 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 20 - 26 January 2000 Issue No. 465 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 20 - 26 January 2000 Issue No. 465
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Features Profile Travel Living Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Black anniversary
By Salah HemeidNine years ago this week, an intensive aerial and missile campaign was launched against Iraq, marking the beginning of what was to become known as the Gulf War; a US-led assault waged by an international alliance set on driving Iraq out of Kuwait. Six weeks later, the war had achieved its specific military goal; but the political objectives have remained vague, confused, and to many, of dubious intentions.
In the tense year that followed the Gulf War, an inordinately complex situation crystallised when, despite the so-called end of the war, Iraq remained the target of a protracted and harsh economic embargo, international and regional isolation and military attacks. The outcome has remained a national predicament for some 22 million Iraqis who are weary of battle and sanctions and yet see no light at the end of the tunnel; their regime and the United States remain deadlocked in what seems like an endless conflict.
In recent weeks, the political focus on Iraq has shifted to the dispute over a new UN Security Council resolution -- Resolution 1284 -- demanding Iraq to cooperate fully with a new weapons inspection agency in return for a temporary suspension of the original 1990 embargo. Such cooperation is the price Baghdad must pay for the complete lifting of the sanctions. President Saddam Hussein's government, however, seems unsure of what course to take. In all likelihood, Hussein is once again preparing to test the extent of the international community's determination in applying this resolution.
Top Iraqi officials have criticised the December resolution, arguing that its "imperialistic" infringement on Iraq's sovereignty will turn the country into a UN mandate, and that it is "impractical and cannot be applied". The word "rejection" -- common parlance in official Iraqi discourse on UN resolutions -- was noticeably absent, sparking speculations that the Iraqi stance on Resolution 1284 may not be final. Saddam's speech on Monday, marking the ninth anniversary of the war, also suggested possible wavering when, instead of the now-rehearsed flat rejection of any UN move, he referred to the resolution as "a ragged blanket [covering] another attempt to divert Iraqis from their course".
This theory is more plausible given Iraq's decision to permit inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency this month after a nearly one-year ban. Another signal of a shift in Iraqi intentions was Deputy Prime Minister Tarek Aziz's visit this month to China and Malaysia (a non-permanent Security Council member) -- an apparent bid to persuade the two countries to help Iraq find a face-saving formula for when the Council draws the operational terms for a new UN weapons agency. Iraq could then accept the resolution and cooperate with the inspectors in closing its weapons files. A similar endeavour is reportedly planned with Russia and France, two permanent Security Council members sympathetic to Iraq.
Iraqi tactics do not seem to have evolved beyond manipulating the divergent interests of the Security Council members. Iraq knows that the United States -- even with British support -- is no longer dominating the Iraqi issue inside the Council. The muscle behind Washington's Iraq policy at the UN has been weakened by France, Russia and China's abstention from backing the new resolution, enhancing Baghdad's resolve to resist US policy.
Iraqis mark the 9th anniversary of the Gulf War by burning US and Israeli flags outside a UN office in Baghdad (photo: AP)
Consensus on Iraq has eluded the Council, and Secretary-General Kofi Annan's deliberations on naming a leader for the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) are no exception. The nomination of Rolf Ekeus of Sweden as head of the new agency could result in more bickering among the big five, no doubt encouraging more of Iraq's stonewalling.
Ultimately, the Iraqis success in dividing the Council is an ephemeral one; Iraqi officials admit that the punitive economic sanctions are still far away from being lifted. Aware that Iraq has no choice but to rely on the passing of time in "eroding the sanctions", Saddam urged his people on Monday to further tighten belts on their already lean bellies. He told them not be greedy and should "dispose of unnecessary demands" so that "the ship will embark safely at its port".
While this may simply be more of the bully-boy rhetoric the world has heard since the crisis began nine years ago, the political reality beyond Iraq's borders is changing. Many observers agree that there is not enough common ground in the international community to keep the sanctions regime in place. The US position has also been weakened by the failure of the Clinton administration to establish a clear and consistent strategy on the future of Iraq. Saddam, as was made clear in his war anniversary speech, is still unwilling to change his style of government, preferring to blame others for all the sufferings of his people and trying to exploit the absence of a quick fix.
With the lack of an endgame in sight, Iraqis may have to start guessing what preparations their government is making to mark the 10th anniversary of Saddam's "Mother of All Battles" before they can hope to imagine how international policy-makers will devise a solution to their national dilemma.
