Keep Iraq debate focused
By Amir Taheri
Anyone watching Iraqi satellite television these days might conclude that the whole world is rising against the United States and in support of President Saddam Hussain. The channel, owned by Saddam’s eldest son Uday, is broadcasting images of the despot being showered with rose petals.
These images fade into portraits of some of Iraq’s “noble friends”, including the American Noam Chomsky, Britain’s Tony Benn, France’s Jean-Marie Le Pen, Austria’s Joerg Haider, and Russia’s Gennadi Zyuganov. These in turn fade into images of “anti-war” rallies from London to San Francisco, and passing by Berlin.
In a sense the way Uday’s television is reporting the current debate between the “don’t touch Saddam” lobby and those who urge military action against the tyrant, is not so wide off the mark. Uday is right in saying that the real issue is whether or not to let Saddam remain in power and do as he pleases.
Since politics is about making choices and taking sides, it is clear that the “don’t touch Saddam” crowds have made their choice, and taken the side of the tyrant. Only they are not honest enough to admit it in public. Uday is doing it for them.
The “don’t touch Saddam” crowds, of course, are trying to hide behind the United Nations, the last refuge of the scoundrel. Their current mantra is: let’s have another Security Council resolution to stop American “unilateralism.” All this, of course, is pure hypocritical nonsense.
The US can exercise “unilateralism” inside the Security Council by vetoing any resolution it might not like. On the other hand Britain, Russia, China and France would also be able to practice “unilateralism” by vetoing resolutions they do not like. All the fuss, therefore, is not about unilateralism. Nor is it about respect for the UN.
Over the past 17 years, Saddam has violated 19 Security Council resolutions, including one that ended his war against Iran in 1988, and could claim a place in the Guinness Book of Records.
The first Security Council resolution on Iraq, passed just days after Saddam had annexed Kuwait in August 1990, insisted that he comply with UN demands within 60 days. Saddam has also violated the terms of the ceasefire, that he signed after his defeat in 1991, by continuing to fire against coalition aircraft monitoring the ceasefire. Legally speaking Saddam Hussain is and has been at war against the United Nations since August 2, 1990. Saddam has also violated Resolution 1441, the latest from the Security Council, on at least three counts:
“He has restricted inspections to sites agreed in 1998. He has failed to provide a complete account of his weapons of mass destruction. (His 12,000-page “report” is exposed as a sham even by the rather credulous Hans Blix.)
“He has started a psychological war against UN inspectors by branding them as spies. This is no mere hyperbole of the type Saddam specialises in. The “spy” label is used to frighten Iraqi scientists who might want to talk to the inspectors. (Under Iraqi law any association with a foreign spy is punishable by death.)
The real debate, therefore, is not about international law and the role of the UN in enforcing it.
The “don’t touch Saddam” lobby have a hidden agenda: to postpone military action against him until the current window of opportunity for toppling him is closed.
Military and political experts agree that, if there is going to be action against Saddam, the most suitable timeframe is between February 15 and March 15 of this year. The period before February 15 will be dominated by Haj, Islam’s greatest annual pilgrimage that draws more than two million people from all over the world to Makkah.
Starting a war in Iraq at that time could play into the hands of radicals who, although they hate Saddam Hussain, could seize the opportunity to vent their anger against the US and its allies in the Muslim world.
The period after March 15 will coincide with 40 days of traditional mourning, starting with the month of Muharram, for Shi’ites, the majority of the Iraqi people, whose support is crucial for overthrowing Saddam.
If action is to be taken, therefore, it is best started in the third week of February to be concluded by the first week of March. A new Iraqi regime could then attend the Arab summit to be held in Bahrain in the third week of March.
The US, of course, can hold its hand in the hope that the Arab summit will implement the “last chance scenario” that is the talk of the town in Arab capitals these days.
The “scenario” would see a delegation of Arab leaders travelling to Baghdad to persuade Saddam Hussain to take a “vacation” and hand over power to an interim government dominated by his Ba’ath Party.
The new government will give the UN inspectors the addresses of a few of the secret sites where part of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction are hidden. Blix would then be shown on television “neutralising” a few cans of deadly germs and breaking a few missiles.
Everyone would presumably be happy, and Saddam could return to power after “a decent interval.” The “don’t touch-Saddam lobby” hope that the intense heat of the Iraqi summer would postpone military action until autumn.
Would the US be able to maintain almost 200,000 troops, the bulk of its fighting force, in a “Desert of the Tatars” situation, waiting and watching for almost a year? Saddam Hussain has lived from one UN resolution to another for the past 17 years. He would love plenty of other UN resolutions. What could a new resolution demand that all the 19 others have not? And is it not the case that at least four of the previous resolutions contain a clear threat of force as a response to Iraqi non-compliance?
Saddam Hussain has been there, seen all that and got the T-shirt, many times over. Supposing there is another UN resolution, and he violates it again? Should we go back to the Security Council for yet another resolution, and then ad infintium?
It is vital that the debate be focused on the real issue: should the world allow Saddam Hussain to continue to oppress the Iraqi people and rebuild his war-machine in pursuit of mad expansionist dreams? Or should action be taken now to disarm him? —Gulf News |
