IRAQ: Ex-Portuguese Pres. Mario Soares Warns of ‘A New Vietnam’

By Mario Osava Reprint | | Print |

Mario Osava

RIO DE JANEIRO, Mar 13 2003 (IPS) - United States President George W. Bush will become bogged down in ”another Vietnam” if he launches a war against Iraq, former Portuguese President Mario Soares told IPS.

War appears to be inevitable, but ”I still hold a thread of hope” that it will not occur, the prominent socialist leader said in an exclusive interview with IPS during a visit to Rio de Janeiro, where he presided over a Mar. 10-11 seminar on the growing divide between civil society and the world’s political institutions.

Bush has placed himself in ”a terrible juncture” by excluding any alternative to war: backtracking now would be demoralising, and moving forward would lead to a worse disaster, because the problem will be how to pull out of Iraq, said Soares, who served as president of Portugal from 1986 to 1996 and held the post of prime minister for several stints in the 1980s.

Q: A war in Iraq will require previous battles, in the United Nations Security Council, and to win over international public opinion. How do you think Washington will do in those battles?

A: I don’t see how the United States could win in the Council, against the resistance of so many members. And even if it drums up a majority of the 15 votes, France and Russia have already announced that they will veto any resolution authorising an invasion of Iraq, in which they would likely be accompanied by China.

In addition, we all know that some favourable votes will have been obtained by means of pressure on the governments of vulnerable countries, and will not represent the views of their people. To that is added the fact that public opinion in the United States is changing, and people are realising that the far right is increasingly dominating the administration of Bush, who triumphed in a dubious manner in elections in which only 35 percent of the electorate turned out.

Manifestations of opposition to the war have become more numerous, for example in a New York Times editorial and an article by former president Jimmy Carter (1977-1981).

Q: The internal resistance began before the war?

A: Yes, there has been a shift in U.S. society, which is beginning to resist the exploitation of panic and the terrorism issue.

The truth is that this war against Iraq, added to Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians and the Arab world, is the worst thing that could happen with regards to terrorism, since it will not facilitate counter-terrorism efforts, and will aggravate the hatred, which will trigger further terrorist attacks.

People in the United States are beginning to realise that, partly as a result of the alerts and warnings issued by their government itself.

On the other hand, people in the United States are reacting to the economic situation in their country, which is entering a profound crisis that could get worse. So far it has been Europe that has paid for the wars, but this one will be paid for by the United States, since Britain and Spain will not be able to do so.

Washington has already started to pay, sending a large military contingent. There are already 250,000 soldiers around Iraq, who have been waiting for two months, which could hurt the troops’ morale.

Q: But despite everything there will be war?

A: I believe that war is virtually inevitable, but asked today, I would still hesitate to say yes. I still hold a thread of hope.

Q: In case of war, what will happen with the United Nations, and especially the Security Council?

A: (UN Secretary-General) Kofi Annan categorically stated that any action against Iraq without Security Council authorisation would amount to an attack on the UN Charter, and there is no doubt that it would be a subversion of the entire body of international law built up over so many years. That is the gravest aspect.

That would throw into question the strength of the Council, and a major effort would then be required to rebuild the United Nations, which I consider essential, since the world cannot remain subordinate to the wishes of a major world power.

Q: But the group that controls the U.S. government has already made its rejection of the Council clear.

A: Yes, because they want to dominate the world and believe they have the power to do so. But I have seen Carter’s article, which is very powerful, and which runs counter to that vision, and many of the elite in the United States also think differently.

Q: At least in this phase of the crisis, the Security Council has been ”reborn,” has returned to the centre of global decision- making.

A: That is because France rebelled, by saying ‘no’ and announcing its veto, which encouraged other powers to take the same stance. Washington thought it would be easy to convince everyone, but it wasn’t. That is something new, which has major consequences for the future of the world, and for the Bush administration in particular. I am sure that Bush will not be able to resolve his economic crisis by fleeing into war. Even if the war is swift, the U.S. recession will continue. And how will it pull out of the war? That will be very difficult, and is the big problem. In the long-run, Bush will have public opinion against him, and he will lose the next elections. I have no doubts about that.

Q: In summary, what do you think will happen in the world if there is a war, and what will happen if there isn’t?

A: If there is no war, that would be a terrible blow for the Bush administration, not for the United States. It is important not to confuse the government with the people. It is the far right in power that is committing blunders, causing enormous damage to the United States’ global prestige.

If Bush backs down, he will find himself in a difficult situation vis-a-vis the elections when he has to explain why he startled the world and in the end did not live up to his threats. But if he pushes forward, how will he then pull out of Iraq? Will he be able to kill (Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein, or will Hussein let himself be arrested? Despite everything that was done in Afghanistan, (Osama) Bin Laden was never caught. And little is known about what happened over there; someday it will come out.

Q: Would Iraq be a bigger and more complex Afghanistan?

A: Exactly. If they caught Hussein, I don’t know if they would kill him or put him on trial, but perhaps he would become a hero, and a myth would be created for the Arab world, even though he is an unscrupulous murderer and dictator.

But the worst thing would be the complications that the United States would face with Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and the problem of maintaining unity in Iraq, where there are Kurds, Shi’ite Muslims with ties to Iran, and Sunni Muslims, who would become the oppressed minority.

Q: In case of war, could the governments of Bush, and those of Tony Blair in Britain, José María Aznar in Spain and Silvio Berlusconi in Italy – all of which have backed Washington – face collapse?

A: Bush would not fall immediately, but in the next elections. But the rest could lose their posts as prime ministers. Blair is on the verge of a fall, largely due to his own actions, as he is facing a rebellion within his own Labour Party.

Moreover, the myth of the ”Third Way” (between capitalism and socialism, of which Blair was one of the main proponents), in which I never believed, has been completely destroyed.

Q: Could all of this strengthen progressive parties in Europe and revert the wave of triumphs by the European right?

A: It is possible, but you have to take into account that it is a Gaullist (conservative French President Jacques Chirac) who is leading the resistance. Chirac’s popularity was seen on a recent visit to Algeria, where he was welcomed as a hero by millions of people, which was extraordinary, especially given the fact that he served as an officer in France’s war against Algerian independence. But yes, the reverse is happening in Spain, Italy and Portugal.

Q: What could happen with Prime Minister José Durao Barroso in Portugal?

A: He has also placed himself in a difficult position, by unconditionally backing Washington, on the argument that the United States is a democracy and Iraq a dictatorship.

But that is not in question. The issue here is international law: whether a country has the right to dominate others, and to do so without consulting the rest of the international community. Besides, Durao Barroso answers to the legislature, where his majority gives him legitimacy, but he also has to answer to the president (Jorge Sampaio, a socialist), who has expressed the opposite view. His loss of popularity seems inevitable.

Q: Can you see any diplomatic solution for avoiding war, an honourable way out for Bush?

A: I don’t see any, because he has closed all the doors, particularly in his last press conference. Chirac’s proposal for the heads of state to meet in the Security Council could pave the way for an honourable way out in a kind of summit, if many leaders were to attend. But Bush has rejected that suggestion.

War would be the greatest disaster. There are human lives at stake, as well as Iraq’s environmental and historical patrimony. It would be a repeat of Vietnam. In another form, but the essence would remain the same.