Say no to war on Iraq

After President George W Bush imperiously taunted the United Nations either to show 'some backbone' -- that is, fall in line with Washington -- or become 'irrelevant' like the League of Nations, the US is set to move a new Security Council resolution on Iraq. This is likely to contain unreasonable conditions which Baghdad might find impossible to comply with -- despite its decision to welcome UN weapons inspectors. But Iraq's non-compliance is exactly what Washington wants! Because then, it can get the Security Council to authorise an armed attack on Iraq on which it has already set its mind. Washington is going through the Security Council not because it respects it, but because its key allies, including France and Germany, and China and Russia, are reluctant to act without a UN mandate. A UNSC resolution is a fig-leaf for what America has already decided on: a 'regime change' in Iraq.

The US/UNSC would be disastrously ill-advised to make war on Iraq. To start with, there exists no legal mandate for this. Under international law, there can be only two arguments for an armed attack: self-defence, and Security Council resolutions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter in the event of 'threats to' or 'breach of' the peace. Neither applies to the present case. Iraq is not about to attack the US, its allies or any other state. Nor was it recently involved in 'terrorism' or in September 11. Terms such as 'threats to' the peace cannot apply to a state that has not attacked another since 1990.

Iraq is being wrongly accused of 'defying' UNSC resolutions. In reality, it has complied with them, in particular the all-pervasive Resolution 687 (of 1991), which mandates the destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction -- WMDs -- under international supervision. Yet, the ultra-hawkish US Vice-President Dick Cheney claims with supreme confidence: 'there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has WMDs… he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us… The risks of inaction are far greater than the risk of action.'

This flies in the face of reports of the UN Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency. They carried out thousands of intrusive inspections based on the toughest-ever multilateral sanctions imposed in modern history. The IAEA verified in 1998 that Iraq had compiled a 'full, final and complete' account of its nuclear projects and there was no evidence of prohibited activity. UNSCOM too has endorsed this view through its present chief Hans Blix. The sanctions regime was used to supply intelligence to the CIA. Former UNSCOM chief Rolf Ekeus confirms this. As does US Marine Scott Ritter, formerly with UNSCOM, who says Iraq now has no WMD programme.

To say this is neither to endorse Mr Hussein's tyrannical regime nor his intentions to acquire WMDs. He had WMD-acquisition programmes and actually possessed chemical weapons decades ago. Indeed, he used them in the late 1980s against Iran. Then, the US, obsessed with defeating Iran, turned a blind eye. But after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, it accused him of having used chemical arms against his Kurdish citizens, at Halabjah. There is new evidence that the party responsible for bombarding the Kurds was Iran, not Iraq!

The US's anti-WMD tirade would have sounded less hypocritical if it were not the world's biggest possessor of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, with their unacceptably gruesome human and environmental consequences. The US in fact is guilty of tearing up or opposing treaty after arms control treaty, including the Biological Weapons Protocol, Landmines Ban, Anti-Ballistic Missiles Treaty, the International Criminal Court, not to speak of the CTBT. It not only wants to maintain its WMD arsenals but also build and test new nuclear weapons. The new, aggressive policies outlined in the recent Nuclear Posture Review contradict the US' international legal obligation under the NPT to abolish nuclear weapons.

The US condones de facto WMD possession by many states, including Russia, France, Britain, China, Israel, India and Pakistan. So long as they continue to possess WMDs, others will seek to do likewise. The US' singling out of Iraq has less to do with its now de-fanged WMD programmes -- which can be neutralised by reasonable multilateral inspections -- than with other, US-centred, causes.

First and foremost, this is an election year in the US, with the entire House of Representatives and a sixth of the Senate up for contest. Post-September 11, war is more popular than Mr Bush's domestic policies, which have little to show for themselves. The nationalist Hard Right knows the Democrats are reluctant to be seen oppose the administration on 'national security' and be branded 'appeasers.' Electorally, the Republicans are evenly poised against the Democrats. War could tilt the balance, completing the Hard Right's takeover of America.

Second, Mr Bush's one-year-long war against 'terrorism' has produced few results barring a 'regime change' in Afghanistan and the Taliban's welcome ouster. To this day, 80 per cent of Al-Qaeda/Taliban top leaders remain unaccounted-for. Afghanistan is in an extremely volatile state, with the Hamid Karzai regime lacking military muscle and moral-political authority. Mr Bush has to show some kind of 'victory' in the so-called 'historic' war against 'global terror.' Hence Iraq -- not because Mr Hussein has any connection with September 11, but because 9/11 can be exploited to target him.

Closely tied to America's Iraq plans are grander designs to restructure the entire West Asian region by installing slavishly pro-Western regimes in key states. Cheney has spelt out the purpose of a 'regime change' in Iraq: 'Extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of jehad. Moderates … would take heart. And our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be enhanced.' This would tell the Middle East's people 'they have a friend and ally in the US …'

The third factor at work is Black Gold -- the US interest in oil. US energy companies have reacted sharply to a recent RAND Corporation report terming Saudi Arabia 'the kernel of evil,' a likely prey to Islamic extremism, which cannot responsibly perform its role as the world's biggest oil producer. They want Iraq's huge reserves -- 112 billion barrels, second largest in the world -- to be opened up. Once 'Evil Saddam' is displaced, production can also cranked up from the present 2.4 million barrels/day to 4 mbd. Oil is all-important. No US cabinet has been closer to the energy industry than Bush Jr's. It is the energy industry.

Driven by these questionable motives, the US is likely to lead an all-out attack on Iraq. To get UNSC sanction, it will twist the arms of the 10 non-permanent members of the Council. Neither Russia nor China, leave alone France, will probably exercise their veto once they know Washington's mind. But two things are clear. The US' NATO allies will support the war only with reservations -- unlike 1991, after Iraq invaded Kuwait and 'collective self-defence' could be invoked. Second, the US today has no significant Arab allies who are willing to contribute troops.

Bush Jr lacks a clear plan for a post-Saddam Iraq. There are at least a dozen anti-Saddam parties/factions in Iraq. But they are too weak, divided and mutually hostile to provide a viable alternative. That is one reason why the US-led coalition decided to leave Mr Hussein in power in 1991. A post-Saddam Iraq could well break up into a northern Kurd-dominated state, a southern largely-Shia country, and a Sunni Arab centre. That would be worse than the status quo -- even for US oil interests.

The regional and global repercussions of an attack on Iraq will be grim. War will unleash powerful resentment from Iraq's neighbours, and strengthen the US' enemies. It will negate whatever gains have been achieved in the so-called 'war on terror,' convincing many that the US is invading Iraq without a casus belli or provocation. The Palestinian crisis will further worsen (if that's still possible). The Middle East could plunge into unprecedented turmoil and violence. Zionist and Islamic fundamentalists will be the principal beneficiaries -- and soon, their rivals from other religions. The US will have established that 'Might is Right,' with unspeakable consequences for the structure of multilateral institutions. This structure has evolved over two centuries through nation-states voluntarily abridging absolute sovereignty. The undermining of multilateralism spells anarchy, chaos and brigandage.

This confronts India with a serious dilemma. New Delhi has good relations with Iraq, its single biggest oil supplier. There are 3.1 million Indians in the Gulf whose remittances are much greater than all the FDI flows put together. War also spells instability in Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan -- an unpleasant prospect for India. New Delhi has been cautioning against war. But this is now yielding to ambiguity -- because India wants a 'strategic partnership' with the US! Thus, Mr Vajpayee kept silent on Iraq during his UN speech. As America cranks up war preparations, India will find it hard to take an independent stand. Like with the 1991 refuelling, it will be asked to fall in line. That bodes ill for our future.

Praful Bidwai