Al-Ahram Weekly | Opinion | A fatal duplicity

		3 - 9 October 2002 Issue No. 606 Opinion	Current issue Previous issue Site map
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875		Recommend this page

A fatal duplicity
Washington and London stand accused of hypocrisy, and everyone knows why, writes Ibrahim Nafie

A frequent complaint voiced throughout the Arab world is that major powers, especially the US and the UK, apply double standards in their handling of issues. Although these powers have taken pains to refute the accusation, events on the ground constantly reaffirm it. While these powers clamour to enforce the principles of international legitimacy and the provisions of international law with stringent rigidity against one party, they diligently overlook the same principles and provisions when it comes to another. And, should there happen to be a movement to pass a resolution against a party they favour, they will work to ensure that such a resolution is moderately worded and tailored to obviate further action in the event this party fails to comply -- by no means will Chapter 7 of the UN Charter be invoked.
Arabs who point to such discrepancies are variously told that they are being oversensitive, given to conspiracy theorising or simply disagree in their assessment of the relative urgency of the cases in question. At the same time the international powers try to assure them that after they have dealt with the country that they claim poses a grave threat to international peace and security they will redirect their focus to other issues, thereby putting paid to all allegations of double standards.
Recent developments, however, expose such assurances as a sham. Here is Israel, exercising a brutal form of colonialism and unleashing a massive offensive against an occupied people and their national authority while spurning any number of UN resolutions with impunity. There is Iraq, which has demonstrated its intention to comply with all outstanding demands stipulated under the relevant Security Council resolutions, yet the US and the UK continue to lobby intensively for the Security Council's approval to attack Iraq should they, and they alone, determine that such a strike is warranted.
It is patently obvious that the US and the UK are working together to a carefully devised plan to produce a new Security Council resolution that will allow them to press ahead with their agenda for Iraq and the region as a whole. Initially these powers acted as though it was not necessary to refer to the Security Council. Indeed, the US administration also suggested that it did not need congressional approval for a renewed strike on the grounds that it already had previous mandates for this.
Such claims to pre-existing mandates collapsed, however, in the face of Arab and international protests against a strike against Iraq without recourse to the Security Council. As a result President Bush was compelled to acknowledge the need for an international umbrella, which was an essential part of the substance of the speech he delivered to the UN General Assembly on 12 September. In the same speech Bush delineated the general outlines of the new resolution he wanted from the Security Council. Any resolution, he said, must make it explicit that Baghdad must comply, without delay and unconditionally, to all demands regarding the return of the UN weapons inspection team to Iraq and that any grace period granted to Baghdad in this regard would be measured in days not months.
Although the international powers that opposed a strike against Iraq were relieved to see the Iraqi file back in the hands of the Security Council, rendering a negotiated solution possible, the US and the UK continued to press for military action. Indeed, so closely have Washington and London been working together towards this end that one gained the impression that the British government had become another US government agency. British intelligence compiled an enormous file containing "proof" of Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction, on which basis Prime Minister Tony Blair reiterated the allegations against Iraq so as to make it appear as though the US was not the only accusing party. It was further agreed between the two governments that the UK would submit the draft resolution to the Security Council, a resolution tailor- made to US-UK specifications without heeding the objections of the other permanent members of the Security Council. Then British diplomacy moved into action, in full coordination with its US counterpart, to win those members over to the US-UK viewpoint in the hope of shoring up unanimity over the proposed US-UK formula for a resolution.
In the midst of these machinations it has come to light that the so-called file on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction contains no truly corroborative evidence. Yet, even supposing there were some vague grounds to the allegations levelled against Baghdad, the UN inspection team is still the only logical authority to ascertain their veracity now that Iraq has agreed to the unconditional return of this team and to accord it full freedom in the pursuit of its mission. In all events, it was not just those international and Arab powers opposed to a strike against Iraq that questioned the value of the British file. It is sufficient here to cite Scott Ritter, former head of the international weapons inspection team, who remarked: "The arguments cited in the file for waging war against Iraq are founded upon fear and ignorance. The British prime minister's file against the Iraqi president does not justify the shedding of a single drop of American, British or Iraqi blood."
Regardless of such opinions the UK and US stepped up their drive to secure the support of other permanent Security Council members. In his recent visit to China British envoy William Irman had a specific mission: "to persuade Chinese officials to agree to the new resolution", which will entitle Washington and London to strike Iraq without having to refer to the Security Council again. US and British envoys were sent to Paris and Moscow on the same mission. The draft resolution itself betrays an unprecedented degree of harshness towards a fellow UN member. It gives Iraq only seven days following adoption to assent to the measures it calls for and to furnish all available information on its weapons programmes. Then Iraq has no more than a month to hand over all the documentation necessary to support the information it provided and to open all existing sites and facilities to UN weapons inspectors.
So far it is still unclear what position other permanent members of the Security Council will take. All of them have enormous interests in Iraq and in the stability of the region as a whole. Russia, for example, is currently implementing projects in Iraq worth $2 billion and has recently signed another $40 billion contract to be implemented over 10 years. In addition, Iraq has a cumulative debt to Russia of some $8 billion. Nevertheless, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer announced on Tuesday that the talks that took place in Paris recently between US Assistant Secretary of State for Political Affairs Mark Grossman and his counterpart from Moscow were "constructive and useful". Does this indicate that Moscow and Washington reached some kind of agreement or was this announcement merely part of the psychological warfare being waged against Baghdad?
A more ominous development on this front was the recent visit by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to Moscow, the purpose of which, according to Israeli officials, was to "persuade Russian President Vladimir Putin to change his position on the strike against Iraq". One obvious objective Tel Aviv had in this visit was to portray itself as Washington's vigilant ally, capable of being as instrumental as the UK in advancing US diplomatic ends.
As the foregoing diplomatic manoeuvres were unfolding, UN officials responsible for arranging the return of the weapons inspection team to Iraq were engaged in talks with the Iraqi delegation in Vienna. Representing the UN were the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed El-Baradei and Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix, both of whom have announced that the talks have made tangible progress. In addition, Blix stated that he expects that when his team returns to Iraq it will be granted unlimited freedom of movement.
In spite of these practical indications of Iraq's full cooperation with the UN, the US and the UK are still forging ahead with their drive to obtain a new Security Council resolution that will grant them the remit to strike Iraq at any time without having to refer again to the Council. Indeed, it is precisely on this question that they differ with the other three permanent members of the Security Council. France, for example, insists that any new resolution must focus exclusively on the demands upon Iraq, and that recourse to military action should require a second resolution in the event of Iraq's non-compliance. So far this difference remains unresolved, but US sources have indicated that if France remains adamant in its position Washington might accept the French formula.
Against the background of these international manoeuvres the Arab world is gripped by the anxiety that any military operation against Iraq will have dangerous repercussions throughout the region. Arab governments, therefore, have stepped up their diplomatic drive to avert this prospect. Spearheading such efforts, President Hosni Mubarak visited Saudi Arabia to discuss the Arab positions on Iraq and Palestine, then, upon his return to Cairo, received Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. In the joint statement issued following their meeting these two heads of state resolved to "strengthen the international position opposed to a military strike against Iraq". Immediately afterwards Mubarak left for Libya for talks with Muammar Gaddafi over possible ways to counter the challenges posed by the US-British campaign against Iraq.
In the Gulf countries I visited recently the sense of foreboding was palpable. The cultural, political and media leaders I met with in Bahrain, Qatar and UAE appeared haunted by unanswered questions. Above all they feel that the US and the UK are moving forward relentlessly with their plan to strike Iraq and subsequent arrangements, while the countries of the Gulf are kept in the dark over issues such as whether or not Iraq will be partitioned, the size and duration of US and British military presence in Iraq and who is to foot the bill for the military operation and reconstruction. Elsewhere in the Arab world the question looms: if the US and the UK establish the precedent in this region of overturning a government by force of arms, who will be next?
Aggravating anxieties is widespread anger at both official and grass-roots level over the discrepancy between US-UK hawkishness on Iraq and their simultaneous overindulgence with Israel. While the Security Council is being told to give Iraq grace periods measured in days and weeks, Israel has a record brimming with unimplemented resolutions, none of which are backed by the threat of recourse to armed force. Naturally, people in the Arab world cannot help but feel that when resolutions are passed against Arab parties they will be enforced to the fullest extent, but as soon any resolutions are passed against Israel they are placed in files pending and forgotten. This certainly was the fate of the UN Security Council resolution to create a fact-finding committee for Jenin and Resolution 1435 calling upon Israel to lift the blockade against Arafat and to withdraw its forces to their positions prior to 28 September 2000. Yet, while Israel continues to snub such resolutions, escalates its belligerency and drive the region to the brink of war, Washington and London would have us believe that the greatest peril resides in Iraq.

Send a letter to the Editor Recommend this page

ARCHIVES
Letter from the Editor
Editorial Board
Subscription
Advertise!

WEEKLY ONLINE: weekly.ahram.org.eg
Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time
weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg

Al-Ahram Organisation