Courting self-destruction?
Baghdad can still act to defuse the rush to war,
writes Ibrahim Nafie of Egypt's Al-Ahram
weekly.ahram.org.eg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 19
My recent visit to Washington reinforced my impression that the US has already made up its mind to go to war. With the massive build-up on the ground it has stepped up the drive to secure a legal umbrella for any strike, which explains Washington's growing insistence on the validity of the "evidence" that Iraq is in material breach of UN resolutions. The onset of war could therefore be a matter of weeks, if not days, away.
Iraq, meanwhile, persists in that brand of provocative bravado that appears expressly designed to court the spectre of war, as though it is bent on self-destruction and on bringing the rest of the region down with it. It remains determined to lash out against those Arab and international powers that are scrambling to make last ditch efforts to spare the Iraqi people from further misery and destruction brought on by the impetuosity of rulers in Baghdad who excel in their inability to comprehend the reality that is staring them in the face. This reality is that the wheels of war are in motion and they will be difficult to stop, though perhaps not impossible.
It is up to Iraq to take an initiative commensurate with the perils it faces. The only feasible alternative it has at this juncture is to make up its mind to comply fully and openly with all the provisions of UN Security Council resolutions and the demands of the international arms inspections teams. Until now Iraq has failed to supply information sufficient to convince the inspection teams that it no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction. This has lent credence to US Secretary of State Colin Powell's contention, in his recent report to the UN, that such weapons still exist and are hidden in various parts of Iraq. As a result many regional and international parties have begun to voice grave concerns: Will Iraq use those weapons against US forces and its neighbours? If Iraq resorts to chemical or biological weapons, will the US respond in kind?
If the answers to such compelling questions remain pending, what is certain is that Iraq's mismanagement of the weapons issue will be the most immediate and decisive cause of war.
Military experts predict that the forthcoming war will be fought much differently than that securing the liberation of Kuwait. While aerial bombardment of Iraq in 1991 lasted 45 days, in this war it is expected to last no more than four. Not only has the missilery that will be brought to bear been tried and tested, which was not the case 12 years ago, 70 per cent of the missiles will be of the "smart bomb" variety. According to available information 150 warplanes will be involved in the aerial campaign.
Current troop deployments indicate that Iraq will be invaded from three directions. Of the 130,000 troops stationed in Turkey, it is anticipated that up to 45,000 will enter Iraq with the remainder providing logistical support. In Kuwait and Jordan, the other two points of entry, there are currently 45,000 and 12,000 troops, respectively.
US strategic planners do not foresee an invasion of Iraqi cities, believing that Saddam Hussein and members of his regime will ensconce themselves in secure underground bunkers. Plans, therefore, call for a tight double cordon around Baghdad to be kept in place until the regime collapses or controls no more than the tunnels in which the elite are hiding. That the regime is already shaky is suggested by reports of disarray and rumours of disloyalty within the ranks of its upper echelons. Indeed, it has been suggested that the Iraqi minister of defence is under house, only toted out to attend meetings in which his presence is needed for the cameras.
Evidently, too, the US has made provisions for some possible side effects of a war. Saudi Arabia recently raised its daily production of oil by a million and a half barrels to 9.5 million. It has further declared its willingness to raise its production ceiling to 11 million barrels a day in the event that Saddam orders the destruction of Iraqi oil wells. Such an eventuality, however, may be unlikely, as US plans have anticipated the possible sabotage of Iraq's oil resources and it is, therefore, expected that, before the commencement of hostilities, special forces will move in to cordon off oil wells and electrical power stations. Indeed, such a manoeuvre may well be the opening shot in any war against Iraq.
Meanwhile, the US has been busy shoring up support for a UN Security Council resolution sanctioning a military offensive against Iraq. Already it appears that support may be forthcoming from Russia. Officials in Moscow are bewildered by the paucity of information Iraq supplied in its report to the UN at a time when Baghdad was fully aware that the US would take this to constitute a material breach of Resolution 1441. In addition the fact that the US helped obtain the agreement of countries in central Asia to stop lending assistance to Chechnya should go a long way towards swaying Russia, should a proposed resolution come to a vote in the Security Council. Similar cost-benefit considerations apply to France. In an interview with Al-Ahram on Monday US Ambassador Edward Walker felt confident that "France's and Russia's interests in Iraq after Saddam will draw them to the alliance." Evidently Washington anticipates no objections from China, the fifth Security Council member with the right to veto.
Simultaneously, Washington is addressing Arab and international concerns over the fate of the Iraqi people, who have no responsibility for bringing their country to its current brink of disaster, yet who stand to suffer the most from an attack while their leaders remain safe in their heavily fortified underground bunkers. Washington has announced that it has made provisions to ship huge amounts of humanitarian aid to the people of every Iraqi city US forces enter.
Still, the possibility of a peaceful solution has not evaporated entirely. Egypt, along with other major Arab and international powers, continue their efforts to persuade the US to give diplomacy its fullest scope. As the UN secretary-general stressed on Saturday, "I believe we must avail ourselves of all possible peaceful avenues before resorting to force."
"If we succeed in obtaining Iraq's full cooperation in eliminating its weapons through effective and reliable inspection procedures, the gain will be great," he said.
One can only hope that the Iraqi regime heeds this message and for once abandons its customary arrogance, ignorance and recklessness, that dangerous brew that has propelled Iraq and the region from one catastrophe to the next. As developments unfold over the coming days, the Arabs must adopt a clear and unequivocal position on several principles. Firstly, there can be no tampering with the territorial integrity of Iraq. Secondly, any military operation must be sanctioned by a new UN Security Council resolution, which gives a sufficient grace period to enable Arab and international powers to persuade Iraq to cooperate fully with the UN. In this regard, the Arabs should begin preparations for creating a "last chance" delegation to send to Baghdad. Thirdly, all possible measures should be taken to safeguard the Iraqi infrastructure so that conditions for the people do not deteriorate any further than they have under Saddam's rule. We should also insist on the need to safeguard government institutions and contemplate demanding a new UN resolution calling for a general amnesty for members of the Iraqi regime.
If Arab efforts to forestall war fail we must insist that any new resolution sanctioning military action against Iraq clearly stipulate that its remit is solely to eliminate Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and not to pave the way for a US occupation. There must be no repeat of Afghanistan. Rather, any post- war interim government must be supervised by an international body for a period of no more than six months, after which authority will be restored to the Iraqi people.
Finally, the Arabs must act quickly and decisively towards the resumption of the Arab-Israeli peace process and the US must begin to act on its pledge to apply its roadmap for the creation of an independent Palestinian state by 2005. In addition, we must campaign more intensively for the elimination of Israel's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction as part of a comprehensive plan to transform the Middle East into a region free of such weapons.
The price of war is horrendous and it is paid by all. But Saddam does have the power to keep it at bay. He can stop toying with the fate of the Iraqi people, cooperate fully with the UN and give specific answers to questions concerning the whereabouts of the chemical and biological weapons Washington knows are in Baghdad's possession. The final decision rests with him. |
