Still Looking for Some Way Out : In dealing with Iraq, it’s a mistake to be polite

The special envoy sent to Baghdad by U.N. Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar has brought back word that Saddam Hussein flatly refuses to allow any international police force to be stationed in northern Iraq.

That rejection can only please the Soviet Union and China, always made nervous by any prospect of foreign intervention in “domestic” disputes; their far-fetched nightmare is that if outsiders can move in to protect the threatened Kurds in Iraq today, the same thing could happen to threatened Tibetans or Armenians tomorrow.

Turkey also feels relieved at the Iraqi rejection. President Turgut Ozal has for some time been preaching the value--evident to Turkey, if not necessarily to others--of keeping a strong Western military presence in the area indefinitely. Ozal’s worry is that without such an on-the-ground presence the Iraqi army would again descend on the Kurds, igniting a fresh conflict that could quickly spread to involve Turkey’s own large and restive Kurdish population. That is an easy line for Ozal to adopt. But the United States and other Western countries involved in the northern Iraq expeditionary force are understandably less than enthusiastic about keeping troops in the field indefinitely. They are looking for a quick way out.

The international police force idea, first floated in London and quickly backed by Washington, for now seems to be the only feasible alternative to an open-ended commitment of allied forces in northern Iraq. The humanitarian mission of those troops is fully supportable. They provide the security without which hundreds of thousands of Kurds would refuse to leave the bleak mountains where they have fled to escape Hussein’s vengeance. With this shield, a cautious homeward trek has begun. About 5,000 Kurds a day are coming down from the mountains.

What’s to be done? The first thing to keep in mind is who won the war last February. The second is to remember that the victorious coalition retains substantial military and economic leverage over Iraq. The coalition, or at least its leading elements, shouldn’t hesitate to use this leverage for good ends.

The United States for one intends to do so. Robert Gates, President Bush’s deputy national security adviser, let it be known this week that the Administration wants to keep sanctions on Iraq until Hussein steps down or is deposed. Some U.N. diplomats were less than happy to hear that, but too bad. The sanctions can’t be lifted without a vote of the Security Council, where the United States has a veto. Would it be out of order now for Washington also to link the issue of easing of sanctions to the acceptance of a new mechanism to provide international protection for Iraq’s Kurds? Not at all, especially when the alternative is for the United States and its allies to become bogged down indefinitely in a thankless security job. The Kurds need protection. There are plenty of countries that can help provide it. The allies should now insist--not request--that Baghdad open the way to stationing an international force in northern Iraq.