost any means
to free the Americans," said a high-ranking British diplomat.
"Frankly, we are concerned that the Americans might go off
half-cocked. Patience, firmness and strong nerves are essential
in this sort of situation."

    While Saddam seemed to be applying the greatest pressure on
the Americans and the British, he had not yielded to pleas that
all other foreigners also be freed. That looked like a
miscalculation, since it kept the concern about hostage taking
high on an international front rather than narrowed to his
chief antagonists. But that was small comfort to the West and
could quickly change. Britain was particularly concerned about
its 36 military advisers to the exiled Emir of Kuwait. Neither
their location nor their situation was known. Of the more than
150,000 foreigners who fled to Jordan from Iraq since Aug. 2,
most were East Europeans, Arabs and Pakistanis.

    For many who tried to escape, the flight through scorching
desert, past wandering Bedouins and under the guns of rolling
Iraqi tanks was a bizarre nightmare. Many got lost or had to
hitch rides when their cars spun wheels and sank into the sand.
After being stopped by Iraqi soldiers three times while trying
to leave Kuwait City, Ramona Magee, an American, and Anita
Rawlinson, a Briton, made it out by using disguises. They wore
Arabic veils and joined a convoy of fleeing Kuwaitis.

    Tony Watson, another Briton who made it out, found the Iraqi
tank emplacements scary. "You've never seen so much hardware
in your life," he recalled. "If America attacks them, they'll
have a good go." T.P. Bryant Jr., a San Antonio
aerial-mapping-company executive, stole a four-wheel-drive car
and raced for the border. An Iraqi tanker swiveled his gun at
the car but held fire. At the border Bryant abandoned the
vehicle, leaving a note: "Return to sender."

    Meanwhile, the living conditions of Westerners in Kuwait
seemed to be deteriorating. Escapees told of food shortages as
well as widespread looting. The first thieves were the invading
Iraqi soldiers, who were quickly succeeded by an influx of
marauding Iraqi civilians sent to run the government and
replace Kuwaitis who refused to work.

    The Iraqi soldiers in Kuwait were described as being led by
disciplined frontline troops but lacking in such basic support
as food and water. After the best-trained soldiers were shifted
from Kuwait City to positions near the border with Saudi
Arabia, they were replaced by frightened young troops, often
wearing dishdashas (ankle-length flowing shirts) and carrying
AK-47s. They robbed Westerners of cash and jewelry on the
streets and shot and killed one Kuwaiti woman as she joined
others protesting the invasion.

    Some of the teenage soldiers told Kuwaitis that they did not
know why they were there and that they expected to die in a
U.S. counterattack. Others shed their uniforms and tried to
blend into the population. A few said they would like to desert
but feared reprisals against their families.

    Having become increasingly sophisticated through painful
experience with hostage seizures, Washington knows its
limitations. While trying to downplay the situation, Bush has
warned Iraq that the U.S. would retaliate swiftly if any
Americans were harmed. "I'm never willing to sacrifice the life
of any American," he said. But, he added, "the more we talk
about it and the more we speculate about it, the less helpful
it is."