Issue No. 607
Opinion
Previous issue
Site map
|
|
10 - 16 October 2002 Issue No. 607 Opinion |
Current issue Previous issue Site map | |
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Recommend this page | ||
The diplomatic way
War is not inevitable, argues Ibrahim Nafie
As expected, President Bush's address to the nation from Cincinnati last Tuesday focused primarily on Iraq. The speech would be the US's "final position" on this issue, some analysts predicted.
Bush's remarks reflect the controversy taking place in the Arab world and in the UN over military action against Iraq. Opponents hold that it is still possible to resolve Iraq's problem with the UN through diplomatic channels and that so long as these are given a chance it will be possible to avert the prospect of war, enormous loss of life and property and further destablisation of the Middle East.
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein must disarm himself or we will do it for him, Bush warned. President Bush alluded to British- American intelligence reports indicating that Iraq continued to produce arms, had resumed its nuclear programme and possessed other types of weapons of mass destruction. He also charged that Saddam Hussein harboured terrorists and had alliances with terrorist networks.
Nevertheless, Bush also gave assurances that Washington would seek an umbrella of international legitimacy before undertaking military action. He thus called upon the Security Council to adopt "a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements". Among these requirements was that "the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under UN supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction."
He then proceeded to delineate US demands in this regard. Iraq must grant UN weapons inspectors full and unrestricted freedom in their work. "Inspectors must have access to any site, at any time without preclearance, without delay, without exceptions," he said. In addition to the inspectors, Bush insisted upon unimpeded access to Iraqi witnesses to arms production and stores. "To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country. And these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them, so they are all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder."
Pressing home the urgency of the need for action against Iraq, he cautioned, "While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place... By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique."
Following his speech, the White House distributed satellite photographs of Iraqi sites said to contain biological and chemical weapons plants. Simultaneously, US Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill announced that the US would be capable of footing the costs of a military operation against Iraq, adding that "the importance of war for the sake of freedom outweighs all fears over costs."
Clearly, Bush's speech was timed to accomplish several aims at once. Above all, he wanted to prepare US public opinion for the eventuality of a war that could entail high material and human costs. For this reason, he was keen to stress the unique and multiple threat that the Iraqi regime, by virtue of its diabolic nature -- from the US perspective -- and its possession of weapons of mass destruction, posed to international peace and security.
However, I continue to maintain that war is not inevitable. Iraq has declared that it agreed to the unconditional return of UN inspectors and that it would accord them unrestricted access to suspected weapons sites. The Iraqi position thus makes it possible to handle the issue of weapons of mass destruction through the UN.
Secondly, although Washington regards Iraq as an unparalleled peril, this opinion is not necessarily shared in the Arab world or by other international powers. There is, in fact, in the Middle East a threat to international peace and security many times graver than that posed by Iraq: the Israeli occupation of Arab territory and the murder and destruction wrought by the occupation forces against the Palestinian people. Testimony to this threat resides in the countless UN resolutions on the Middle East conflict calling for the withdrawal of Israeli forces, an end to its violations of Palestinian rights and the establishment of a Palestinian state. Yet, Washington continues to portray the atrocities committed by the occupation as a form of self-defence and the actions undertaken by the Palestinians in the context of their internationally sanctioned right to resist occupation as terrorism. While Washington forges ahead with its drive to compel Iraq to submit to the demands of international legitimacy, exercising towards this end a rather arbitrary interpretation of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, it has taken no action of note against Israel's persistent refusal to comply with the many international resolutions issued against it. Suffice it to say that were it not for Washington's indulgence, Sharon would have been unable to wriggle out of the resolution for a fact-finding committee on the massacres Israeli forces perpetrated in Jenin and Nablus.
On the other hand, that Bush acknowledged the need for a new Security Council resolution is testimony to the success major Arab and international powers had in persuading Washington of the need to operate in accordance with legitimate channels. Only recently, the US administration was acting as though recourse to the Security Council was superfluous, that it already had sufficient mandate under previous resolutions to act as it saw fit against Iraq. And, to augment the pressure on the Arab and international powers that opposed a strike against Iraq without a new Security Council resolution, the Bush administration had further declared that it did not need a new mandate from Congress.
However, the return of the Iraqi issue to the attention of the Security Council raises another crucial issue. Washington and London are pressing for a blanket resolution on Iraq that permits punitive action in the event that Iraq fails to comply with its demands without need for recourse to the Security Council again. Arab governments, especially Egypt and Saudi Arabia, along with certain international powers, notably the three other permanent members of the Security Council -- France, China and Russia -- advocate a two-phased process. They hold that any new resolution on Iraq should focus exclusively on the demands upon Iraq and then, in the event that Iraq fails to comply or otherwise acts illegally, the Security Council would be prevailed upon to issue a resolution sanctioning the international community to undertake punitive military action.
This debate over the nature of a new Security Council resolution about Iraq reflects the disparities between the US and the international agenda for Iraq. From Washington's perspective, as Bush made clear in his recent speech, the central problem resides in the nature of the Iraqi regime, which must be toppled in order to bring in a new government more amenable to Washington's way of thinking on Iraq and on Israel. Such considerations and the haste with which Washington would like to act on them have little bearing on the pertinent issues of international legitimacy with respect to Iraq. The international community, on the other hand, is concerned with the resumption of the work of the inspection team, the accomplishment of which can be pursued through the direct relationship between the inspection committees and the Iraqi government. Adding force to this position are the reports from Vienna that the meetings between Hans Blix and the Iraqi delegation have made significant progress and that Iraq had demonstrated an unanticipated willingness to respond to the demands of international parties.
Against this background, I believe that the US administration has attempted to provoke Iraq into acting in a manner that would erode international sympathy for it and weaken the positions of the Arab and international powers advocating a two- tiered process in the Security Council. Fortunately, Iraq has, perhaps for the first time, demonstrated an acute sensitivity to the delicacy of the situation and has, therefore, continued to display considerable flexibility and responsibility in the face of US-British ploys. Baghdad must sustain this attitude if it is to assist Arab and international powers opposed to the US course of action.
Recent developments have made it apparent that those opposed to Washington's plans are in a much stronger position. Whereas Baghdad had declared that it would not accept a new Security Council resolution, it recently announced that it would abide by a forthcoming resolution, on the presumption that this resolution would focus on conditions and not include a mandate for military action. Whereas Washington had spurned the idea of seeking a new Security Council resolution before taking military action, Bush's recent speeches have made it clear that Washington has backed away from this position. More importantly, there are indications of a powerful and widespread resistance in international opinion to the prospect of war on Iraq. Such opposition has even manifested itself in the US, where some 25 demonstrations took place in various parts of the country to protest against US policy towards Iraq.
By cooperating effectively with the UN, Iraq has been able to strengthen the hand of the Arab and international powers that are working to bring an end to the sanctions imposed on the Iraqi people. I have had the opportunity to see this result first hand during my visit last week to the Gulf. It is sufficient, here, to cite the following comments from my interview with United Arab Emirates President Shiekh Zayed Bin Sultan: "An assault against Iraq will spread instability in this oil-rich region," he said, adding, "Diplomatic efforts must be given a chance."
Sheikh Zayed's opinion is shared throughout the Arab world and, I believe, by other international powers apart from Washington and London. Security and stability in a region rife with tensions and conflict must be sought through diplomatic channels whenever the opportunity presents itself.
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| 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 |
