An alternative approach to WMD
Mohamed Sid-Ahmed asks whether the elimination of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) cannot be handled otherwise
Colin Powell's planned visit to the Middle East in a few days marks a new stage in America's policies towards the region following the Iraq war. It is a stage in which attention will be refocussed on the Palestinian problem, which has been ignored for a full year. But it is also a stage in which the problem will be addressed in the light of America's victorious takeover of Iraq and the new balance of power this has imposed on the region.
The secretary of state is particularly interested in the Syrian leg of his trip, where he will engage in what he calls a "very vigorous diplomatic exchange" with leaders in Damascus over the accusations levelled against Syria by the US administration. In the last few weeks, Washington has accused Damascus of giving safe haven to fleeing Iraqi officials, of allowing Syrian fighters into Iraq, of smuggling oil from Iraq in violation of UN sanctions, of backing terrorism, of producing and testing chemical nerve agents for use as weapons of mass destruction (last week, Donald Rumsfeld accused Syria of carrying out chemical- weapons tests in the last 15 months), of trying to recruit Iraqi scientists who have fled the country and have them participate in its chemical and bacteriological weapons programmes, of supporting Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine, as well as of harbouring leaders of Palestinian organisations whose names are on Israel's terror lists. These accusations are eerily reminiscent of those addressed to Iraq in the period that preceded America's military onslaught against it.
The drumbeat of accusations against Syria seems to be part of a plan by Washington to merge the two Middle East conflicts, the Iraqi and the Palestinian, into one. In a recent interview with the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, Sharon said that ideal conditions for the resumption of negotiations with the Palestinians were now in place, thanks to the defeat inflicted on the Iraqi regime by the coalition forces, and that as soon as the new Palestinian Authority is established and Abu- Mazen replaces Arafat as the effective Palestinian leader he was ready to engage in talks with the Palestinians. In the eyes of Sharon, the defeat is a more accurate reflection of the real balance of power between the protagonists than what was believed to be the case before the war.
In the interview, Sharon laments the fact that Israel has not achieved what he describes as an "ideal peace" with any of its neighbours. Citing Egypt as an example, he notes that peace between Egypt and Israel remains a "cold" peace, marked by an element of compulsion. The clear implication here is that peace as it is now applied lacks the elements which can guarantee its stability and sustainability. The peace agreements concluded so far, even with Egypt, do not meet the basic requirements for a lasting peace; in other words, they are no guarantee that the conflict is over, or on its way to being over. It is, in fact, an admission that the obstacles standing in the way of genuine peace are not confined to those which emerged in the Camp David II talks between Arafat and Barak on the Palestinian issue, but also extend to those which were not smoothed out in Camp David I between Sadat and Begin over Egypt's restitution of Sinai.
Actually, merging the two conflicts into one means taking the defeat in the Iraqi conflict as a frame of reference for a solution of the Palestinian conflict. This is a clear case of distorted logic: the approach to the Palestinian conflict is based on the proposition that all conflicts can -- and should -- be resolved by peaceful means, while the approach to the Iraqi conflict proceeded from the diametrically opposed assumption that it could not be resolved through a peace process but only through war, and a preemptive, anticipatory war at that. How can these two opposite logics be reconciled?
It is reasonable to believe that the issue of Iraq will be used to cope with the most intractable aspects of the Palestinian problem, such as Sharon's categorical refusal to implement the UN resolution recognising the Palestinian right of return. As he mentioned in his interview, Sharon refuses any constraint on Israel's sovereignty, even if required by a UN resolution and even if the number of people who will actually exercise their right of return is limited and only symbolic. It is well within the realm of that these Palestinians be dispatched to Iraq instead, and reducing the Palestinian population in the Occupied Territories by shipping them off to special enclaves in Iraq.
Denying that it is developing weapons of mass destruction, Syria has responded aggressively to the American accusations. Foreign Minister Farouk Al-Shara said his country would not allow UN weapons inspectors in, and called for a ban on weapons of mass destruction for all countries in the Middle East, including Israel. Not many non-Arab, non-Islamic states were willing to bring up the issue of Israel's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Many are persuaded by Sharon's argument that, because Israel has failed to convince the Arab and Islamic states of its right to exist, it is entitled to retain weapons of mass destruction, albeit secretly, for purposes of self-defence. But this entails perceiving Israel as somehow lying outside the sphere of international legitimacy, and confirms the fact that double standards are actually being applied. The war on Iraq was justified as necessary to dismantle Iraq's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Today Syria is being accused of harbouring a similar arsenal, stoking fears of a new military offensive in the region. Meanwhile, Israel's brazen development of an arsenal of nuclear warheads, said to number over two hundred, is unchallenged.
Such anomalies are numerous. On 16 April, President Bush urged the United Nations to lift the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq since its invasion of Kuwait 13 years ago to enable Iraq to sell its oil on the open market and contribute towards the costs of reconstruction. However, calling on Security Council members, the majority of whom opposed the war on Iraq, to lift the sanctions would require them to give indirect approval of the war, or at least of its outcome. This they are not prepared to do unless and until evidence of a smoking gun is found. Moreover, it is unlikely that they would want to see a war-ravaged Iraq assume the financial burden of the reconstruction effort.
Since its failure to obtain a Security Council resolution conferring legitimacy on the war it launched against Iraq, Washington is making every effort to prevent a return of the Iraqi file to the Security Council. Washington sees its return to the Security Council as a concession offered with no counterpart, at a time other Security Council members, led by France, Russia and Germany, are in a position to benefit from the Syrian proposal to eliminate all weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East -- including Israel's.
The Bush administration avenged the 11 September attacks first by launching an all- out assault on international terrorism (represented at the time by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden's Al- Qa'eda organisation), and later with its war on Iraq, under the pretext that Saddam Hussein's secret arsenal of weapons of mass destruction could eventually be passed over to terrorist networks. But by linking terrorism to weapons of mass destruction, the Bush administration has inadvertently opened a file it has always been keen to keep closed, namely, Israel's secret arsenal of nuclear (and other) weapons of mass destruction. Western states, which for so long turned a blind eye to Israel's secret membership of the nuclear club, will find it difficult to dismiss the issue now that Syria has taken it to the Security Council, especially at a time the United States cannot avoid dealing with the Council as the only forum where the issue of Palestine, if not of Iraq, is to be settled.
For many years, President Mubarak has called for a Middle East totally devoid of weapons of mass destruction. The time has now come to consolidate the Syrian proposal by combining it with the Egyptian proposal.
