Issue No. 604
Opinion
Previous issue
Site map
|
|
19 - 25 September 2002 Issue No. 604 Opinion |
Current issue Previous issue Site map | |
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Recommend this page | ||
Launching round II
Mohamed Sid-Ahmed asks whether Bush is pulling back or gathering support to push forward with his war against Saddam
Tempting as it must have been for the surviving perpetrators of the 11 September attacks to mark the first anniversary of the event with a similarly spectacular act, they must have realised that their chances of success this time around were practically non- existent. If the element of surprise was on their side in 2001, this was not the case one year on with the whole world, and not only the United States, fully mobilised to prevent just such an eventuality.
The tightly planned and coordinated attacks launched against America last year were shocking not only for the devastation and loss of life they caused but also because they exposed the magnitude of the threat posed by international terrorism to the post- Cold War world system, otherwise known as the new world order.
In the confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union, there was a certain correspondence between the protagonists. Both assumed the form of military pacts -- NATO versus the Warsaw pact -- and both conducted themselves according to certain established rules. That is not the case when it comes to the current confrontation between the United States and terrorism, where there is absolutely no correspondence between the two sides. The world order headed by Washington is open, exposed and, thanks to the Information Revolution, easily monitored. Terrorist networks, on the other hand, operate in the dark. This gives them an edge over their opponents and allows them to use the element of surprise to their advantage as they did on 11 September last year and as they can do at any time.
This particular characteristic -- namely, the visibility of the Western world and the secret character of terrorist network -- has given rise to a global atmosphere of conspiracy which is adversely affecting democracy and seems to be stimulating a contemporary version of McCarthyism. A general tendency has now developed to attribute all forms of misconduct to terrorism and to use terrorism as an excuse for doing away with opponents. This could explain Bush's obsession with pursuing Saddam Hussein, despite the lack of solid evidence linking Baghdad to Al- Qa'eda.
After months of trying to establish the existence of a relationship between the Iraqi president and Bin Laden, the CIA was forced to admit that it found no evidence of any form of relationship between them. At one time intelligence reports suggested that elements of Al-Qa'eda had taken refuge in northern Iraq and that these elements were in contact with Saddam Hussein. They also suggested that Mohamed Atta, who flew the first hijacked plane into the first World Trade Centre tower, met an Iraqi intelligence operative in Prague in April 2001. But the information in both cases proved to be false.
With Bin Laden, Mullah Omar, Ayman El-Zawahri and other top Al-Qa'eda figures still at large one full year after the 11 September attacks, and with Hamid Karzai's shaky regime still facing attacks from Al- Qa'eda's Taliban allies, it cannot be claimed that the first round in the war against terrorism has been successfully accomplished. It is in these far from ideal conditions that Bush is pushing ahead with his plan to launch the next round in his war on terror, the removal of Saddam Hussein.
So far, he has been unable to convince the international community and world public opinion of the validity of his anti-Iraqi campaign. We are not only talking of China or Russia. With the exception of Britain's Tony Blair, most European leaders, notably France's Jacques Chirac and Germany's Gerhard Schroeder, are opposed to any military intervention in Iraq. While France has since agreed to go along with a US attack if it is sanctioned by the Security Council, Germany says it will not participate even in a UN-backed attack on Iraq. On a recent visit to Moscow, America's hawkish Deputy Secretary of State John Bolton was warned by Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov that an attack on Iraq could jeopardise international cooperation against terrorism and Al-Qa'eda.
Moreover, Secretary of State Colin Powell has admitted that there are sharp differences inside the administration over Iraq, with Vice-President Dick Cheney strongly opposed to the Iraqi proposal concerning the return of the UN inspectors which he described as counter-productive and Powell welcoming the proposal. Two days before Bush's UN address, Powell declared that the US president is still studying the political, diplomatic and military options, and will take a final decision after consultations with friends and discussions inside the administration. The issue will then be presented to public opinion and the international community.
Powell's message of restraint is in sharp contrast with Cheney's relentless attempts to whip up war fever. Despite the fact that all attempts to link Saddam to Bin Laden failed, the US vice-president insists that a linkage does exist if only because both dictators and terrorists represent a tremendous danger. No one can deny that Saddam is a dictator who totally ignores democracy, transparency and accountability. Still, these are issues related to a country's internal affairs and are not evidence of that country's links to international terrorism.
It could be argued that Bush's real reason for going after the Iraqi regime is its determination to build arsenals of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological, radiological and even nuclear. But despite the fact that the Iraqi problem is closely related to the issue of the return of the US inspectors, and that this issue is related to Iraq's attempts to develop a nuclear capability, the American president has avoided focusing his anti-Iraq campaign on Baghdad's violation of the ban on nuclear weapons, probably to avoid opening the file of Israel's nuclear arsenal.
Actually, the issue of nuclear weapons is entering a new stage. They are no longer as inaccessible or expensive as they once were and, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, their key ingredients are being smuggled across state borders. Bush warns that Iraq is capable of acquiring a nuclear bomb in less than one year and that as such it represents an imminent danger.
It was against this backdrop that Bush addressed the United Nations last Thursday. In his address, the US president did not abandon his hawkish position, but tacitly admitted that he could not act alone in open defiance of a considerable segment of public opinion inside and outside the United States. Bush challenged the United Nations to force Saddam Hussein to disarm and warned that the United States was ready to assume the task alone if the Iraqi leader went on violating Security Council resolutions.
The US president offered no evidence to substantiate his allegations nor did he come up with a timetable. But he was keen to appear as acting within the framework of the United Nations and as not sidelining its role, albeit for a given period of time. This satisfied many observers who were afraid that Bush was getting ready to unilaterally attack Iraq.
However, Bush made it clear that he expected quick action, urging the UN to act within "days and weeks, not months and years", a clear indication that he would prefer a decision to be made before the US congressional elections in November. He announced that Secretary of State Powell will be tabling a Security Council resolution presenting the Iraqi regime with an ultimatum: either it stops violating international law and flouting former Security Council resolutions or it faces an imminent military attack that need not be launched by the United States alone. The Bush proposal differs from the proposal Chirac presented a few days earlier, based on two resolutions. The first commits Saddam to accepting the return of the UN inspectors. In case he refuses to comply, a second resolution will be issued which would fix the modalities of intervention to force him to comply. Powell declared that he preferred the American approach, though he understood that procedure could differ.
A high-ranking Arab diplomat, who insisted on anonymity, from an Arab country which apprehends the consequences of an American military operation against Iraq, declared that he does not expect any clear agreement inside the Security Council over how to deal with Iraq. He added that Bush is keen on getting international blessing for his unilateral intervention, preferring that the operation be attributed to the international community rather than to the United States alone.
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| 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 |
