Al-Ahram Weekly | Region | America's choices

		19 - 25 September 2002 Issue No. 604 Region	Current issue Previous issue Site map
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875		Recommend this page

America's choices
Iraq has accepted the "unconditional" return of UN inspectors, Mohamed El-Sayed Said, in Washington, envisages possible future scenarios

Shortly after US President George W Bush delivered his speech at the UN General Assembly last week, rumours began to spread that Iraq may quickly approve the unconditional return of UN weapons inspectors.
Even the most optimistic observers expected Iraq's approval to come after a long debate at the UN Security Council. Thus, Iraq's statement of unconditional acceptance came as a pleasant surprise for those expecting tough negotiations and possible deadlock. However, the Iraqi statement was not the only outcome of recent international and regional diplomacy. Equally important was the Saudi Arabian foreign minister's declaration of support for "whatever action needs to be taken by the Security Council", that is, imposing UN resolutions on Iraq, by any means possible, including the use of force.
For most observers, Iraq's sudden decision to accept the return of arms inspectors, fit into a pattern that has evolved in the past two weeks. Saudi officials justified their foreign minister's statements, saying that it encouraged the US to seek UN approval rather than act unilaterally. In this vein, George W Bush's decision to give the UN a chance before launching headlong into war can be seen as a diplomatic success for all those opposed to unilateralism.
However, assisting the US administration was not the only motive behind the Saudis sudden move. By agreeing to assist the US in the military sphere, Saudi Arabia was keen to maximise pressure on Iraq to approve the re-admittance of inspectors.
Assuming this to be true, we can also assume that the Saudis had no idea that the Iraqi's would capitulate on the issue of arms inspectors so quickly. Why have the Iraqis so rapidly declared their approval over inspectors, even before any formal resolution by the Security Council was drafted?
Iraq clearly wanted to avoid yet another resolution which may extend the demands placed upon it. Also, swift capitulation makes it more difficult for the US to build an international consensus on tougher enforcement measures. Indeed, the US's desire to humiliate Iraq from within the UN has become far more difficult in the aftermath of Iraq's diplomatic move.
How will Iraq's move affect the US? Basically, the Bush administration wanted a resolution containing three elements: condemnation of Iraq for past violations, a deadline for the return of arms inspectors, and a reference to the use of force.
The US may now be embarrassed to persist in its plans for an expanded and tougher list of demands. Indeed, just having forced the Iraqis to approve the unconditional return of inspectors could easily be displayed as a diplomatic success for the present administration. A success achieved at no cost.
In this scenario, the US might not press for a new resolution on Iraq, leaving the UN secretary-general the mandate of negotiating details with the Iraqi authorities.

Click to view caption
Demonstrations held in Syria this week against a military strike on Iraq
Such a scenario might have the additional merit of, perhaps, reversing the tide of anti- Americanism that is rampant among Arabs and around the globe. Indeed, there are some signs that the American policy elite are becoming aware of ill feelings towards it in many parts of the world. Showing some flexibility on Iraq might win back world sympathy.
However, this scenario has an important pitfall. The Iraqis would emerge onto the international diplomatic arena in a different form. Their image as rigid and obstinate would be replaced by a new one in which they would look pragmatic, flexible and respectful of the "international community". Are Americans willing to accept a win-win situation as an acceptable conclusion to their diplomatic and political showdown with Iraq?
Rejecting this would open the way for the opposite scenario within the UN. The US would continue the diplomatic conflict, insisting that Iraq's admission of weapons inspectors is inadequate and a new UN resolution would have to be drafted.
The likelihood of this latter scenario depends on how serious the US is in pursuing a war against Iraq. There is now some evidence to suggest that the US administration is actually playing a very skillful diplomatic game the aim of which is to gain Iraqi concessions without incurring the cost of large-scale invasion. This was actually implied in a number of interviews on American television by some authoritative figures in the US. This includes retired general, John Scowcroft, whose intervention in the domestic debate was instrumental in getting the US president to the UN. Assuming this to be true, the Bush administration may be satisfied with re-instating an intrusive inspection regime and, at the very least, persuaded from pursuing a tough diplomatic battle within the UN Security Council.
However, the "hawks" in the administration do have the ability to escalate the situation with the eventual aim of ruling out any compromise on Iraq. In this scenario, the administration would keep pushing the Iraqis into a corner. Seeing their war scenario thwarted, they would not be happy with anything less than the complete humiliation of the Iraqi regime. The US would insist on a new, tougher UN resolution and would continue to condemn the Iraqi regime and threaten the use of force.
This last scenario is most likely to meet stiff resistance within the "international community". Insisting on such a resolution may cost the US diplomatically and create friction with its allies and the international community as a whole. This was precisely the idea behind the swift Iraqi capitulation over arms inspectors.
A third scenario may also emerge, especially if an international consensus on a new Iraqi resolution is reached through negotiations. This would involve a resolution outlining the specifics and details of any new arms inspection regime in Iraq, while avoiding open condemnation of the Iraqi government.
Eventually, the US may settle for just such a compromise. Indeed, it would in no way constrain the administration from continuing its declared policy of regime change by means other than war and the conflict could continue unabated outside the UN. However, the horrors of a large-scale US war against Iraq would be averted, at least for the next few weeks.

Send a letter to the Editor Recommend this page

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