As war is being decided
What lies behind President Bush's saying "the game is over", asks Mohamed Sid-Ahmed
Tomorrow Hans Blix will present the report of the UN inspectors to the Security Council, ending what was probably the most critical week in the diplomatic efforts preceding Washington's decision to launch its long expected war on Iraq. The report is expected to clarify whether there is still an opportunity to achieve progress, not only on issues of procedure, but also of substance, which would make it possible to overcome the crisis within days or weeks, not months.
As many signals now confirm, the issue is no longer whether war will be launched or not, but what will happen once the decision to go to war is actually issued. Bush has declared the game over and urged his hesitant allies to join the enterprise of disarming Iraq.
But the American president's U-turn on the question of a second Security Council resolution allowing the use of military force against Iraq, a move he now "welcomes" and "supports", is an implicit admission that the intelligence data advanced by Colin Powell to the Security Council is not conclusive. Meanwhile, war preparations continue apace. The number of US troops already in the region is now close to 200,000 and the process of mobilisation continues. On the domestic front, the US alert system was raised from "elevated risk" to "high risk" in response to "specific intelligence" of an increased risk of terrorist attacks during the period of the Hajj. One American official has described the present situation as reminiscent of the period immediately preceding the 11 September attacks.
Until recently, the various UN agencies that are required to deal with the humanitarian problems arising in the aftermath of military confrontations were strangely silent about the fallout from the Iraq war. The fact that they are now breaking their silence suggests that the war is imminent. According to the UN high commissioner for refugees, the number of refugees expected to flee from Iraq when the fighting starts is estimated at half a million to six hundred thousand, half of them Shi'ites from southern Iraq taking shelter in Iran. Many would be Kurds from northern Iraq taking shelter in Turkey, while the Sunnis, especially those loyal to Saddam, would head for Syria and Jordan. Saudi Arabia would not want to play host to Iraqi refugees but would be ready to finance their accommodation elsewhere.
Red Cross personnel are undergoing training in survival and evacuation techniques following exposure to bacteriological or chemical weapons. Then there are the problems of food. The UN food for oil resolution guarantees the feeding of 60 per cent of the population of Iraq: 15 out of 25 million. Enough food for six million Iraqi refugees is now being stocked in Iran, Jordan and Kuwait, and negotiations are underway to widen the scope of the operation to include Syria and Turkey. Switzerland is holding a conference in a couple of days which will include Iraq, the US, the UN, the Red Cross and countries bordering Iraq to study the humanitarian problems the war is bound to create.
In the view of certain analysts Colin Powell presented "strong and persuasive evidence" of alleged Iraqi violations that is, however, insufficient to convince sceptics of military action that war is the only available option. His presentation has been described as producing considerable smoke but no smoking gun -- in other words, there is nothing in the intelligence data he laid out which makes the case for what is certain to be a tremendously destructive war compelling in the immediate future.
The US secretary of state warned that the UN is in danger of losing all credibility if it allows Iraq to challenge its will without retaliating immediately. But France responded by insisting that the inspectors have not yet finished their work and that their number could be substantially increased if necessary. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin added that what is now to be done is to give the inspectors more time and keep the use of force as the last resort.
France does not oppose the American viewpoint in absolute terms, but objects to what it sees as an unjustified rush to adopt the war option. The French position is supported by many parties. Russian Foreign Minister Ygor Ivanov insists on the need to give the inspectors more time to implement Resolution 1441 and has underlined that only they are qualified to determine whether Iraq is cooperating with the UN or not. UN Secretary- General Kofi Annan declared that the international community has sent a strong message to Baghdad and that the latter would do well to reflect over its significance.
Press coverage of Powell's speech to the Security Council has been exhaustive. Britain's Guardian wrote that Powell had raised the banner of war, but the world remains divided. And while the Financial Times praised his performance, it made it clear that he had not presented any conclusive arguments, comparing them unfavourably to those raised by the American delegation to the Security Council during the 1962 crisis over the Soviet missiles in Cuba. The Financial Times added that Powell had been wise not to concentrate on the Iraqi regime's alleged links with Al-Qa'eda, thus implicitly admitting that evidence on this issue was weak. Writing in the Independent, Robert Fisk wondered why the Americans had not presented the evidence they had to the UN inspectors months ago, in accordance with Resolution 1441 which stipulates that Hans Blix was to be provided with whatever information had been gathered as soon as possible.
Syria, the only Arab member of the Security Council, asked why Iraq was being threatened with war at a time it was not occupying the territory of any other state, while Israel, which continues to occupy territories of other countries in open defiance of UN resolutions is not being called to task. The Syrian delegate to the Security Council declared that the UN inspectors alone are qualified to assess whether Iraq is in possession of weapons of mass destruction and insisted that the UN Charter is a frame of reference which can under no circumstance be ignored. And Iranian Foreign Minister, Kamal Kherazi, warned against any mistake in dealing with the Iraqi problems, which could eventually lead to a clash of civilisations and religions. In Turkey, where public opinion is strongly opposed to a military attack on Iraq, prime minister Abdullah Gul has declared that his country has no choice but to support the US if war occurs. Turkey might not be the only Middle Eastern country with enough weight to affect the course of events which believes its national interest requires it to toe the American line.
It is not surprising that a country like North Korea should exploit the Iraqi crisis to embarrass Washington and expose it as a party with double standards. Washington reacted to North Korea's threat to launch a preemptive strike against the US if the latter sent extra troops to the Far East by asserting that its military reinforcements prove that it has no intention of allowing its war against Iraq to distract it from its conflict with North Korea over the latter's nuclear programme. Pyongyang responded that its government was becoming increasingly worried by signs that Washington is planning to send more aircraft carriers and troops to the Korean peninsula, and that in such case Pyongyang will not hesitate to strike first if necessary. It is to be remembered that North Korea has an army of approximately one million men while the American military stationed in South Korea do not exceed 37000. Pyongyang declared that it has reactivated its nuclear facilities, but added that they would be used, at least at the present stage, only to produce electricity.
Some time after Powell's presentation to the Security Council, the US issued a statement acknowledging that overthrowing Saddam could restructure the Middle East in a way that could well serve US interests, especially if Washington succeeds, after finishing with Iraq, to reactivate the Middle East peace process. Does this mean that Washington believes it stands a better chance of achieving progress in the peace process in a post-Iraqi war era, when the Arab parties are weaker and their spirit of resistance crushed, providing an ideal environment in which Israel's interests can be better served and its demands more flagrantly met?
