Russia's Real Iraq Quandary
By Vladimir Frolov
themoscowtimes.com
It is good that the Bush administration has finally decided to take the United Nations route in dealing with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Most members of the international community want the UN Security Council to remain the locus of decision-making on matters of war and peace. Completely sidelining the UN, as some in the United States have been suggesting, would have dealt a crippling blow to the international system as we know it.
It is even better that Washington has decided to challenge the UN to finally enforce its own resolutions on Iraq. A multilateral world body that is incapable of implementing its own resolutions could be just as harmful to international stability as U.S. unilateralism.
There are, however, a few hard questions that need to be asked before we embrace Washington's newfound fondness for UN multilateralism. The Bush administration has been deliberately vague on a number of critically important points, and this ambiguity undermines the United States' argument both within the UN Security Council and in the world at large.
To begin with, enforcement of UN resolutions -- at least in theory -- should not be selective. There are a number of countries in the world that have been living quite comfortably for decades in gross violation of various UN resolutions. India and Israel come to mind.
If Iraq is a special case, the argument for this should be made more forcefully. Baghdad's proven connection to al-Qaida might do the trick. However, Washington has only just begun to make such a claim and is doing it rather clumsily in the form of cabinet-level innuendo. The "Iraq Brief" that the U.S. government presented to the UN a few weeks ago breaks little new ground.
The United States should think twice before promoting the selective application of international justice as an acceptable operational procedure for running the modern world.
Then there is this pesky issue of living with the possible success of UN efforts in Iraq. If the real issue is Iraq's disarmament and implementation of all relevant UN resolutions, then full compliance by Baghdad should be an internationally acceptable outcome, precluding the need for military action. For the UN route to work, Saddam should be able to save his neck by getting rid of his weapons of mass destruction. Few in Washington believe Saddam will finally come clean, but such an outcome is at least conceivable, and we should be prepared to deal with it.
At this point, it is hard to imagine that the Bush administration, having gone to all this trouble, will be able to accept a disarmed Iraq with Saddam still in power. Such an outcome might not be politically sustainable in the United States. Can anyone honestly see Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and chief White House strategist Karl Rove telling the president that the United States has no international mandate for removing Saddam by military means because the UN thinks he has fully complied with its resolutions? Even Secretary of State Colin Powell would probably pause before dispensing such politically suicidal advice. What if a renewed international presence in Iraq, backed by the credible threat of force, sparks an internal armed uprising as happened in 1991? Would it be politically acceptable in the United States to let Saddam quash the opposition as the administration of George Bush senior did 10 years ago? Not likely. The administration would be hard-pressed not to intervene militarily irrespective of whether there was a UN mandate for such an operation.
That is why Washington is not very keen on getting the inspectors back into Iraq and is so uncomfortable with the latest Iraqi offer to let the inspectors in. That is why the Bush administration has raised the bar to "Iraq's compliance with all UN resolutions," including the ones that deal with the regime's oppression of minorities and internal political opposition. The United States is not really interested in Iraq's cooperation with the UN. Disarmament is not sufficient -- it's regime change that Washington is really after.
The draft of the new U.S.-British UN resolution makes that objective almost explicit by calling for the establishment of no-drive zones on Iraq's territory, thus making disarmament subordinate to regime change in the new inspection mission's priorities. It's little wonder that the new draft resolution is being met with so much skepticism and downright suspicion even on the part of the United States' staunchest allies.
The Bush administration would be on less shaky ground if it argued straightforwardly for regime change in Iraq, rather than hiding behind the pretence of enforcing UN resolutions. Using the UN as a cover to pursue legally controversial objectives that suit the Bush administration's political purposes would severely compromise the UN and undermine its moral authority to make further decisions on the use of force. Going to the UN with one set of objectives and then substituting it for another would also do immeasurable damage to U.S. credibility in the world.
Washington needs to make clear what its final objectives are in Iraq and what kind of outcome it is prepared to accept. Ambiguity on this issue will not do anyone any favors.
For Russia, the United States' fixation with regime change in Iraq presents a major dilemma. Voting for the U.S. draft resolution with its automatic trigger for military action and a rigged setup to provoke Iraqi noncompliance is almost out of the question. However, blocking the resolution's passage would open the door to U.S. unilateral action, bypassing the UN and thus undermining this unique venue for Russia's international influence -- not to mention the possible damage to Russian economic interests in Iraq and the discomfort of a new strain in the U.S.-Russian relationship.
Fortunately, we have the French. Their proposal for two UN resolutions on Iraq, one demanding the immediate return of inspectors and a second one later authorizing the use of force -- if necessary -- is the best option to deal with the current impasse. Russia needs to rally behind the French initiative in order to escape the uncomfortable political conundrum of the Bush administration's drive to unseat Saddam Hussein, whatever it takes.
Vladimir Frolov, deputy staff director of the State Duma foreign affairs committee, contributed this comment to The Moscow Times. The views expressed are his own and do not in any way reflect the position of the committee or its members. |
