marching in the streets isn’t going to stop this war or even delay it.
A Hail-Mary Peace Plan
Here’s a last-minute idea for how to avert war with Iraq
NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE
March 15 — I’m not a dove, but if I were, I’d be looking for a
‘Hail Mary’ pass just about now. Signing petitions and
marching in the streets isn’t going to stop this war or even
delay it. Nor will beating the United States in the United Nations
Security Council. Prayers for a coup in Baghdad or a change
of heart in Washington are useless.
SO IT’S TIME for a little out-of-the-box (or even off-the-wall)
thinking. The first question is whether there’s anyone with the
stature to spearhead a creative alternative, and the answer is yes.
His name is Kofi Annan. If the Secretary General decided to step
forward and lead the U.N., not rhetorically but literally, the status
quo in Iraq could be transformed quickly, and, most likely,
peacefully. So far, the Security Council has been obstructing and
dithering, but not acting. Here’s something for the U.N. to do that
would infuriate both the United States and Saddam Hussein, but
could also lead to the removal of weapons of mass destruction
without bloodshed:
Create a U.N. trusteeship in Iraq, not after the war, but before it.
That’s right—take the U.N. plan for administering a postwar Iraqi
government that was unveiled last week and implement it right now,
with Saddam still alive. Instead of tripling the number of inspectors,
as the French proposed, increase the number of U.N. officials on
the ground in Iraq by twenty-fold. Fly two dozen planeloads of U.N.
employees—experts in civil administration—into Baghdad. Fan
them out across the city into every ministry and military installation
—that should block a U.S. attack. Meanwhile, leave Saddam
alone—wherever he is—and start running his government.
Marginalize him.
Impossible, you say. Saddam is a brutal tyrant and will never
allow it. But would he definitely resist? Right now, he figures he’s
going to die, whether he flees or not. The U. N. is the only thing
keeping him alive, and not for long. His big propaganda victory
over the United States is a temporary win, and it’s dependent on his
not offending the U.N. by killing a bunch of its people. So he would
likely do no more to obstruct this contigent than he has done to
obstruct the inspectors, who have been admitted almost
everywhere they have sought acceess in the last four months. The
difference would be that these U.N. civil administrators would not
inspect, they would entrench. They would simply announce that
henceforth, they were administering the departments of
government, including access to all government documents.
You might call this a U.N.coup or invasion but it could also be
described as a U.N. “mandate,” which is hardly unprecedented. The
U.N. charter has a whole section on trusteeships, which were
common during decolinization. The international organization has
moved in to administer governments on a temporary basis before,
when conditions on the ground were chaotic. In this case, they are
pre-chaotic. What’s the elemental difference?
The military and secret police. They are armed and the U.N.
bureaucrats would not be. Precisely. The idea of armed inspectors
(floated and abandoned months ago) was a bad one because the
mismatch with Saddam’s forces would have been overwhelming.
But unarmed, the brave U.N. administrators would be less
threatening and thus, ironically, more powerful. Annan would
announce that if Saddam’s Baathist goons touched a hair on their
heads, the whole group of U.N. folks would leave town. Then, of
course, the U.S. military would invade as planned.
Saddam, who is hardly stupid, would anticipate this. He would
rant and rave about the infringement on Iraqi sovereignty, but he
would not shoot. Saddam would fight the U.N. officials if they tried
to capture him, but not if they simply walked into his ministries and
sat down in a kind of Gandhian occupation, evicting anyone who
did not cooperate. Saddam knows that if he blocked their entrance
or took them hostage, he would immediately unify the world against
him, sealing his fate. So, being a survivor, Saddam would likely do
nothing. He’d hide in one of his palaces and wait, playing for time.
Once he lost the actual levers of power, the fear inside Iraq
would start to dissipate. This would sharply increase the odds of a
coup, which would be fine with us. But Saddam will take these odds
because the alternative is his total destruction. The U.S. might be
convinced to take the odds, too, and refrain from exercising a veto
of a plan that would quickly accomplish the stated objective of
eliminating Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction.
Now if you believe any of this will actually happen, I’ve got two
tickets for you to an Elvis concert in Basra. The Saudis, who have
actually discussed such an idea among themselves, believe it’s too
late. The die is cast. They’re probably right, and you no doubt have
a hundred reasons why this plan is unworkable. So pick it apart. But
at this point it’s useless to whine about the war unless you’ve got a
better idea for stopping it.
© 2003 Newsweek, Inc.
msnbc.com |
