Hot under
The United States is increasingly isolated in its hawkish stance on Iraq, but it is too late to change course, writes Ayman El-Amir*
In air travel, there is a critical midair crossing point between the airport of departure and the flight's destination, beyond which there is no option of turning back. Airline pilots call it "the point of no return". This is where the US seems to be dragging a reluctant world in the showdown with Iraq, insisting that the United Nations Security Council give it the green-light for a devastating war against that country.
US President George W Bush has prematurely declared that "the game is over" with Iraq, signalling that the point of no return has already been crossed by the US and its "coalition of the willing". Backed by Britain, the US has made up its mind and is only seeking a cover of international legitimacy in the form of a loosely-worded Security Council resolution that could be interpreted as authorising the use of force. The only serious obstacle they now face is the anticipated mission report of chief weapons' inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed El-Baradei, who visited Baghdad early this week. Their report will probably provide some positive results that would strengthen the argument for more inspections and blunt the US drive for war. That is not what the US wants.
As part of its preparations for war, the Bush administration endeavoured to produce a dramatic show in the Security Council last week. But in trying to sway a sceptical majority, Washington put forward its best man, not its best case. Secretary of State Colin Powell, a man who enjoys considerable international respect, brought forth a case that was so flimsy that several members of the council, including France, Russia, China and Germany, had no difficulty in shooting it down. The messenger was eloquent but the message was flawed.
Reaction in the council ranged from a request by Russia that the information be made available to United Nations inspectors for evaluation, to statements by China and France that the presentation provided further proof of the need to strengthen the inspection regime, not to scrap it. Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix said that Secretary Powell's presentation did not provide him with "actionable information". For one thing, the Bush administration knows that the most intriguing part of the presentation, namely the alleged communications intercepts between Iraqi field commanders, is the kind of evidence that would promptly be thrown out by any US district court as inadmissible. But the UN Security Council is a political forum, not a court of law, and Secretary Powell is an interested political operator, not an independent prosecutor. Moreover, almost everyone seemed to agree that Powell's attempt to provide evidence of linkage between Iraq and Al-Qa'eda was the weakest part of his public relations exercise in the Security Council, and was primarily intended for domestic consumption.
Much of the delicate diplomatic sparring that will follow now hinges on what the Security Council will read into the report it will receive on 14 February from the chief weapons inspectors. Initial reports from Baghdad spoke of "good progress", "cautious optimism" and a "change of heart" on the part of Iraq. But the Bush administration dismissed it all as "meaningless" and "too little, too late", treating it as an unpleasant change of wind.
Having gauged the limited penetration Powell's presentation had made in the Security Council, and acting on the advice of beleaguered British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the administration was more inclined to seek a second resolution that would come as close as possible to legitimising the use of force. It launched a campaign to persuade sceptics that France and Germany, the two leading European powers and key opponents in the Security Council to the use of force, were isolated within their own ranks. Washington touted a motley alliance of Baltic states and former east European communist countries to demonstrate that it had solid support for military action. The Bush administration also had some negative incentives to worry about, both at home and abroad. It recognised that US and international public opinion, including the Arab allies it counted on, had made their support for the use of force conditional on Security Council's authorisation. However, an informed survey of Security Council members showed that the US did not command the nine votes, or the two-third majority it needed to pass a new, tougher resolution. France and Germany, which only a week ago seemed isolated and outflanked by the US and its new war-prone allies, have now joined hands with Russia to present a more formidable front than was previously thought. Furthermore, France, Germany and Belgium are blocking US efforts to commit NATO to bolstering Turkey's defences in the event of an outbreak of hostilities. Turkey is a crucial staging ground for any US onslaught against Iraq.
How will all this play out in the Security Council? The US, it seems, has been caught off guard by what happened in Baghdad over the last few days. After his presentation only a week ago, Secretary Powell believed that he had put the council on the defensive, demonstrating that Iraq was in further material breach of resolution 1441 -- a development that warrants military action. But the upcoming chief inspectors' reports to the council will probably undercut the US momentum and weaken the case for war. The council may feel more inclined to follow the advice of "old Europe", which favours a policy of containment rather than confrontation with Iraq. This could be achieved by institutionalising a robust regime of inspection -- with no timeline.
But the US is in a confrontational mood, armed to the teeth and dangerous. And nothing is more dangerous to the world than an isolated superpower. The next few days will show if the "cool heads" French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin had called for will prevail in the council or whether the US will insist on playing the role of a lone-ranger that is determined to save the world from a danger that, according to US public opinion polls, is not even taken seriously by the US public.
* The writer is the former Al-Ahram correspondent in Washington, DC. He also served as director of United Nations Radio and Television in New York.
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : 13 - 19 February 2003 (Issue No. 625)
Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/625/sc12.htm