> > Activist Mailing List - http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian/ > > Allies can't blast friends into backing new strikes > > Britain and US have no takers for more Iraq raids and no real > alternatives. Peter Beaumont and Patrick Wintour report > > London OBSERVER Sunday December 27, 1998 > > After the four-day war against Iraq, the campaign against Saddam > Hussein has entered a new and dangerously ill-defined phase. Faced > with threats of further raids against Iraq, the diplomatic initiative > to contain Saddam is running into the sand. > > United States officials last week conceded privately that new raids > would face almost insuperable opposition from the international > community, and that sending back the Unscom arms inspectors has been > made impossible by the bombing. > > They argued that it was hard enough to make the case for strikes over > the UN inspections. "Without them," one official told the Los Angeles > Times, "we're looking at a bunch of new problems." More seriously, > argue others, the longed-for removal of Saddam and his cronies appears > no nearer. > > "Saddam is not going to come up laughing after this. He's been hurt. > But there's one absolute standard by which the US military action can > be judged - whether in six months Saddam is still in power," said > James Placke, a former US diplomat in Iraq now with Cambridge Energy > Research Associates in Washington. "Are we any closer? Probably not." > > The key issue now is what international consensus can be reached for > dealing with Saddam. British officials believe any move towards > consensus is weeks away at least. > > "Before, we were at odds with Iraq. Now the problem is going to be the > allies, and we'll be in the uncomfortable position of trying to coerce > them rather than Iraq," said Kenneth M. Pollack, a Middle East analyst > at the National Defence University in Washington. "What are we going > to do, slap sanctions on France and Turkey? We certainly can't bomb > them." > > The alternatives to further military action are beginning to look very > few indeed. The Pentagon is pushing hard for a 'no-drive zone' for > military vehicles to match the existing no-fly zone imposed on the > Iraqi military, implicitly designed to aid armed opposition groups and > create space for them to flourish. > > It is, however, an idea finding little enthusiasm among British > officials, who are nervous that a 'no-drive zone' might become an > unenforceable charade - like the 'safe havens' set up after the Gulf > War and in Bosnia. One British source said: "You end up looking weaker > if you impose conditions that you do not intend to implement." > > In Britain, formulating a post-bombing policy has become as much about > trying to reassure European and Arab allies opposed to the raids as > about tackling Saddam. Last week Foreign Secretary Robin Cook talked > for two hours by telephone to the German Foreign Secretary, Joschka > =46ischer, as part of a round of calls designed to rebuild support for > the US-UK policy on Iraq and develop a 'morning after' strategy. > > As president of the EU for the next six months, Germany is eager to > back plans to give either the EU or the UN a new role in getting > humanitarian aid into Iraq. Cook will support an increase in aid. Iraq > now has to order the food, but the EU is looking at a system under > which Brussels makes deliveries without waiting for a request. The > British also want a tightening of sanctions against Iraq amid signs > that trade restrictions have been widely flouted. It is here that the > greatest potential for division between Britain and the US and the > rest of the international community lies. Thomas Pickering, the US > Under-Secretary of State, warned last week: "If Iraq chooses to end > its co-operation [with the inspectors], it has literally chosen for > sanctions in perpetuity." It is an idea that will pay badly in the > Arab world. > > =46or Britain, the war has had deeper psychological ramifications - in > particular for Labour's foreign policy, which has stepped closer to > the new belligerence of the US. This was evident in the dispatch of > the carrier Invincible to the Gulf. > > Tony Blair said last week: "If those who abuse force to wage war are > not confronted by those willing to use force to maintain peace, war > becomes more likely. We cannot do everything, but what we can do, we > should do." > > _____________________________________________________ > * The Activist * > http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian > =20 > This is not about the world that we inherited from our forefathers, > It is about the world we have borrowed from our children !!
Activist Mailing List - http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian/ Allies can't blast friends into backing new strikes Britain and US have no takers for more Iraq raids and no real alternatives. Peter Beaumont and Patrick Wintour report London OBSERVER Sunday December 27, 1998 After the four-day war against Iraq, the campaign against Saddam Hussein has entered a new and dangerously ill-defined phase. Faced with threats of further raids against Iraq, the diplomatic initiative to contain Saddam is running into the sand. United States officials last week conceded privately that new raids would face almost insuperable opposition from the international community, and that sending back the Unscom arms inspectors has been made impossible by the bombing. They argued that it was hard enough to make the case for strikes over the UN inspections. "Without them," one official told the Los Angeles Times, "we're looking at a bunch of new problems." More seriously, argue others, the longed-for removal of Saddam and his cronies appears no nearer. "Saddam is not going to come up laughing after this. He's been hurt. But there's one absolute standard by which the US military action can be judged - whether in six months Saddam is still in power," said James Placke, a former US diplomat in Iraq now with Cambridge Energy Research Associates in Washington. "Are we any closer? Probably not." The key issue now is what international consensus can be reached for dealing with Saddam. British officials believe any move towards consensus is weeks away at least. "Before, we were at odds with Iraq. Now the problem is going to be the allies, and we'll be in the uncomfortable position of trying to coerce them rather than Iraq," said Kenneth M. Pollack, a Middle East analyst at the National Defence University in Washington. "What are we going to do, slap sanctions on France and Turkey? We certainly can't bomb them." The alternatives to further military action are beginning to look very few indeed. The Pentagon is pushing hard for a 'no-drive zone' for military vehicles to match the existing no-fly zone imposed on the Iraqi military, implicitly designed to aid armed opposition groups and create space for them to flourish. It is, however, an idea finding little enthusiasm among British officials, who are nervous that a 'no-drive zone' might become an unenforceable charade - like the 'safe havens' set up after the Gulf War and in Bosnia. One British source said: "You end up looking weaker if you impose conditions that you do not intend to implement." In Britain, formulating a post-bombing policy has become as much about trying to reassure European and Arab allies opposed to the raids as about tackling Saddam. Last week Foreign Secretary Robin Cook talked for two hours by telephone to the German Foreign Secretary, Joschka =46ischer, as part of a round of calls designed to rebuild support for the US-UK policy on Iraq and develop a 'morning after' strategy. As president of the EU for the next six months, Germany is eager to back plans to give either the EU or the UN a new role in getting humanitarian aid into Iraq. Cook will support an increase in aid. Iraq now has to order the food, but the EU is looking at a system under which Brussels makes deliveries without waiting for a request. The British also want a tightening of sanctions against Iraq amid signs that trade restrictions have been widely flouted. It is here that the greatest potential for division between Britain and the US and the rest of the international community lies. Thomas Pickering, the US Under-Secretary of State, warned last week: "If Iraq chooses to end its co-operation [with the inspectors], it has literally chosen for sanctions in perpetuity." It is an idea that will pay badly in the Arab world. =46or Britain, the war has had deeper psychological ramifications - in particular for Labour's foreign policy, which has stepped closer to the new belligerence of the US. This was evident in the dispatch of the carrier Invincible to the Gulf. Tony Blair said last week: "If those who abuse force to wage war are not confronted by those willing to use force to maintain peace, war becomes more likely. We cannot do everything, but what we can do, we should do." _____________________________________________________ * The Activist * http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian =20 This is not about the world that we inherited from our forefathers, It is about the world we have borrowed from our children !! _____________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com/ ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
