:: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 ::

War On Iraq:

Below is a short list on the countries that will most likley support a second resolution and are members of the UN Security Council; that will inevitably take us one step closer to a war with Iraq (drawn from a special report carried by the Guardian)

Britain
Current position: Prepared to go to war, ideally with a second UN security council resolution, if Iraq fails to offer "grade A" cooperation with weapons inspectors.
Influencing factors: Over-aggressive behaviour by Washington will present Tony Blair with an even greater challenge in selling military conflict to a sceptical public. Downing Street believes the agreement of the US to give the inspectors a few more weeks shows that Washington is responding to concerns in Europe.
Likely outcome: Will endorse second resolution backing military force, but will not bother pushing for vote if the likes of France threaten to wield "unreasonable" veto. Support a resolution.

Bulgaria
Current position: Anxiously supportive of US policy towards Iraq.
Influencing factors: The poor Balkan country is keen to curry favour with a US administration that two months ago invited it to join the Nato alliance. The US Senate has yet to ratify Bulgaria's Nato membership. Bulgaria's position in south-eastern Europe makes it a valuable rear base and logistical point for an Iraq campaign.
Likely outcome: Support a resolution.

Spain
Current position: Believes military action is inevitable, even desirable, if Saddam does not go voluntarily or "prove" he has destroyed weapons of mass destruction.
Influencing factors: Prime minister Jose Maria Aznar is one of the world's biggest hawks on terrorism, partly due to Spain's experience of Basque separatist group Eta. Mr Aznar already owes George Bush a debt. He has received US help to fight Eta in the form of access to its technical spying capabilities.
Likely outcome: Spain will vote with the US and, even if another country vetoes, will actively support a US-led attack on Iraq. Support a resolution.

Chile
Current Position: Wants more time for inspectors
Influencing factors: Having just finished years of arduous free trade negotiations with the US, Chile is unlikely to feel emboldened to challenge US pressures in the security council.
Likely outcome: Support a resolution.

Angola
Current position: Advocates more time for arms inspection, but suggests it will support a second resolution, including a possible threat of war.
Influencing factors: Angola's oil contributes one sixth of America's total imports, making America its biggest investor by far. On January 24, the US state department announced that it would be giving African states another $8.4m (£5.25m) for emergency refugee relief. Of that amount $4.1m (£2.6m) was earmarked for Angola.
Likely outcome: Support a resolution.

Cameroon
Current position: Cameroon wants more time for arms inspections, but would support a second resolution, including a threat of war.
Influencing factors: Modest oil reserves were swollen by a ruling of the International Court of Justice in October, awarding it the oil-rich Bakassi peninsula which it had disputed with Nigeria. America and Britain backed the ruling against Nigerian complaints.
Likely outcome: Support a resolution

Guinea
Current position: Wants more time for inspections, but would support a second resolution, including threat of war.
Influencing factors: It is one of Africa's poorest and least politicised Muslim countries, with 75% of the population illiterate and average life expectancy at 43 years. President Lansana Conté's 19-year rule has been sustained by American aid (currently $50m - £31m - a year) and military training.
Likely outcome: Support a resolution.

Mexico
Current position: The centre-right government has spoken out in favour of giving more time to the inspectors.
Influencing factors: The Mexican economy's growing dependence on its northern neighbour, the senior partner in the Nafta [North American free trade agreement] trading block and destination for 85% of its exports, militates in favour of buckling. The government is also desperate to negotiate a migration deal with the US.
Likely outcome: Mexico will vote for extending the inspections but will follow if wind blows in another direction. Support a resolution.

Pakistan
Current position: Supports continued weapons inspections and diplomatic resolution of the conflict.
Influencing factors: General Pervez Musharraf faces the challenge of preventing the conflict in Iraq from spreading into Pakistan. He is already walking a dangerous tightrope - between his support for the US "war on terror" and growing anti-American sentiment at home. Washington has offered Pakistan generous loan deals. Gen Musharraf has ruled out Pakistan's involvement in any war against Iraq.
Likely outcome: Will not support US invasion but will keep criticism muted. Abstain or vote against.

Now I don’t mean to sound too cynical but it seems to me that a disproportionate amount of the UN security council members have what I suppose lawyers would euphemistically call a “conflict of interests” given the worrying dependence of some like Guinea on US aid. The members of the council that are likely to oppose such a resolution unsurprisingly are those that have the least to lose: Russia, China, Germany, France and Syria. I think it is worrying that people are not more aware of how vested interests can motivate what should be at least a relatively free voting arena of the international community. I know those of us who are hard-core cynics would not be surprised at the fact that such machinations lie at the heart of international diplomacy and politics; but to hear some people speak about a UN resolution it is almost like listening them refer to a mandate from God rather than what is really a political compromise heavily infused with strategic calculations, the flow of money and promises of putative carrots in the future for those who vote the “correct” way. Again just one of the other dodgy and suspect attitudes that tends to characterise the debate on the upcoming war, just to run through some of the ones that particularly annoy me, though Vikash has already done a good job of exposing the more ridiculous of these in “The US and the Rest”:

1) Saddam has WMD: this one really puzzles me. Why the sudden fetish-isation of WMD these have been around for a long-time and they have never been used as a pre-text to start war before. This sounds suspiciously like a form of weapons-apartheid whereby the Dominant developed powers can be deemed “responsible” enough to have such weapons and not mis-use them while naughty rogue regimes must have them taken away as they cannot be so trusted to behave in a civilised manner. Besides one should consider the actual threat that these will be used – now I have understood Threat = Intent + Capability. We have seen some evidence of the latter but really little of the former – it has been over ten years from the last Gulf War and Saddam hasn’t used any WMD – he didn’t use them in that war either, so what has changed since then to warrant the belief that he would use them? The Bush regime is really arguing that we completely overlook the question of Intent and focus solely on Capability - though even this has proven contentious. Won’t even go into the fact that North Korea, which actually has nuclear WMD, is being dealt with much more softly or that the only country to use nuclear WMD has been the US.

2) We Need Regime Change in Baghdad: Well, okay nobody I know would argue that Saddam is good for Iraq or that there could be a better alternative. Most people would like a more humane regime and a more representative one for the Iraqi people but this is true of other countries as well and doesn’t need an invasion to ensure it. More problems emerge with the concept of regime change anyway – I think the term means much more than just getting rid of Saddam and putting in another personalised autocrat in his place. But if Regime change is the goal why is the US floating the idea of allowing a potential resolution to the current impasse by offering Saddam safe passage and retirement in some secluded and protected place like Libya? This sounds to me that what the US really wants is not Regime change but personality change. I am also very doubtful that if the US does occupy Iraq or topple the current regime that it will allow any level of genuine self-determination for the Iraqi people or install a viable democracy. What the US really wants is another Sunni dictator more reliable than Saddam to take his place - a veneer of legitimacy would be nice but not essential. The disgusting instigation and betrayal of the Iraqi anti-Saddamist forces in the aftermath of 1991 when they were abandoned to the tender mercies of the Ba’athist regime leaves little room for doubt as to what the US really sees as a desirable power in Baghdad. Time after time democratic governments have been either toppled or ignored by Washington in the region from Mossadegh in Iran onwards; this is a habit that the US has found hard to break.

3) The Hitchens Plea: this erstwhile Troskyite has trotted out a number of variant arguments to defend the upcoming war on Iraq. It is sad to see a man who used to have some independence of thought slide into such a poor and morally degenerate position. Against the argument that it is the West that has armed Iraq, Hitchens points out that this is even more reason to dis-arm Saddam. Er..yes this is true but since when did Nations engage in warfare to correct the mistakes they may have committed in the past? If the US was the same neo-Imperialist power that Hitchens critiqued in his detailed assault on the record of Cold warriors like Kissinger what makes Hitchens think that the US has changed? It is in many ways the same clique of unrepresentative oligarchs that is pushing the US towards war now and they are not doing it out of any love of democracy or because they have the welfare of the Iraqis at heart. It is the same state machine that indulged in dubious support of undemocratic and repressive regimes during the past that goes to war in the name of freedom now. I won’t even go into the stupid “Islamo-fascism” label.

4) The War on Terror: Control and eradication of terrorism is a laudable and urgent task. Yet the links with Iraq are tenuous to say the least: the one thing that is certain is that Al-Qaida and the Ba’athists loathe each other; Bin Laden has described Saddam as a “bad Muslim” and frankly this is about as damning a verdict that one can get from the bearded, AK-47 toting One. The evidence that is meant to link the two has so far been shockingly inadequate and unconvincing; even the CIA and British Intelligence have regarded efforts to uncover such a link as trying to manufacture a connection where none exists. What links do exist even more embarrassingly seem to be between Al-Qaida and the Kurdish areas in the north where the KDP (Kurdish Democratic Party) and the PUK (Patriotic Union of Kurdistan) hold sway. Not only is this area outside Iraqi control but the Kurdish militants involved as they are in an on-going conflict with Saddam’s regime it is more than likely that they may have had some links with Al-Quaida and other Islamic organisations simply on the basis of the “enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Given the support extended to the Kurdish militants by the US, should such a link emerge it could prove very embarrassing. In the build-up to war of course, not only is the supposed effort to dismantle and eliminate Al-Qaida receded into the background but it is highly likely that any invasion will actually increase the chances of more terrorism as well as destabilising the region even further in the long-run.

Support for the War: I dislike this copious references to UN resolutions, evidence of WMD or the supposed nasty aspects of Saddam’s regime. The first is not a good enough reason to go to war; the UN is not really an open or very democratic institution as far as the Security Council is concerned and decisions are influenced by many things but morality is not very high in the ranking of determining factors. The UN has got it wrong in the past and gone to war for the wrong reasons; there is no guarantee that under the present system it will not do this again. The WMD issue has been dealt with as has the character of Saddam’s regime: these are true but there is no reasonable case to believe that the former is a serious threat at the moment and as for the latter one needs to ask two important questions: Is this really why the US/UK are hurtling towards war (one should provide counter examples to test this assertion)? Secondly will Saddam be replaced by a regime that merits the loss of lives and suffering that any War will cause? If (when) there is a war; having failed to have prevented it I think the least that progressive democrats across the international community can do is to ensure that the regime that replaces him in Baghdad is a properly democratic and stable one that is given the requisite support from the international community to survive and establish itself. A second best solution, to be sure, as the ideal one would be to avoid any such loss of life in the first place; but given the current juggernaut of War should this not be possible I think it is up to those who want to preven the re-occurrence of such conflicts in the future to make sure that some reform is carried through. A repeat of the shaemful Afghanisatan episode should be avoided.

It will be a real tragedy and waste of Human Life if having removed Saddam after a war he is replaced by another weaker, more pliable, carbon copy.

:: Conrad Barwa 9:36 PM [Permanent Link] :: ::
..............