POLITICS-IRAQ: All Sides Play it Safe

By Farhan Haq Reprint | | Print |

UNITED NATIONS, Nov 2 1998 (IPS) - All those affected by Iraq’s latest order banning U.N weapons inspections remained wary Monday of over- playing their hand in the standoff between Baghdad, the United Nations and Washington.

During the weekend, Iraq banned inspectors from the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) from operating inside its territory but stopped short of expelling them. At the same time Baghdad said it would still allow video inspection of Iraqi weapons sites and visits by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

“We are not seeking confrontation,” said Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz. “We are just protecting our rights.”

On the opposite side, the United States used Baghdad’s bluster to rebuild unanimity in the U.N. Security Council for Iraqi compliance. But Washington remained cautious over the prospects of a military strike against Iraq, which could lose it the same support it has carefully mustered in recent weeks.

U.S. State Department spokesman James Rubin emphasised Monday that “all options are on the table” regarding Iraq, including possible military strikes. U.S. diplomats at the United Nations, however, only tentatively explored the possibility of support for any use of force.

Even U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who resolved an earlier standoff by conducting negotiations in February with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, tried to stay clear of too large an involvement in the crisis. This time, instead of suggesting another trip to Baghdad, Annan indicated he would follow the lead of the Security Council.

“The Council is seized of the matter, and I will be having consultations with the Council members for the present,” Annan said. While he called the UNSCOM ban “a total breach of Security Council resolutions”, the U.N. chief did not suggest any immediate course of action.

The reason for so much caution is that, at this make-or-break time for Iraq’s hopes of lifting an eight-year-old U.N. embargo, no side has emerged with any clear diplomatic advantage.

Iraq gained some leverage this year following years of international frustration over sanctions and Annan’s diplomatic breakthrough in February. But even its Council defenders – notably France and Russia – are tired of Baghdad’s tactic of fostering repeated crises to draw attention to the embargo.

On the other hand, the United States suffered for much of the year because Russia, France and many Arab states would no longer countenance the idea of responding to each new standoff with air strikes or new punishments for Baghdad.

As a result, U.S. diplomats have made it clear that they do not want to risk losing any diplomatic advantage caused by Iraq’s latest moves by appearing too eager for a fight. Instead, Rubin emphasised that Washington’s advantage has come about because “even (Iraq’s) estwhile friends are left speechless in trying to defend the indefensible”.

One of those friends, Russia, delivered a terse message to Iraq through its foreign ministry Monday: “We are counting on Baghdad scrupulously weighing up once more the negative consequences of this move, which can seriously exacerbate the situation in the region anew.”

Iraq indeed seems to be calculating the costs and benefits of a new crisis, which deepens the standoff with UNSCOM begun Aug. 5, when Baghdad suspended cooperation with U.N. inspections into undeclared weapons sites.

Now, the new shift means that UNSCOM also cannot inspect declared weapons sites through periodic visits. However, the IAEA – which monitors Iraq’s nuclear programme, and has given it more positive reports about the destruction of Iraqi weaponry than UNSCOM – can go about its normal tasks.

Also, cameras installed by UNSCOM at Iraqi sites were still functioning, and the roughly 100 UNSCOM agents in Iraq remained in the country, although largely idle.

“Inspectors were able to visit sites and change videocasettes” in monitoring cameras Monday, U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard confirmed. However, he added, such activity “in no way constitutes an effective monitoring function.”

At the same time, Baghdad seemed to be hedging its bets, evidenced by its separate treatment for UNSCOM and the IAEA. The UNSCOM team, headed by Australian diplomat Richard Butler, has been lambasted in Baghdad as biased – particularly since it keeps finding evidence that Iraq had built more chemical and biological weapons than it previously declared. The IAEA, however, has found Iraq to have no current nuclear weapons threat.

In announcing its ban on UNSCOM inspections Saturday, the Iraqi government demanded the Butler be fired and sanctions lifted. But the real spark behind the ban seemed to be Washington’s previous success at blocking efforts – led by Russia, France and China – to have the Security Council state clearly that sanctions would end once UNSCOM gives Iraq a clean bill of health on weapons concerns.

Butler argued that his team was willing to give a favourable report if Iraq cooperates with weapons inspections, calling his repeated comments that Baghdad could move closer to the lifting of sanctions “a true and clear promise”.

The White House did not agree. U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright listed other demands – including accounting for the fate of Kuwaiti prisoners of war – among the conditions for lifting sanctions, stoking Baghdad’s worries that the embargo will never end.

Nevertheless, the ban on inspections has not helped Iraq either. The Security Council Saturday condemned the move as “a flagrant violation”, and said it would only review Iraq’s compliance with weapons demands once it has resumed full cooperation with UNSCOM.

As matters stand, the Council will not review the sanctions at all until cooperation resumes, keeping sanctions in place indefinitely. Yet Washington’s stance has made it clear that even if the Council holds a review, it will not guarantee that the end of sanctions will be on the cards.

Given that the only options seem to be a military clash or a continuation of the slow, frustrating halt on U.N. weapons activity in Iraq. The former option has loomed larger, with U.S. President Bill Clinton conferring with military officials Monday while some 30,000 U.S. troops remain posted near the Persian Gulf.

Yet even the military option might not resolve the crisis decisively, observers opined.

As it is, Washington has only rebuilt some trust among Arab states following Clinton’s efforts two weeks ago to resume the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. As long as that effort looks shaky, the goal of mustering Arab support in the Iraq dispute will also be slight.