22 - 28 February 2001
Issue No.522
|
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 22 - 28 February 2001 Issue No.522 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Irresponsible acts
US-British air strikes against Iraq last Friday were not the "routine operation" to enforce the no-fly zone that US officials would have us believe. This time the issue is far more intricate and touches upon many aspects of the US's conduct in the Middle East.
Within days after moving into the Oval Office, President Bush announced that he would not abide by former President Clinton's proposals regarding a final settlement on the Palestinian-Israeli track. His action against Iraq represents his second departure from Clinton's Middle East policies after coming to power.
But, if Bush is determined to pursue a different strategy towards Iraq than his predecessor, for a moment at least his administration appeared at odds with itself on which way to move. In statements issued only a day before the strike, Secretary of State Colin Powell indicated that although the US intended to take a tougher stand against Iraq, this would be through a more stringent enforcement of UN Security Council resolutions and the return of UNSCOM to Iraq, giving the impression that the ultimate objective was to bring Iraq back into the international fold through peaceful means. The next day's bombardment suggests an entirely different attitude: a trigger-happiness that may well encompass other targets.
It appears that the decision to wage the recent strike was motivated by very narrow and short-term considerations. In the opinion of the Bush administration, Iraq was getting out of hand and Clinton's policy of appeasement had only encouraged Baghdad in the stridency of its rhetoric and its appetite to bait through troop movements and military displays. The US had to regain some of its deterrent credibility by sending Baghdad the message that it would have to be meeker and more compliant if it intended to return to the international community.
That the international embargo of Iraq has also begun to "slip" has also disconcerted US officials. Since mid-2000, some 40 airplanes have landed at Baghdad airport and many nations, including most Arab countries, have raised the level of diplomatic relations with Iraq. The recent strike was clearly intended to send a message to all concerned that the US still takes the embargo seriously and that the events of 1990-91 still constitute the frame of reference for dealing with Iraq.
However, the US also felt that there was solid evidence to justify a strike. According to the CIA's director, speaking before the Congressional Intelligence Committee on 7 February, Iraq has already reconstructed assembly plants for producing sensitive missile components and he cautioned that there are indications that Saddam's growing confidence may already have led him to extend this process to chemical weaponry. This trend, he said, poses a major threat to US security and must be taken seriously.
There were, in addition, immediate tactical concerns that prompted the strike. According to Pentagon sources, there were some 700 separate Iraqi radar and anti-aircraft missile incidents against "Allied" air patrols over Iraqi territory since 1998. Moreover, Iraqi radar tracking of US and British planes intensified in the period immediately before the strike raising the prospect of Iraq's enhanced ability to target and down them on the pretext of self-defense. It is not surprising, therefore, that the strike targeted a number of radar, air defence, and military communications installations.
Yet, however cogently US officials justify the recent bombardment of Iraq, it cannot disguise that this act of aggression will serve only to fuel tensions in the region as a whole. Moreover, it is to be feared that the mentality that produced this decision to revive the use of force against Iraq, if it persists, will have dire repercussions throughout the region.
Secretary of State Powell had recently given assurances that the US administration would consult its "friends" before taking any major action. It was deeply discouraging, therefore, that we, along with some of the US's European allies, were taken utterly by surprise by the strike. This failure to communicate and consult can only give rise to confusion and resentment.
In addition, this was the first joint US-British armed action against Iraq since the wave of strikes in December 1988. Since then attitudes, both regionally and internationally, towards the Iraqi situation have changed significantly enough to furnish a constructive platform for a peaceful solution. Simultaneously, sympathy for the growing plight of the Iraqi people has acquired a vast momentum.
The new US administration should bear in mind that the priorities of the Arab states and peoples do not necessarily overlap with those of the US. If Iraq is Washington's foremost preoccupation in the region this cannot be said of the Arabs who are more concerned with the atrocities being committed in the very real war being waged against a defenceless people struggling to reclaim their rights in Palestine. To continue to ignore this enormous body of opinion, especially when reasonable peaceful alternatives are available, can only jeopardise regional stability.
The strike against Iraq and the manner in which that decision was taken reflects a profound insensitivity to current realities. The action was understandably met with deep dismay and anger and already leaves the Bush administration open to charges of double standards and an unmitigated pro-Israeli bias.
But the Arabs are not alone in their condemnation of the strike. Major powers such as France, Russia and China vehemently deplored the US-British strike and even Mexico, generally uninvolved in developments in the Middle East, made a point of expressing its concern during President Bush's visit to that country.
As these reactions suggest, a virtually universal consensus that although Iraq still presents a thorny problem recourse to violence is drastically counterproductive, has clearly emerged.
A solution to the Iraqi problem must involve all concerned parties. Simultaneously, if the US is expected to be more judicious and delicate in its handling of the situation, the same should apply to Iraq, which should also observe sensitivities in the region, particularly at a time when it is mending its relations in the Arab world. After all, no third party can help resolve this crisis if the two principal parties are not prepared to act responsibly.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page