Issue No. 608
Opinion
Previous issue
Site map
|
|
17 - 23 October 2002 Issue No. 608 Opinion |
Current issue Previous issue Site map | |
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Recommend this page | ||
Bones of contention
The resolve for peace is widespread, but it must be decisive, writes Ibrahim Nafie
The five permanent members of the UN Security Council are still working to overcome fundamental differences over a proposed resolution on Iraq. While they haggle, Iraq continues to respond positively to efforts aiming to forestall a new war in the region.
With the US and Britain in one camp and France, Russia and China in the other, the primary bone of contention over the resolution is whether or not it should provide for military action against Iraq. Washington and London are pushing for inclusion of a stipulation to inflict punitive measures against Iraq in the event of non-compliance, without having to refer again to the Security Council. The other three permanent members hold that the new resolution should be restricted to the list of demands Iraq must meet, unconditionally and without obstruction. Then, should Iraq in any way attempt to impede the work of the UN weapons inspectors, the Security Council will reconvene and, on the basis of a report submitted by the inspection team, issue a resolution calling for military action.
In spite of their differences, shaped by their respective perspectives on their national interests and on international peace and security, these nations will not submit a proposal to the council before having come to a consensus over its broad outlines. They have no interest in the prospect of the proposal running aground should one of the permanent members avail itself of its veto right. Security Council resolutions pass with a majority of nine out of 15 votes, provided that none of the opposing votes are cast by a permanent member, in which case, the resolution is defeated. In certain cases, generally involving less crucial issues, a permanent member may abstain in order to convey a specific message, without this preventing the passage of the resolution.
The continuing flurry of diplomatic communications and visits between the capitals of the five Security Council members indicate that they are still a way off from reaching an agreement over fundamental issues. Yet, both camps -- whether that in favour of an immediate licence to strike or that advocating a two-phased process -- are in a race against time as each strives to strengthen their position. The US administration, having secured a Congressional mandate to use force against Iraq "in the event that diplomatic efforts fail", is getting ever more adamant in the face of the flexibility Baghdad is currently displaying. Washington hopes to be able to wear down Saddam Hussein's patience and drive him to commit a rash act that would justify recourse to force. Meanwhile, the countries opposed to a military campaign are working to coordinate their positions and to prevail upon the government of Iraq to continue to be patient, flexible and cooperative.
To date, Iraq has agreed to the unconditional return of the international inspectors, towards which end it has entered into talks with the head of the UN inspections team in Vienna. Baghdad has agreed that inspectors will be accorded unrestricted access to any site in Iraq, including the presidential palaces, and it has already announced that it is prepared to receive the inspections team in Iraq on 19 October. Simultaneously, Baghdad has accepted the idea of a new Security Council resolution, on the condition that it does not provide for military action. Such positive cooperation is doing much to support the position of Arab governments opposed to a strike against Iraq and it should further bolster the position of the international powers that insist that military action should require a separate resolution from the Security Council.
It is still obvious that the Bush administration is determined to strike Iraq and is working to precipitate the opportunity to make this possible. It has already begun to transport forces and equipment, stake out the theatre of operations and study alternatives for the administration of Iraq in the wake of the fall of the current regime. In spite of this, it is still possible to spare Iraq and its people the agonies of another war. Although the task will not be easy, the dangers that will accrue from any armed aggression against the Gulf country render the task of averting war a vital responsibility incumbent upon all Arab nations and upon all international forces concerned for the security and stability of this region.
Naturally, a major onus in this regard falls upon Iraq. It must continue to comply willingly with the demands of international arms inspectors, it must refrain from irresponsible bravado and it must continue to cooperate fully with the international forces that seek to avert a US-British assault against it. The Arabs, for their part, must reach a strong consensus over their opposition to renewed military action against Iraq. Simultaneously, it would diffuse tensions in the region as a whole if international powers were more evenhanded in their handling of two major interrelated issues in the Middle East. Not only should they do their utmost to give diplomatic channels a chance towards a resolution of the Iraqi situation, they should also take firm action to end the Israeli occupation of occupied Arab territory.
Fortunately, there have been important signs of a growing, broad-based official and grassroots opposition to US-British warmongering. The mass anti-war demonstrations in Western capitals, including Washington, have been particularly encouraging. Heartening, too, were the voices of prominent officials and statesmen. Of particular note were remarks by former US president and recent Nobel Peace Prize recipient Jimmy Carter. Shortly after his award was announced, Carter said, "Congress was wrong to give President Bush the authority to wage war against Iraq." Gunner Berge, chairman of the Nobel Prize committee, declared, the award granted to Carter "can also be interpreted as a criticism" of George Bush's policy towards Iraq. In awarding the Nobel to Carter the committee stressed, "Under the current situation rife with the threat of the use of force, Carter stood with the principles that advocate the resolution of conflict through mediation and international cooperation whenever possible."
Such indications bear out my belief that the opportunity is at hand to work with all peace- loving forces towards a diplomatic solution to the differences between Iraq and the UN. We need a Security Council resolution that addresses the outstanding problems and sets into motion a mechanism for resolving them. We do not need a resolution that licenses a war against Iraq and propels this region to a precipitous brink.
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: weekly.ahram.org.eg Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
