Posted on 09/22/2002 6:59:54 AM PDT by SJackson
Baghdad has made the necessary first steps to avoid a strike, writes Ibrahim Nafie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four days after President Bush's speech to the General Assembly urging it to adopt a stringent resolution on Iraq backed by the threat of military force, the government of Iraq took what was, perhaps, its first positive initiative in diffusing tensions. In a letter to the UN secretary-general the Iraqi authorities stated that they agreed to the unconditional return of international inspectors. They also said that they would explore ways to implement other relevant UN resolutions in order to set in motion the mechanisms for lifting the sanctions imposed on the country since its invasion of Kuwait in August 1990.
The Iraqi letter to Kofi Annan could not have been more appropriately timed. It has given Arab, and other, governments opposed to a strike against Iraq, including Russia, China and France, an invaluable opportunity to shore up their positions and embark on a new phase of action in support of a more rational policy. This opportunity comes as no small relief after having heard many contend that a strike against Iraq was inevitable and having observed many powers, both internationally and regionally, readying themselves to take part in, or reap fruits from, the operation.
There is no doubt that Bush's speech to the General Assembly, signalling a retreat from Washington's former hard line position, offered Iraq an excellent opportunity to respond to the UN demand for the unconditional return of weapons inspectors. It is important to analyse the Iraqi letter to the UN secretary- general in this context.
The bulk of Bush's speech sought to link the US stance on Iraq with the war against terrorism, a subject that has found sympathetic ears in the West since the attacks against New York and Washington last year. The US president drew attention to what he considered Baghdad's failure to implement Security Council resolutions calling upon it to reveal and eliminate its weapons of mass destruction and long range missiles, to release prisoners of war and to end its "support of terrorism". He said that his country would cooperate with the Security Council in confronting the "common threat," but that the Security Council must adopt the necessary resolutions, worded in a way as to leave Iraq no doubt about the council's intentions to enforce them.
Although his primary focus was on Iraq, Bush also took the opportunity to reiterate Washington's commitment to the establishment of an independent, democratic Palestinian state living side by side with Israel in peace and security. The Palestinian people deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voice, he said.
Bush's speech to the UN was much more balanced than anticipated. Above all, he acknowledged the role of the UN in managing the crisis with Iraq, whereas earlier principle figures in his administration, notably Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security Advisor Condaleeza Rice, had insisted that Iraq was a purely American concern and that Washington did not need a new UN mandate to launch a strike. Indeed, some in the administration had suggested that Bush did not even need the assent of Congress for such an action, since the US executive already had a sufficient remit to undertake military action jointly or independently.
That Washington backed down from such positions constitutes a victory for those international and Arab powers that had voiced strong opposition to a strike against Iraq. In recent weeks Russia and China have insisted that Washington must act within the framework of the Security Council before undertaking any action. They, along with many others, believed that there was a good chance of reaching a settlement with Iraq that would satisfy the conditions of international legitimacy preliminary to lifting the sanctions imposed on the Iraqi people. Indeed, among the powers to enter into the debate with Washington were some of Washington's closest allies. These included France and Germany, which felt that circumstances were ripe to avert a military scenario, which would ultimately be detrimental to their interests.
Washington's latest position was, without a doubt, also the fruit of the efforts of many Arab countries. In the face of immense US pressures, Egypt and Saudi Arabia in particular were adamant in rejecting a military strike outside the UN framework, cautioning that any military operation against Iraq would precipitate regional catastrophe.
With such a broad array of international opinion rallied against it, Washington had little choice but to concede the need for an umbrella of international legitimacy. However, the upshot of the Bush administration's new stance was to augment the pressures on Iraq. Within hours of his speech, the US president declared that his country would insist that any new Security Council resolution would provide for a very short grace period -- reckoned in days or weeks rather than months -- for Iraq to comply with UN demands. The implication was that should Iraq fail to do so, the US will act on what it considers sufficient international support for military action against Iraq.
This reading of the situation was borne out in President Hosni Mubarak's comments on Bush's speech. The Egyptian president welcomed Washington's decision to acknowledge the central role the UN, and specifically the Security Council, must play in order to diffuse a situation that could end in disaster for all parties and to preserve the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq. Simultaneously, Mubarak called upon the Iraqi leadership to take this chance to implement all relevant Security Council resolutions immediately, thereby cutting short a dangerous escalation that would have grave repercussions for the peace and security of the Iraqi people and the Middle East as a whole.
Thus, while the Egyptian president realises the opportunity at hand for the Iraqi people made possible by Arab and international pressures on the US, he is also aware that the danger is not over. Washington has taken a major step towards overcoming international and regional objections in its appeal for a new UN Security Council resolution that would permit for the military option against Iraq, after a very short grace period, without encountering serious international or regional objections.
As Mubarak said, Bush's speech has opened the door to the opportunity for a political settlement that would avert the agonies of war for Iraq and the Middle East as a whole. Iraq, he said, must seize this chance to agree to the unconditional return of international weapons inspectors and allow them complete freedom to pursue their tasks. In so doing, Iraq will have put paid to all of Washington's arguments for launching a strike. Then, once the inspectors have completed their work, the Arabs in cooperation with international powers that are allied with the US, such as Germany and France, will be able to work towards setting in motion a clearly defined mechanism for lifting the sanctions and reassimilating Iraq fully into the Arab order.
For Baghdad to have responded with defiant bravado to the new situation generated by Bush's speech would have been totally out of the question. Rather, the situation required the Iraqi leadership to act in accordance with the exigencies of reality and to act in good faith in handling this crisis within its natural context as an issue between Iraq and the UN. I believe that the Iraqi leadership has risen to the occasion. In its letter to the UN secretary-general, it complied with the most important demand urged upon it by Arab and international parties keen on averting a US-British military campaign against Iraq. Explicit in its wording and resolve, the letter read, "I am honoured to inform you of the decision of the government of Iraq to allow the return to Iraq of the UN weapons inspectors, without conditions." This decision, it continued, emanated from the Iraqi government's "desire to complete the implementation of the pertinent resolutions of the Security Council and to remove all doubt that Iraq no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction." Particularly encouraging was Baghdad's affirmation that it was "ready to discuss the practical arrangements necessary for the immediate resumption of the inspection process".
This latest Iraqi initiative has created a sturdy platform on the basis of which Arab and international powers can pursue their efforts towards safeguarding regional peace and security. It further enables them to work actively towards the fulfillment of the demand Baghdad stipulated in the final paragraph of the letter to Kofi Annan: "In this context, the Government of the Republic of Iraq renews its emphasis on the need for all members of the Security Council and the UN to respect the sovereignty of Iraq, its territorial integrity and its political independence, in accordance with the provisions of UN Security Council resolutions and Article 2 of the UN Charter."
For those governments that had hoped Baghdad would not rise to the demands of this occasion and, consequently, be subjected to an American-British military operation on the basis of a new Security Council mandate, the response of the Iraqi authorities must have come as a shock. Indeed, some of these parties manifested their disappointment by voicing doubts over the seriousness of Iraq's intent or by listing a series of other, sometimes impossible to meet, demands in the hope of driving Baghdad to retract its recent position.
Regardless of such ill will, I believe that Iraq's message to the UN constituted only the first step towards eliminating all grounds for a strike. It is now up to the Iraqi authorities to follow through on their intentions and to take all practical measures to enable the return of the UN inspectors and to cooperate positively and effectively with the UN in the implementation of all requirements necessary for the effective completion of their work. Simultaneously, they must conscientiously avoid getting lured into the traps certain powers are laying in order to provoke Iraq into an irresponsible action that would halt progress. My appeal, therefore, to the Iraqi leadership is to sustain its focus on the strategic goal, which is to bring a close to all disputes between their country and the UN so as to ensure that the process of lifting the sanctions can be set into motion as soon as possible.
Taking steps at the point of a gun is not exactly "initiative," and the only thing "positive" about them is that they'll keep Saddam from being bombed into oblivion for a few more days.
Characterizing Iraq's response to Bush's threats as constructive is like saying that a mugger asks his victim for a donation.
There is not just one "first step" involved here. There are two: 1) Saddam Hussein and his entire psychotic family dead. 2) All Iraq weapns of mass destruction destroyed, as verified by the 82nd Airborne.
I don't see any signs of Iraq moving in the direction of either "first step." I do see signs that the US is moving in that direction. Ah, well, it's a filthy job but somebody's gotta do it.
Congressman Billybob
Click for major article on turnover in the House of Representatives: "Til Death Do Us Part."
Click for latest book: "to Restore Trust in America"
Latest column, "The Politics of Flight 93," is posted on FreeRepublic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.