Issue No. 604
Region
Previous issue
Site map
|
|
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 | ||
The drums of war recede... for now
Amr Moussa speaks to Dina Ezzat about the tense hours leading up to the Iraq-UN agreement and its possible consequences
Iraq has agreed to allow the immediate and unconditional return of UN arms inspectors. What has made this deal possible after years of Iraqi opposition and what role did you play in brokering it?
Well, first of all I must say that I welcome this agreement. It should lead to the elimination of any doubts that some may have about Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction.
This important step for the Iraqi leadership came in response to Arab and international appeals for Iraq to accept the return of arms inspectors, in compliance with UN resolutions, and to stop the escalation of hostilities.
As to what made this agreement possible? It was the logical outcome of political developments on the international scene.
It was clear that we had a serious situation on our hands. The option of using military action was gaining more ground. It was clear that something had to be done soon.
In fact, it would be safe to say that we were in a race against time to get this agreement passed before the UN Security Council adopted a tougher resolution on Iraq.
This agreement is the product of many consultations and meetings. First, there was the participation of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan at the Arab Foreign Ministers' meeting in New York last week. The foreign minister of Lebanon, the current chair of the Arab summit, and I invited him to take part in this meeting because we wanted a genuine debate between the UN and the Arab ministers on the Iraqi issue.
The following day, during a discussion with Annan, I decided the time would be better spent by inviting Iraq's Foreign Minister Nagi Sabri. Annan welcomed my invitation. Indeed, this turned out to be a fruitful three-hour debate.
Where did this debate lead?
It led to the beginning of a drafting exercise. We wrote down what each side wanted. A joint paper was produced and sent to the Iraqi government. The Iraqi government returned the draft with changes. Then we went through a re-drafting phase that produced a document acceptable to both the UN and Iraq.
You make it sound easy.
It was not. The negotiations were tough. We had three sessions on three consecutive days, starting Saturday. Each of these sessions went on for hours, all the while calls were being made to many different parties. I personally conducted talks with top Iraqi officials to facilitate the mediation of this deal.
What's going to happen next? Will the UN-Iraq dialogue that was being conducted over the past few months be cancelled?
No. I think it is possible that Iraq and the UN will resume their dialogue to deal with the issues governing their relationship. There are matters other than the issue of weapons of mass destruction that both parties need to deal with. I think it would be useful for this dialogue to be resumed.
The return of UN arms inspectors to Iraq should be seen as a step on the road to fully implementing UN Security Council resolutions. This will allow the lifting of sanctions imposed on Iraq for over a decade. Sanctions cannot go on forever.
But skeptics argue that, this agreement aside, a military strike against Iraq is inevitable, sooner or later.
I hope this will not be the case.
Do you think that the agreement you mediated would delay, or even prevent, a possible war?
I would not say that this agreement will delay a war. I think the agreement has put the whole Iraq issue on a different track than a few days ago. Then, the Iraq issue was debated with the view that Iraq would refuse to allow the return of international arms inspectors. Today, the Iraq issue is being debated in the light of an immediate and unconditional return of arms inspectors and a willingness to cooperate with the UN.
The atmosphere has changed. Many voices from around the world are now arguing that it would be absurd to talk about war or to adopt resolutions permitting coercive measures. I think the threat of war is receding.
But the Americans say that they do not trust Baghdad or, to be more specific, Saddam Hussein.
The Americans say that they do not trust Baghdad. I say, you need to give the Iraqis the benefit of the doubt. I think that this is the logic that should prevail.
It doesn't seem like this logic will prevail. Less than 24 hours after the agreement was reached, US Secretary of State Colin Powell was talking about the need for the Security Council to keep up the pressure on the Iraqi president. What do you think is going to happen now?
I cannot predict what will happen. But I think that the Security Council member states are now debating the Iraqi issue in light of the Iraqi government's positive stance with respect to the return of arms inspectors. The debate is now being conducted in a more positive atmosphere. I honestly do not think that there is a need for a new UN resolution, especially in view of the agreement that was reached on Monday.
But realistically speaking, what are the chances that the UN would block a US proposal?
I am not an accountant. You calculate for yourself.
But, surely you can make a judgment. You have been talking with all the parties involved.
In my opinion there is a sense of hope that didn't exist a few days ago. I see fewer and fewer voices talking of military action or coercive measures. I see new opportunities. To answer your question, I think it is a 50-50 proposition now.
Do you think that today's positive mood could help build a dialogue, perhaps between Iraq and Kuwait?
We will deal with this issue at a later date, when the situation is clearer. We still have to monitor developments. The next step needs careful examination. However, I can tell you that we must exploit the current positive mood.
Secretary-General Moussa, you were personally acclaimed for mediating this deal, not just by Kofi Annan and senior Iraqi officials, but also by the Europeans and others. Do you see this helping in your aim to build a new image for the Arab League?
I believe that the work recently done has brought the Arab League to the forefront in administrating Arab affairs on the international scene. This is important for a clearer representation of Arab perspectives.
Do you think that the Arab League will now be able to play a more influential role in the Middle East peace process?
The peace process does not seem to be making any progress at present. The Arab League is not particularly interested in taking part in anything that is not genuine. The league is willing and capable of assuming an active role in a serious peace process. Since nothing serious is being done at the moment, I am convinced that the league is better off uninvolved.
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| 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 |
