When it is too late
Watch, wait, respond: the traditional Arab approach to international events is redundant, writes Ibrahim Nafie
The feverish international shuttling over the Iraqi question points to a world more sharply divided than any time since the end of the Cold War. This polarisation is due to the adamant refusal of the US and the UK to compromise on their determination to prepare the ground for a military invasion of Iraq.
It is noteworthy that the fissure began inside NATO with France and Germany's insistence that war remain the "last option", one that should not even be considered as long as the arms inspection process continues. Too much is at risk, they stress -- the lives of Iraqi civilians, the stability and security of the Middle East and relations between East and West. Even when Russia added its voice to this camp the US and UK clung to their claim that Iraq had forfeited its final chance under Security Council Resolution 1441.
The recent reports of Chief Weapons Inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed El-Barad'ei did little to help them. El-Barad'ei's report, stressing that operations were proceeding successfully and should be allowed to continue, clearly favoured the camp opposed to war. While not quite as positive, Blix's report offered little of substance to the pro-war camp. It mentioned no major obstructions on the part of Baghdad, although it maintained that the regime should be more cooperative in providing clear answers to outstanding questions, particularly with regard to chemical and biological agents for which the US has documentation of shipment.
Nonetheless statements have continued to issue from Washington asserting the need for military action to disarm Iraq and to bring down the regime in Baghdad. Indeed a candidate for governor-general in the post-war period has already been mooted, a person said to be on friendly terms with the current Israeli prime minister. Talk in Washington has also posited a vision for the new order in Iraq, which will then be held up as a model for all other Arab nations. I believe the closing statement of the recent Arab summit, opposing both the use of force against Iraq and outside intervention in the domestic affairs of any Arab state, supplied an unequivocal response to such musings.
Washington's drive to war has met one setback after the other. An unprecedented wave of demonstrations swept cities throughout the world, voicing a global grass-roots desire to spare the Iraqi people the agonies of a war they had no hand in bringing about. The Catholic pope declared war against Iraq would be legally and morally unjustified. Within NATO France, Germany and Belgium rejected a US-sponsored proposal to provide Turkey with military assistance to defend itself against a possible Iraqi offensive in the event of a war. Non-aligned nations, the Arab League and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference all held summits that issued strong resolutions opposed to war and stressed the need to resolve the crisis peacefully. Topping all these international moves were the reports delivered by the chief weapons inspectors to the Security Council on Friday.
The international outcry has triggered powerful resistance within the heart of the pro-war camp. In the US Democratic congressmen harshly criticised the Bush administration for bringing the US to the brink of war against Iraq and for escalating tensions with North Korea. The strongest condemnation came from former US President and Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter who said that war against Iraq was morally unjustifiable.
In the UK Prime Minister Tony Blair received a lashing from members of his own government and party. Several parliamentary private secretaries have threatened to resign in protest against the prime minister's resolve to go to war in the absence of a new Security Council resolution. In addition, from within the cabinet itself, Minister of International Development Clare Short has threatened to resign, stating: "I'm afraid that I think that the whole atmosphere of the current situation is deeply reckless: reckless for the world; reckless for the undermining of the UN in this disorderly world...reckless with our government; reckless with his [Tony Blair's] own future, position and place in history."
Apparently deaf to these pleadings Britain, in coordination with the US, worked on a draft resolution to the Security Council giving Iraq until 17 March -- this Monday -- to come up with answers to dozens of questions regarding its weapons of mass destruction. Failure to comply would have been deemed a breach of Resolution 1441.
The resolution stirred the ire of those opposed to war. President Jaques Chirac was explicit. His country would veto the resolution. "A war declared without Security Council approval would be a dangerous precedent. There is no justification for a military solution against Iraq unless the international inspectors say they are no longer able to work there," he said.
Russia indicated it would follow France's lead, as did Germany, not itself a permanent member of the Security Council. And, while China has not yet declared itself openly, there is little doubt where it will stand. Subsequently, in a press conference in the Hague, the UN secretary-general echoed the prevalent mood: "If the US proceeds with military intervention outside of the framework of the Security Council this action will be inconsistent with the UN Charter."
At present the two camps are scrambling for support among the non-permanent members of the Security Council. While Paris believes it can secure the support of seven of these to block the resolution, Washington appears confident that it can obtain the nine votes needed to push it through, on the condition that none of the permanent members exercise their veto. Washington has been exerting enormous pressure on France and Russia to dissuade them from exercising this right, though it has also intimated that if the resolution receives the necessary majority it might deem a veto from France or Russia, or both, an obstruction to the process of international legitimacy.
Given how much hinges on the next Security Council session it is little wonder that France has called upon its member nations to represent themselves at the level of heads of state. German Chancellor Gerhardt Schroeder has already announced that he will be there in person.
Meanwhile US and British troop movements in the Gulf and the arrangements being concluded with regard to the Turkish front suggest that war is inevitable. It also appears that the US has modified its war plans so as to ensure a shorter campaign than originally envisioned. Ostensibly plans provide for intensive bombardment for a maximum of three days, following which Baghdad will be cordoned off, hopefully without any major military engagement on the ground.
Against this backdrop it is imperative that Arabs act now to take part in formulating the policies that will affect our region. We need clear, bold and effective initiatives if we are not to stand on the sidelines and merely adjust to and learn to live with the events others have created. The traditional Arab approach has always been to register our positions and move no further while outside powers act to promote policies that serve their own interests. This approach is wrong and has led to enormous disasters in the region.
The Arabs must now become active and innovative players in shaping developments in a manner that will ensure them minimum loss and maximum gain. The urgency of this cannot be overstated. The US has made up its mind to go to war and is currently wrapping up the process of procuring some legal cover and a semblance of international legitimacy.
To secure the people, potential and independence of Iraq it is imperative for the Iraqi leadership to place the interests of its citizens above all other considerations. I know how adverse this leadership is to the idea of stepping down and leaving Iraq safely, a proposal voiced in the Arab summit by the UAE. It has been reported that when the Russian envoy, former Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov, flew to Baghdad in February and put the idea to Saddam, Saddam brought the meeting to an abrupt end, virtually kicking out of his office the messenger bearing an initiative seeking to spare Iraqis the catastrophe that will come with the American onslaught.
That such an initiative was entertained neither at the Arab summit, nor in Egypt, does not mean that it does not merit serious thought. If it came in the form of an initiative from the Iraqi regime, which in exchange would be given international guarantees to assure it of immunity from prosecution in the future, it would offer a way out of the current predicament and spare the people of Iraq the ravages of a war the countdown to which is approaching zero.
Available information suggests that other parties are working to make such an option acceptable. Pakistan is currently engaged in consultations over a possible amendment to the proposed US-British resolution so as to offer a safe exit for the Iraqi regime and other guarantees should it step down. The inclusion of such a provision would be tantamount to a Security Council- backed blanket amnesty for the rulers of Iraq.
Once again we see other parties taking initiatives, backing their words with action. If the Arabs do not do likewise other nations' policies will be the ones that carry the day. Then it will be too late to talk about saving the people of Iraq and salvaging the future of this Arab country. It will also be too late to talk about Palestinian rights, the substance of the "roadmap" and the peace process.
