Clinton's argument on Iraq demands an Arab answer
Gulf-Iraq, Analysis, 1/27/1998

US President Bill Clinton said it best: "If he's (Saddam) telling the truth, and there's really nothing there (chemical and biological weapons), then what benefit does the United States have now for stopping the United Nations from lifting the sanctions? I have done everything I've been asked to do. Even though we have got reservations about it, we would have a hard time answering that question."

This statement by the US president days ago contains within it the genesis of the problem between UN weapons inspectors and the Iraqi government and the clear solution if a solution is meant to be found.

The problem is that the whole case the US is building against Iraq is based on pure speculation and allegations that have no basis in truth, at least none presented so far. Almost without exception, every single statement that comes out of US officials and news stories contain assertions that are prefaced by words such as "Iraq may" "Iraq could have" "Iraq probably will in the future" "It is possible" "Iraq has the potential". Statements that go unchallenged. The case against Iraq is always presented as a possibility of Iraq having chemical or biological weapons, and then these unproven statements are used to build a whole scenario about what could happen if Iraq uses these weapons, asking the readers and citizens to forget that all these statements are built on mere speculations and unproven remarks.

But let us assume for a moment that these allegations are true. Then, the answer becomes painfully clear. Iraq would then be given a set time in which the UN would be able to arrive at a conclusion about whether Iraq has complied with UN resolutions or not. A very clear strategy of put-up or shut-up type proposition.

But the US president has said clearly in his statement that even if Iraq complies with the UN inspection team, the sanctions would not be lifted by saying, "Even though we have got reservations about it, we would have a hard time answering that question (that is, refusing to lift the sanctions)."

But the question of lifting the sanctions is what Iraq wants to see addressed. And this ambivalent and uncommitted answer by the president tells the whole story that Iraq knows all too well. No matter what Iraq does, the US will not lift the sanctions, as it is not in the US's long term strategic interest to do so. Otherwise, the US would come flat out publicly and state so in a "concrete and definable" way. But no, the answer is "we would have a hard time answering that question", and Iraq would have to convince us, after it already been proven by a UN team that they have complied completely with UN resolutions.

It becomes abundantly clear from Clinton's statements that there really is no intent to remove the sanctions. So why would Iraq want to continue to abide by demands that it sees as simply arbitrary, and reflecting political motives, rather than having an objective criteria and a set time for its implementation? Iraq would not abide by this, and it indicated that it would not do so anymore. Iraq is not being given a way out, intentionally, so that Iraq will feel cornered, as it does, and react in a manner that would provide the US the pretext needed for a well-planned and long-term regional US strategic policy.

The fact that the US has an absolute military superiority in the area and is capable of implementing its military plans against Iraq is not in doubt. What is in doubt are US motives. Those motives are not guided by international community standards, the standards of the UN through its Security Council, or any moral standard. The US has and always acted to pursue its own interest and agenda. US ambassador to the UN Bill Richardson stated that agenda clearly: "Iraq has no possibility of seeing the sanctions lifted."

The issue of chemical and biological weapons, and the protection of neighboring countries are a fig leaf. A fig leaf that it too small to wear. The US is simply pursuing its long-term strategic interests as it sees them.

The US cannot implement this strategy without approval from the Arab states. Whether the Arab states will be hung-up over "Iraqi leadership" or will have a long-term strategic vision for the area that preserves their self-interest remains to be seen. The questions is then, whether the Arab states want Iraq to be weak in the future, with all the regional ramifications that will entail, or whether the Arab states want a strong Iraq that is within the fold, and molded in such a fashion that it is peaceful with its neighbors.

Iraq for its part has not made clear its policy on this issue by immediately giving clear and concrete statements and actions about its policy towards its neighbors, specifically Kuwait, that will give guidance to the Arab states in their decision-making process. Does Iraq want peace, or does Iraq hope that in due time it will be able to take revenge? Does Iraq want to put the past behind it?

The future of many citizens and children, generations to come are at stake. It is time for clear thinking and strong leadership no matter what the decision is. Whose long term interest is at stake here? The Arab states through the Arab League, the Arab Parliaments, and their leaders, have spoken clearly about this issue in the recent past.

Will the Arab states follow the Arab League's lead and reiterate their policy publicly? If not, their silence will make their decision equally clear.

Previous Stories:
  Russia expects and opposes military strike against Iraq   (1/26/1998)
  Egyptian-Russian discussions over Iraqi crisis   (1/22/1998)
  Demonstrations and accusations against Clinton and Kuwait   (1/19/1998)

Please add a link on your webiste pointing to ArabicNews.com and bookmark ArabicNews.com & subscribe to our daily email news bulletin.

Search