THE ROVING DIPLOMAT
TRIBUTE SERIES
APRIL 2003
FACE-OFF OR STAND-DOWN?
The attention of the world is focussed on a possible US attack on Iraq
There is tension around the world as people wonder what the outcome of the ongoing duel between US President George Bush and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein will be. Bush has repeatedly threatened to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam.
In recent developments however, the latter has agreed to dismantle his weapons and destroyed four Al-Samoud 2 missiles to meet the deadline imposed by UN Inspector Dr. Hans Blix. Iraq is believed to have a stock of around 120 such missiles in bases dotted around Baghdad.
Meanwhile, UN inspectors have visited numerous sites and met Iraqi scientists. The Iraqi government has announced that the timetable and action plan for the destruction of missiles has been agreed upon. It’s clear that despite Saddam’s earlier reluctance and defiance, he has agreed to undertake a disarmament programme presumably because of US threats.
However, the crucial factor is the attitude of the US to this apparent change of heart by Saddam. Initially, the United States dismissed the Iraqi offer to dismantle missiles as “propaganda wrapped in a lie.” British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has been a firm ally of Bush in his desire to invade Iraq, also shares this view.
Blair has faced political disaster in taking this stand as his own party has openly protested against him. The US’ desire to invade Iraq is reflected in the readiness of its armed forces, which have assembled in the vicinity of Iraq – they amount to around 200,000 personnel with naval and air support.
With such preparations, Bush faces the prospect of a loss of prestige in case he decides to call off the invasion. But the plan itself faces serious obstacles such as its estimated operational cost of US$ 60-85 billion. The operation is likely to last six months and afterwards, it may be necessary to install a US occupying force in Iraq.
The issue is that Bush will be obliged to seek these funds from Congress but whether the latter would be agreeable is the question. Some Congressmen have described it as a “staggering cost” at a time when the US is facing a budget deficit.
Apart from the cost and implications of a military operation, a more important consideration is the reaction of the rest of the world. Up to now, many countries have been very critical and oppose a US invasion. France, Germany, Russia and the EU have openly expressed their disapproval.
Japan has reservations and Turkey, which is a NATO ally, has expressed reluctance. The Arab countries held a summit on this subject and have unanimously opposed the proposed invasion.
The only apparent exception is the UAE, which suggests that as an alternative to an invasion, Saddam should be offered exile. Saudi Arabia’s assistance, which is essential in the event of an invasion, has been somewhat noncommittal.
Overall, much of the world – especially Europe, the Middle East and Africa – has been categorical in condemning a possible US attack.
Another factor that affects the question of invasion is the attitude of the UN Security Council. The issue of action against Iraq over its possession of nuclear weapons rests with the Security Council and the recent resolution categorically prohibits the possession of such arms by Iraq. In fact, it requests Bagdad to disarm.
The subject is up for debate by the members who had been awaiting a report from the UN inspectors. Initially, it seemed that this report was unfavourable; but in the light of Saddam’s disarmament programme, one can’t be certain of what the council may decide.
A number of Security Council member nations have announced their intention to veto any decision to invade Iraq. It’s inconceivable that a country would resort to war under these circumstances when considering the colossal loss of lives and destruction it would cause.
The belief that this will be a short, sharp operation – one which will be concluded in a week – could be an oversimplification considering the devastation it will cause as well as the hatred it could arouse.
A notable event that took place in Asia recently was the summit meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement in Kuala Lumpur. This was the 13th such gathering and it was attended by representatives of over 60 countries.
This energised participation is an improvement since the movement had been showing signs of languishing. It was rescued in 1998 under the leadership of South African leaders Nelson Mandela and Thomas Mbeki at the Durban Summit, which opened up new goals through a focus on economic development of member countries.
