POLITICS-IRAQ: Diplomacy Takes Back Seat in War Talk

By Farhan Haq Reprint | | Print |

UNITED NATIONS, Nov 13 1998 (IPS) - Diplomats at the United Nations remained unusually silent Friday in the run-up to a new round of likely military conflict between U.S. troops and Iraq.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan downplayed any idea of his going to Baghdad to mediate a standoff which has led to the end of U.N. weapons inspections and the withdrawal of all inspectors and most other U.N. personnel from Iraq. At the same time, Iraq’s allies – notably Russia, France and Arab nations – maintained a low-key tone both here and in meetings around the world.

That quiet posture by the parties which did so much to avert a military standoff over weapons inspections last February delighted the United States and raised the prospects for U.S. air strikes as early as next week.

“What (Iraqi President Saddam Hussein) is hearing right now are the sounds of silence,” crowed U.S. State Department spokesman James Rubin.

“You know what’s interesting? … The Gulf states, along with Syria and Egypt, made very clear that Saddam Hussein was solely responsible for what was going on,” U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright argued, referring to a Thursday statement by eight Arab nations which criticised Iraq. “So even his Arab neighbours are beginning to see what we are seeing, that this is his responsibility.”

Unlike in February, there have been no efforts by Russia or other allies to push Baghdad to accept inspections by the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM), which must verify the scrapping of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction before an eight-year-old sanctions regime can be lifted.

Nor has Annan, who negotiated an agreement with Saddam Hussein which ended the February standoff, decided to intervene personally, saying, “I have no plans to go to Baghdad at the moment.”

Their silence reflects growing impatience with Iraq, which stopped allowing inspections of all undeclared weapons sites on Aug. 5 and then halted almost all UNSCOM activity on Oct. 31. But Washington may overplay its hand if it assumes that the relative quiet among Iraq’s supporters means that it can pursue air strikes with impunity.

On Friday, the U.N. ambassadors for Russia, France and China – all of which hold veto power on the 15-nation Security Council and all of which oppose military action – met in a clear signal that they are still considering alternatives to U.S. force.

Meanwhile, U.N. officials pondered how to deal with a new complication: the departure on Friday of independent inspection agents from Lloyd’s of London, who were stationed at Iraqi checkpoints to certify that authorised food and medicine arrive properly.

Without those agents certifying the deliveries, U.N. Iraq Office chief Benon Sevan warned, the United Nations would not be able to pay for humanitarian aid in accordance with a deal that allows Iraq to sell limited amounts of oil to buy food and medicine.

The prospect of seeing innocent Iraqis suffer remains a powerful card for Baghdad in winning the end of sanctions – particularly if a U.S. strike kills civilians.

Also, any casualties stemming from an attack could prompt Baghdad to refuse to allow any further weapons inspections. As a result, many diplomats here privately want to see more time for a negotiated return of the UNSCOM inspectors, arguing that an attack will doom UNSCOM.

The weapons inspectors’ chairman, Richard Butler, disagrees. “I don’t accept the logic of those who say a strike would destroy UNSCOM,” he said. Instead, he argued, if any attack is followed by a clear demand to Iraq to allow inspections to resume, the strikes could help ensure that UNSCOM’s work can be completed without obstruction.

Other U.N. officials, however, are worried that a hasty move toward war will end the careful efforts this year to preserve the weapons inspections and to allow a “comprehensive review” of sanctions that could ease the crippling embargo.

Sources told IPS that Annan was furious that Butler authorised the withdrawal of all 103 UNSCOM and nuclear weapons inspectors from Iraq on Wednesday without consulting the secretary-general, who was in Morocco. Other U.N. officials contend that Washington is pushing for speedy action on Iraq without allowing time for a diplomatic solution.

Part of the problem for the United Nations is that diplomats doubt that military action can end the standoff. Baghdad has no incentive to allow inspections if there is no chance for ending the sanctions, and the United States likely would only halt its strikes if UNSCOM is allowed back in to do its work.

Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz Thursday laid down his government’s bottom line, arguing, “There will be no peaceful solution to this situation until the United States agreed to the principle of lifting sanctions.”

That stance could herald the onset of a long struggle. And time could well help Iraq, and not the United States.

For one thing, Arab support for the U.S. effort depends in part on the success of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, which even now appeared shaky as Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s government opened bidding for a controversial Jewish housing development in Arab-dominated East Jerusalem.

For another, U.S. President Bill Clinton has not had to face the thorny question of whether the U.S. public will support a lengthy fight with Iraq.

In February, when Albright and other government officials tried to make the case for using force at a televised meeting in Ohio, they were heckled by vocal anti-war protestors – and their humiliation was a factor in steering Washington to embrace Annan’s successful diplomacy. This time, like Iraq’s allies, the U.S. public has remained silent.