The failure of US foreign policy in Iraq
Iraq, Analysis, 2/10/1998

With the US congress taking a more reflective tone on the crisis with Iraq, the US president today said "The choice is up to Saddam Hussein, but if Saddam does not comply.." referring to ongoing threats by the US that Iraq comply with UN inspection efforts or face military action if it "does not." This comes on the heels of statements of support of the US by Australia, and a reported statement of support from Canada, with China reiterating its opposition to the use of military force.

What the president did not add to this statement was what would happen if Iraq "does comply."

The US is in a unique position in history, in terms of absolute economic and military power, and the lack of any competitors on the international scene.

The United States is seeking to resolve a so-called crisis, with an urgency that is being heightened by the threat of an imminent strike against a country (Iraq) for violations of UN resolutions, and for Iraq "thumbing its nose at the world," in defiance of the "international community," and accused of "aggressive use of weapons of mass destruction."

The sense of urgency promoted by the US for military attack against Iraq does not match any urgency of the situation on the ground. There has not been any evidence provided that Iraq actually poses chemical or biological weapons. So far most every statement that makes such claims is preceded with words such as "Iraq has the potential," "Iraq may," "Iraq in the future could" etc.

Those statements do not substantiate a threat now or in the future. Those statements depict a "potential threat" based on hypothetical situations. Therefore any sense of urgency about this crisis is artificially created, and considering that 27 million people are already suffering due to the sanctions with about a million dead, one can easliy believe that there are ulterior motives for attacking Iraq.

If the problem is disarming Iraq, then the process is ongoing and that should be the focus of the crisis. Examining this point further, we see that Iraq's neighbors, the Arab states collectively, and the world agrees that Iraq must be disarmed of weapons of mass destruction. Therefore the issue becomes is how to do it.

The United Nations, through UNSCOM, its weapons inspection unit, is doing this job successfully. UNSCOM was supposed to finish its work of certification to declare Iraq as either having complied with UN resolutions about disarming it, or having not complied with those resolutions.

The problem with UNSCOM was that its work and motives became suspect when sites that were opened for inspection and found clean were not reported as such. The cases/files regarding these sites were being kept open, and UNSCOM was constantly opening more cases/files without closing any when these files/cases/sites had been found "clean."

UNSCOM's chief inspector took on what seemed to some a political role that reiterated the US position , which Iraq views as hostile, and did little else other than pile up more demands on Iraq without ever giving credit to the progress Iraq was making in compliance with inspection work. Butler, instead of quietly doing the job that was assigned to him by the Security Council to be an inspector who reports back to the council, became a public spokesman using public relations and the media to put pressure on Iraq to do certain things that he perceived needed to be done.

Butler was not doing his job. That is, Butler was not doing inspection work, closing cases, and reporting to the UN Security Council, so that the Security Council itself could make a determination about Iraq's compliance. Butler was not carrying out the role of the authority that was invested in him by the Security Council.

The Russian ambassador to the UN said that he was finding out more about supposed inspection results from Butler's media interviews that Butler gave then from the information Butler presented to the UN Security Council. Butler became engaged in a media campaign against Iraq. Butler, a single technocrat, assigned to an inspection job, had become the inspector and the prosecutor of a nation and held Iraq hostage by his actions.

Butler held Iraq hostage by his action because in order for the crippling sanctions to be lifted from Iraq, Iraq had to be certified "clean," and that authority rested with a single man, Butler, who would have to tell the UN Security Council that Iraq had met its obligations under the UN's post-Gulf War resolutions.

Iraq says that it has complied and continues to comply with UN inspectors. Iraq wanted to reserve some sites as off limits, as they constitute areas of national sovereignty. The Arab states, and every single country has said that this is not acceptable. No one has an interest in seeing Iraq possessing such weapons, and Iraq will have to open all sites. The Arab states have not been apologists for the Iraqi leadership now or in the past, as they joined in an unprecedented military action against Iraq during the Gulf War.

The essence of the problem is that Iraq is convinced that even if it opens those sites for inspection, the sanctions will not be lifted. The US has stated that "Iraq will never see the sanctions lifted," and this has been repeated many times. This view is part of the US policy of "dual containment" against Iraq and Iran. Therefore, Iraq does not see an end in sight for the sanctions, even if it honors its part of the deal. Iraq has good reason to believe this, because the US said so. Furthermore, the US refuses to make the very simple statement "if you open everything for inspection and if we come out clean, then the sanctions are lifted."

Iraq sees the US as a country that wants to destroy it on a long-term basis economically. Iraq sees in the US a country that won the Gulf War, and has continued to be hegemonic in its approach against Iraq, seven years past the Gulf War.

Of course Iraq has much that it needs to do to rehabilitate itself, from expressing genuine regret and proceed with concrete reconciliation with Kuwait and Iran, to realizing that its greatness should manifest itself through domestic peaceful achievements rather than through military power. But there is time to work on that, and no effort is being exerted in this regard, that is, first reconciliation, and second, the rehabilitation of Iraq into a peaceful nation.

Rather than acting like General Marshal after World War Two, with General Marshal bringing a Germany into the community of nations, the US is engaged in creating future enemies as France did with the humiliation of Germany, after Germany lost World War I and was forced to sign what has been agreed upon as a most humiliating agreement that sowed the seeds for future aggression.

In World War I and II, we have real-world examples of what works and what does not. From every indication, the US approach and motives seems to indicate that the US wants to fundamentally cripple a nation, not rehabilitate it. The US wants to break the legs of Iraq and then hand it a wheelchair as a humanitarian gesture. The US wants to take the fishing rod from future Iraqi children and then give them fish as a "humanitarian" gesture.

The Failure of US foreign policy against Iraq and the Arabs stems from the fact that in this new era of great possibilities, and the coming multi-polar world, the US is failing to strengthen the tools that were invented for that purpose. The US created the UN. The UN has not worked effectively in crisis situations. There is no forcible alternative to the UN as a mechanism for solving future crisis. So instead of using the UN, the US is damaging and destroying what little credibility the UN has, especially that of the Security Council.

This is the time to set precedent by example by making the United Nations the tool it was meant to be. The only message coming out of the US is that it will "use" and "agree" with the UN only when the UN agrees with US interests, otherwise the US will do what is in its interest anyway! That may have been a good policy in the old bipolar world of US - USSR confrontations. But the world is and will be changing at an incredible pace in the years to come, and the US, in the position that it is in, should be the trend-setter for the "new" rules of the game.

The Arab states and the whole world are opposed to Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. If, with that kind of support, the US still cannot find the means to garner comprehensive consensus for its actions, then the motives of the US must be questioned.

Why has the US not stated that with "clean" certification, Iraq will see the sanctions lifted? Is the US interested in breaking the Legs of 27 million Iraqis to hand them humanitarian wheelchairs, or is the US interested in disarming and rehabilitating Iraq? If the answer is the latter, then the US will find unqualified support for any action that is well defined, with goals that are agreed upon, that have a final resolution to this problem.

Despite internal domestic politics that animate some of the forces that support irrational acts against Iraq, it is in the US's interest to see in Iraq a stable and peaceful nation. It is more expensive and time consuming, as General Marshal knew when he lent a hand to a devastated Germany, and perhaps he may have seen it as strategic at the time in light of Russian presence in eastern Germany, but it was the right thing to do for selfish and other reasons.

It is time to step back and take the time to talk to the Arab states and the world about a solution to this problem, and not apply a bandage. Meanwhile, children go underfed, with their future being snuffed simply because nations lacked the courage to act wisely, and did what was politically expedient. All this is very peculiar considering that the US president protested Vietnam, and the US Speaker of the House of Representatives who, as recently as three days ago in front of the World Economic Forum, proclaimed that "learning to work together is more important than forcing our point of view."

All this talk from such US leaders and visionaries seems to amount to little more than empty talk by men who are driven by the momentum of fossilized institutional thinking, who protect narrow and destructive self interests, rather than by leaders who shape the future.

We started by saying that the US is in a unique position in history, in terms of absolute economic and military power, and the lack of any competitors on the international scene. Long-standing US morays and dictums affirm that absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is time for clear thinking.

Previous Stories:
  UAE stress diplomacy to solve Iraqi crisis   (2/10/1998)
  US suffers setback in military support against Iraq   (2/9/1998)
  Hope for an end to Iraqi crisis   (2/2/1998)

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

Search