America's grand
charade
Some western governments led by the United States and Britain seem to be engaged in a charade vis-a-vis Iraq. They wish to convey the impression that they would like to give more time to Iraq provided Baghdad was ready to come clean on the information weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) issue and cooperate more fully with the UN weapons inspectors.
In reality, however, they are trying to mobilize as much support as they can among the European Union (EU) members for their plan of military action against Iraq. As far as war against Iraq is concerned, the question is not 'whether' or 'if' but 'when.'
In fact war might have already started but for the fact that the West would not want it to coincide with the Haj, which is due in another week, as that would further alienate it from the Muslim countries. The western strategists would perhaps want the first strike against Iraq to be carried out on moonless nights, as was the case in the 1991 Gulf war. An offensive may not start until almost the end of February. A London-based TV channel believes that the US and Britain have agreed on March 3 as the D-Day. The significance of that date is not unclear.
In the meantime, Washington and London are trying hard to win greater, and more willing, support from some EU governments whom they regard as 'waverers.'
Germany is opposed to use of force against Iraq, while France has not quite made up its mind. Paris will take a decision "when the time comes", as President Jacques Chirac told British Prime Minister Tony Blair at a meeting is south of France on Tuesday. He also expressed the view that "war is the worst of all options" and that "we will only adopt a position when we believe nothing further can be achieved... and we are a long way off that." Going by the press reports, the French president has discounted the speculation that "Paris would fall in behind Washington and London soon."
Technically, Baghdad has been given time to make its position on the WMD clear and above suspicion. Indeed, Washington and London are convinced that President Saddam Hussein has already been given too much time and that he is actually guilty of a "material breach" of the Security Council Resolution 1441.
Britain has already released more information about Iraq's WMDs while the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, in his 75-minute address at the Security Council on Wednesday, made an extensive disclosure of what he claimed to be Iraq's involvement in the development of lethal chemical and biological weapons, its deceptions and failures in the context of weapons inspections and its links with Al Qaeda and another terrorist organizations.
Dr Hans Blix, head of the UN team of inspectors, is scheduled to report again to the UN Security Council on February 14 but it is already presumed that he would do no more than tell the world body that the inspectors' work in Iraq continues to be hampered by the Baghdad government. In any case, a fresh dossier against Iraq is said to have been developed by British intelligence and it was handed over to President Bush's high-powered National Security Adviser, Condoleeza Rice. The dossier was also discussed by President Chirac and Prime Minister Blair in their meeting on Tuesday. The report maintains that President Saddam Hussein's security forces continue to obstruct the UN inspectors by hiding evidence relating to WMDs from them and often giving them misleading information.
There is some disagreement among the western governments on whether or not another UN resolution is needed holding Iraq culpable before they could use force against it. While Britain holds that a second resolution specifically calling for the use of force is necessary, Washington insists that the UNSC Resolution 1441 already provides the authority needed to act against Iraq on grounds of "material breach." In their meeting in Washington last Friday, President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair agreed that the question no longer was whether force should be used against Iraq in order to "disarm" it, but precisely what form that action should take.
What sums up the thinking of President Bush - who is actually calling the shots - is what he said while replying to a question at the joint press conference in Washington after his meeting with Prime Minister Blair. He said: "After September 11, the doctrine of containment just doesn't hold any water so far as I am concerned." He believes that the "strategic vision" of the United States had shifted "dramatically because we now recognize that oceans no longer protect us, that we are vulnerable to attack and the worst form of attack could come from somebody acquiring weapons of mass destruction and using them on the American people." That is a demonstration of the US president's mind-set.
The candid statement is a matter of concern not only for Iraq which in any case is to be the immediate target. But Iraq could only be the beginning; the next on the line could well be Iran.
It may seem implausible but a section of American intelligentsia actually traces the origins of Iraq's quest for WMDs to Washington's own misperception of developments in Iraq going back to the 1980s. It has been said that the roots of the US policy vis-a-vis Iraq was "anchored in the 1979 Iranian revolution that sparked a tilt toward Iraq." They even argue that Washington was a "silent ally" of Iraq sharing with it vital intelligence. The US also did not impose any "sanctions" against Iraq in 1988 when it used chemical weapons in attacking the Kurds. The late Prof Gerald Hopple, one-time research specialist in information systems, maintained that the Bush senior's administration at the time rejected making overtures to Iraq and issued a directive favouring detente with Iraq in mid-1989.
Another prominent American scientist Prof Paul Gigot contends that "a decade of consistent US misjudgments could be traced back to Washington's reaction to Israel's bombing of Iraq's Osirak nuclear facility (before its shipment from France) which involved condemning Israel while failing to see the threat from Iraq's potential nuclear capability."
The fallout of the impending US war on Iraq on its neighbouring countries is bound to be considerable. Except for countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia which have agreed to provide bases to US forces, the Muslim countries will generally experience a strong sense of outrage and revulsion among the Muslim masses in the wake of an attack on Iraq.
http://www.dawn.com/2003/02/07/op.htm#3
