The Iraqis do not have Alistair Campbell working for them, but their
handling of policy and presentation shows signs of great tactical skill.
We will see whether the muted presentation in the form of an interview by
vice president Ramadan on an Iraqi regional tv channel is just an accident
but it looks to me probably coordinated. It subtly and directly challenges
the whole Bush/Blair linkage of WMD and regime change - he let it be known
that Iraq would have no objection to direct negotiations with the US about
matters of mutual interest (with the caveat quietly added, so long as there
is no interference in our internal affairs).
This is North Korea's ploy to trade WMD for regime continuity, except they
have decided to be aggressive in bringing the demand forward by being
openly obstructive about nuclear weapons. They have their local neighbours,
China, Russia and South Korea, all supporting the idea that they should
negotiate directly with the USA.
WMD is an arbitrarily applied code for regime change against unpopular
regimes.
The Iraqis have been arguing persuasively that the pressure on them is
pressure for a change in the whole middle east. Their spokesperson has just
argued this again at a conference of south east asian non-aligned. Colin
Powell himself has revealingly quickly come forward with an interview
giving all sorts of historical arguments when US intervention has not led,
he claims, to interference in internal affairs. But he had to chose his
words carefully to avoid saying anything that about a post Saddam Iraq
being democratic. He said that an Iraq without "WMD" would change the whole
Middle East apparently in a quiet amiable throw away aside. But countries
like Saudi Arabia who are not really expecting Iraq to unleash anthrax or
nerve gas on its territory, and who know that Israel already has nuclear
weapons, can read the signals about whether its own monarchical
dispensation will come under threat.
So just as South Korea in the east thinks it has more to lose by a direct
confrontation with North Korea on the grounds of its weapons of mass
destruction, so may many other countries in the world will think that
direct talks between the Bush administration and the Saddam administration
is preferable. The democratic countries may also feel it is preferable to
war which will cause chaos and lead to hundreds of thousands of refugees.
The Iraqis have inserted a large wedge with a slim edge.
Direct (of course initially indirect) negotiations between Iraq and the USA
even on the assumption of "non-interference" in Iraq's internal affairs,
(because the pretext of course is only about weapons of mass destruction)
would provide an opportunity to demonstrate linkage (eg a few visits by
human rights inspectors of the sort whom Iran has just prudently invited
in) eg the EU could make a parallel initiative for aid to the middle east
especially Iraq in return for improvements in human rights records,
(perhaps of a similar nature to those which are supposed to have taken
place in that pillar of NATO, Turkey in return for economic inducements.)
Perhaps perhaps, the whole sanctions regime might be lifted if Tony Blair
does not like the infant mortality in Iraq.
In the final analysis Tony Blair knows from his own experience of dealing
with terrorism you have to talk with the terrorists.
Besides only a dozen years ago Iraq was an ally of the US against Iran.
Where has realpolitik gone?
I predict that Iraq will play up this N Korea ploy in the next weeks to
intensify splits in the US hegemonic camp. The coalition of the willing may
soon appear the coalition of the isolated and the politically desperate.
How can you be a global hegemon if people do not follow, even if you have
overwhelming armed force? Especially if you petulantly refuse to talk to
enemies who are willing to offer negotiations.
Chris Burford
London
