Beyond logic
The onus is on Washington to correct the mistakes that led to the Iraqi tragedy, writes Ibrahim Nafie
As Arab and international parties fought a rearguard action to secure a peaceful resolution to the Iraqi crisis, Washington told the UN secretary-general to withdraw UN officials and arms inspectors from Iraq. Although the UN was working strenuously to ensure Iraq's commitment to international resolutions Washington decided to bypass the Security Council, badmouthing in the process those nations opposed to a new resolution sanctioning war.
However grossly Iraq's mismanagement of the weapons crisis it did not merit the unjust war Washington has unleashed against it. Baghdad did not comply as fully as possible with the arms inspectors. It had left many questions unanswered with regard to chemical and biological weapons documented as being in its possession at one time or another. It failed to cooperate fully with the Arab League, especially with regard to receiving the follow-through committee created by the Arab summit. However, none of these faults justified the US and British decision to close off all diplomatic avenues and proceed directly to war without a UN mandate.
The logic behind the US-British decision is utterly dumbfounding. Because of the difficulties they knew they would encouter in securing the passage of a Security Council resolution to their liking they opted for a short cut: immediate recourse to war. On top of that, some US and British officials accused France, in particular, of obstructing diplomatic efforts by threatening to use its veto to block the resolution.
The logic, of course, is absurd. Washington and London had gone to great lengths to secure the nine votes necessary to pass the resolution. In a feverish race with France to win the votes of African members of the Security Council, in particular, they wielded untold pressures. Had they succeeded in obtaining the necessary votes they would have maintained that France, in using its veto, was obstructing the will of the majority of the international community. Then, when they realised they would lose this race they withdrew their resolution, called a halt to diplomacy and proceeded directly to go.
We should recall that Washington used its veto to block Boutros Ghali's appointment to a second term as UN secretary-general. Its veto carried the day, in spite of the opinion of all other Security Council members. This is not to mention the many times the US has wielded its veto to block resolutions condemning Israeli belligerency or even to ask Tel Aviv to respect international law.
Washington's and London's disrespect for the principles and procedures that have governed international relations since the end of World War II is unacceptable, however they might try to justify it. The alternative to the UN is the law of the jungle -- a catastrophic setback for mankind, especially after the great progress that had been made in international law.
Since coming to power the Bush administration's handling of the Iraqi crisis has been arrogant and reckless, increasingly so after 11 September. However, it was one thing to wage war on Afghanistan in direct response to terrorist attacks on New York and Washington -- a war supported by NATO members, who agreed to invoke Chapter 4 of the treaty calling for collective self-defence, and by many of its other allies. It is quite another thing to opt to use force in defiance of all restrictions under international law. Washington had never established any relationship between Iraq and Al-Qa'eda. Iraq had been cooperating positively, if not fully, with international arms inspectors, to which the reports of the chiefs of the inspection teams testify. Iraq had also issued invitations to inspectors, even CIA officers, to ascertain for themselves how the inspection process was proceeding. Whatever might be said about Iraq's failure to cooperate in certain instances it would have been possible to complete the disarmament of Iraq of weapons of mass destruction by giving the inspection teams more time.
But Bush threatened the UN on several occasions that if it did not issue the resolutions it wanted when it wanted Washington and its allies would go it alone. And so they did.
It was clear from the outset that recourse to war would have disastrous consequences for all. It was clear that aerial and missile bombardments would claim a horrendous toll of Iraqi civilian lives as well as the lives of many of the young men and women engaged in battle. The tragedy is that all that horror could have been avoided.
The US bears a large measure of responsibility for pushing matters to the brink. Bush and his cohort of hawks refused to hear the voice of reason, whether from the Arabs, Washington's NATO partners or other international powers. They had imagined that war would be a picnic -- a few days of aerial bombardment after which the Iraqi command would lose control, Iraqi regiments would surrender in droves and the Iraqi people would be showering flowers on American forces.
Not that the Iraqi regime has a great record in forestalling the looming peril. It could have done much more to obtain a higher degree of international solidarity, especially from the Arabs. However, on no account do Baghdad and Washington share the same level of responsibility, for the bottom line is that it was the latter that took the decision to go to war against the advice of its friends and allies and in total disregard of the millions of people around the world who protested the war.
Pope John Paul II summed up the situation when he spoke out against this war. The US and Britain's actions flout the UN Charter, international agreements and conventions, the right to life. That this war was unleashed by the world's sole superpower, with a vast arsenal of conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction, bodes ill for the future of mankind. More ominous are the pronouncements from Washington on the need to dismantle the UN in order to create a new international order. Take it as read that such an order would be tailored to Washington's perception of its interests and those of its closest friends, and inimical to those it has categorised as "rogue" states.
Washington's approach to the problems and crises of the world is no longer a question that just the Arabs must assess; such an assessment has become the concern of the entire international community and it will soon become the concern of American public opinion now that the body bags of their young are returning home. The American war has fueled extremism throughout the world, giving fodder to those who claim it is a religiously motivated clash of civilisations.
Washington's hawks donned rose-tinted glasses. They could only see a swift victory, a tumultuous welcome by the Iraqi people. How much greater their shock then to discover the heroic steadfastness of the Iraqi army. US planners would have been wise, at the very least, to have taken into account that in this war Iraqis are not defending Saddam but their land, people and honour.
Rather than compounding its mistakes Washington should halt its aggression against the Iraqi people. The sooner it does so the easier it will be to repair the damage done, to rehabilitate international legitimacy and restore respect to the UN. A rapid halt to the war would also put paid to the conjectures of the forces of extremism on both sides who have portrayed this war as a cultural clash in the hope of effecting a rupture between the US and the Arab world.
Washington must realise that the Arab people demand an end to the war. That Arab governments share this demand was made explicit in the statement issued by the Arab Foreign Ministers Meeting in Cairo on Monday condemning "the US-British aggression against Iraq". The statement denounced the attack as a violation of the UN Charter and the principles of international law and an act of defiance against the international community and global public opinion, and called for an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of US-British forces, which it held materially, morally and legally responsible for the attack. That this forcefully worded statement was adopted by all states, with the sole exception of Kuwait, reflects a unity of will.
It is time for the US administration to take the only correct decision at this time, which is to halt the war and reopen the avenues to diplomatic efforts to explore the many available alternatives that will satisfy the will of the international community. Every additional day in the war pushes the opportunities for a peaceful settlement further out of reach, aggravates the intensity and complexity of the conflict and broadens the gap between the US and the Arab and Islamic worlds. Washington's rush to war against Iraq has forfeited much of its stock in the Arab world. Arab people now regard the US as a belligerent power, bullying a nation and people who have suffered 13 years of sanctions on the pretext of weapons of mass destruction, while a few hundred kilometres away resides an enormous arsenal of such weapons in the possession of a nation that has persistently violated UN resolutions and continues to defy the world through its ongoing occupation of Palestinian territory and savage brutality against a people aspiring to freedom and independence.
The greatest risk the US faces from continuing this war is that the Arab peoples will grow increasingly convinced that Washington is bent on reviving Western colonialism in a new guise, and that this form of colonialism is set against Arab and Muslim peoples. The stronger that conviction grows the more difficult it will be to persuade us otherwise, no matter how much humanitarian aid it pours in and how many prosperous and democratic proxy regimes it creates. The Arab peoples constitute an ancient and proud civilisation and neither military force nor glittering promises will deflect them from defending their land and dignity.
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : 27 March - 2 April 2003 (Issue No. 631)
Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/631/op1.htm