Students relieved, question motives

University students reacted with approval and relief to the sudden agreement between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, reached yesterday afternoon in Baghdad.

Annan's spokesperson said the two had agreed on a settlement, though no details were released. U.S. officials are expected to comment today after reviewing the pact.

Most students found the probability of a diplomatic solution encouraging in terms of its ramifications of peace in the often volatile Middle East region.

LSA sophomore Nick Delgado said he is pleased with the apparent agreement and is curious about the Clinton administration's response.

"I think (the agreement) is very positive," Delgado said. "It will be very interesting to see how the Clinton administration handles it. It's deeper than just this incident. Initially, the U.S. might be a little wary."

Delgado said the agreement will likely eliminate the possibility of the United States destroying Iraqi weapons and possibly overthrowing Hussein.

"I don't think the U.S. should be in a position to take a political leader out of position anywhere in the world," Delgado said. "If they feel they have that power, then there is something wrong."

ROTC students and faculty declined comment on the situation. One ROTC student said he was advised not to answer any questions regarding the standoff with Iraq. A lieutenant from ROTC said he was concerned that his opinions might be construed to reflect the position of the U.S. Navy, for which he currently works.

Engineering senior Darrick Holland said peace should be the federal government's primary focus.

"Obviously, peace is better than war," Holland said. "If peace is an alternative, then it should be taken. If they've come to an agreement, they shouldn't have to worry about Saddam, at least in theory."

History Prof. Juan Cole, who teaches courses in Middle Eastern studies, addressed the possible range of U.S. reactions to the tentative resolution.

"If Saddam has agreed with Kofi Annan to allow U.N. inspection of weapon-producing and storage areas, then there is some chance that the agreement will be acceptable to the U.S," he said. Cole added that the difference between the U.N. and U.S. approaches is not one of strategy, but immediate tactic.

University alumnus Louise Tamires accepted the news with a bit of skepticism. "It's hard to have an opinion because I'm leery about the U.S. and its misinformation campaign. I don't believe they're giving us the whole story, I believe they're releasing certain facts to sway public opinion," Tamires said.

Tamires also questioned the purpose of U.S. military involvement. "It makes me wonder what we're fighting for? Are we still interested in oil? Is that the determining factor, or are the chemical weapons the actual concern? Part of me is a passifist. If you don't bug people, they won't bug you," Tamires said.

02-23-98