|
March
3, 2003
CONTENTS
EDITORIAL
How we choose
to deal with Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) will
have profound implications for the future of multilateralism.
There are those who say that the traditional approach to arms
control has failed. Instead, we should embrace preventive
military strategies, unrestrained by outdated treaties and
debates at the UN, to impose acquiescence on those who might
threaten us.
Yet this
analysis is flawed. In our highly interdependent world it is
only through multilateral efforts that we can hope to tackle
effectively the threat posed by WMD. So, where treaties are
found wanting we should strengthen rather than discard them.
We should act within international law, even when this proves
inconvenient. And we must build the greatest possible expression of
the international will before embarking upon war to enforce
disarmament.
The US and
the UK governments may believe that those who want more time for the
inspections to work are being naïve. But the critical
importance of ensuring that multilateralism prevails in this
affair means that their views deserve to be accommodated. All
those who genuinely seek Iraq's abandonment of its WMD
capabilities need to act as one. Our disarmament agenda should
be set by Hans Blix and the UN Security Council rather than by
George Bush and the Gulf meteorological office.
Dr
Stephen Pullinger, Executive Director ISIS
QUOTES OF THE WEEK
“Whoever decides to
forsake his nation is not true to the principles, we will die
in this country and we will maintain our honour.” Saddam
Hussein, after being asked whether he would go into exile to
avoid war.
“We see now that
Iraq is cooperating with the UN arms inspectors. Therefore, we
don't understand the insistence of certain states to wage war
on Iraq." Iranian
Secretary of Supreme National Security Council, Hassan Rowhani
“Saddam
Hussein may surrender his weapons of mass destruction, but
without the threat of force - or, sadly, the use of it - he
will end up staying in power.” Nobel Peace Prize winner Jose
Ramos-Horta.
“We’re talking about a post-hostilities
control over a piece of geography that’s fairly significant,
with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other
problems.” US Army chief of staff, General Eric Shinseki on
post-Iraq.
“We will make Iraq a grave
for anyone who enters it.” Iraqi Trade Minister Mohammed
Mehdi Saleh.
"I myself will take my
gun and shoot every Turk I see."
Kurdish Commander Kemal Musa Faqi makes clear Turkish
troops are not welcome in Kurdish controlled northern Iraq.
UN
ACTIVITIES
Missile
Destruction
After some
Iraqi reticence, the UN confirmed on March 1 that Iraq had
destroyed four of its 100 to 120 Al-Samoud 2 missiles, and six
more were claimed by Iraqi officials to have been destroyed on
Sunday. However, Iraq threatened on March 3 to terminate its
destruction programme if the United States continued to
threaten military action without formal UN backing. The Al-Samoud
missiles form an important part of the defence of Baghdad. Inspections
elsewhere continued, with UN officials meeting with Iraqi
counterparts over the weekend to discuss Iraqi claims
regarding the destruction of stockpiles of anthrax and VX gas.
Last
week the transcript of the August 1995 UNSCOM interview with
the Iraqi defector, Hussein Kamal, previously Saddam's weapons
chief, was posted on a Cambridge
website. In it he claimed that Iraq's WMD were destroyed
illicitly, in order that the programme could be restarted when
inspectors left the country. This draws into question the
assumption widely held that Iraq possesses WMD chemical and
biological weapons today. The transcript may not have been
released previously because the UN agency wanted to maintain
pressure on Saddam Hussein to admit to possessing stocks. The discovery
of a dump of warheads containing anthrax, aflotoxin and
botulin at the al-Aziziya air base this weekend may back up
this version of events.
Draft
Second Resolution
The United
States, Spain and the United Kingdom introduced to the
Security Council a new
draft resolution, which claimed that resolution 1441 had
afforded Iraq “a final opportunity” that it had failed to
take. The Security Council remained broadly unconvinced, this
position outlined by a memorandum,
introduced shortly thereafter by France, the Russian
Federation and Germany, which maintained that the conditions
for the use of force had not been fulfilled and that Iraqi
cooperation was improving.
The memorandum also, however, acknowledged that
inspections could not continue indefinitely.
On February 28, Hans Blix submitted the 12th
Quarterly Report to the UNSC.
The Report noted that papers handed over to UNMOVIC by
Iraq contained no new evidence.
It likewise noted that UNMOVIC was in the process of
preparing an internal document that would list disarmament
issues considered unresolved and would, in addition, list
steps that Iraq could take to resolve them.
The report also noted that it had not yet been possible
to obtain interviews “that give satisfactory credibility.”
Last
week the transcript of the August 1995 UNSCOM interview with
the Iraqi defector, Hussein Kamal, previously Saddam's weapons
chief, was posted on a Cambridge
website, and subsequently reported in Newsweek. In it, he
claimed that Iraq's WMD were destroyed illicitly without the knowledge
of UNSCOM, in order that the programme could be restarted once
the inspectors had left Iraq. Kamal has frequently been
referred to in dossiers and speeches as the prime source of
information on the CBW programmes in the mid 1990s. Even if
this new evidence draws into question the assumption widely
held that Iraq possess chemical and biological weapons today,
however, Iraq still needs to be more forthcoming with
information about its prohibited weapons programmes if they
are to account for gaps in the information given to weapons
inspectors.
Regional
and Strategic Impacts
Turkey
refuses US troop deployment
The Turkish parliament voted on March 1 against the deployment
of 62,000 US troops along the northern border with Iraq.
No decision has been made by the government whether to
call a second vote when parliament reconvenes tomorrow, March 4. The vote
casts doubt on the US aid package, which was offered in return
for the deployment. The package includes a $2bn grant for the
purchase of Bell Helicopter Textron
helicopters contract, which was expected
to be announced this week, and £4bn of grants and
loans, which could have been converted into
$24bn of soft loan guarantees (Financial Times 03.03). It was
unclear whether the aid package would have passed through the
US Congress without modification, in any case. There have
since been massive
falls in the value of Turkish markets in response, with
stocks down over 10% and the value of the lira down 5% against
the dollar. Turkey is still likely to want to send its own
troops to northern Iraq to halt any Kurdish
nationalist uprisings.
Reconstructing
Afghanistan- lessons for Iraq?
A
50 strong delegation of Iraqi opposition groups met inside
northern Iraq on February 27, for the first time in eleven
years to broadly debate their nations future.
Concerns centred on fears that Turkey plan to deploy
55,000 troops into northern Iraq and reports
that Washington intended to install a military government in
Iraq for two years if Saddam Hussein is removed.
But White House envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad pledged that US
intervention would last “not one minute” after Iraq had
been furnished with “accountable and representative
government”. (Financial Times, 27/02/03)
Meanwhile,
Afghan President Hamid Karzi visited Washington urging
president Bush not to abandon Afghanistan. “Don’t forget us if Iraq happens”, Mr Karzai told the
US Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Difficulties facing the American-backed coalition
government were highlighted in newspaper reports this week.
“This place is one hundred times more dangerous than
Iraq” said a US reserve officer in Afghanistan, referring to
the regrouping of several hundred Taliban and al Q’aeda
forces and the lack of peacekeeping forces in areas outside
Kabul (The Independent, 24/02/03). On February 27 the UN suspended
aid operations in several parts of the country because of
fighting between warlords.
US
cuts aid to Israel
Director-General
of the Isreali Defence Ministry, Amos Yaron, was
told this week in Washington that Israel’s request for
$4 billion in aid related
to any war in Iraq and the war on terror,
would be cut to $1-2 billion. The Americans were willing to supply money for gas masks, air
defence, early warning systems and medicines, but were
unwilling to provide money for mobilisation of reserves, and
the development and purchase of modern technical equipment,
arms and ammunition. The US insists that
the aid, which stems from a $95 billion package to pay
for a war on Iraq and assist Turkey, Jordan and Israel to
defend their borders, is not to be used for Israeli actions
against Palestine.
Arab
League meeting highlights regions disunity
The
22 members of the Arab League met in Cairo for their annual
conference on March 1. The conference, which was brought
forward to discuss the crisis in Iraq, was fraught with
underlying tensions. Whilst the conference did agree on a
motion that opposed war on Iraq and was against foreign
interference in Arab affairs it became clear that US
involvement in the region was an issue of strong contention.
In a strong exchange the Libyan leader Muammer Gadaffi accused
Saudi Arabia of “making a deal with the devil” by inviting
US forces to the Kingdom twelve years ago. In response Crown
Prince Abdullah retorted that Gadaffi had himself achieved
power with US help adding “you are a liar and your grave
awaits you” before waking out of the meeting. The angry
exchange was live on Arab TV and was followed by angry crowds
gathering outside the Saudi embassy in Libya.
The
UAE proposal to send a delegation to Iraq to give Saddam
Hussein two weeks to go into exile was
ignored due to its potential to split the unity of the first
motion, has since gained support from Kuwait and Bahrain. (The
Telegraph 03/03/03, The Financial Times 03/03/03)
Saudi’s announces plans to
remove US troops post conflict
Saudi
Arabia had distanced itself from the US administration before
the conference by indicating they no longer want US forces to
be based in their country once any war is over. Prince Turki
Al-Faisal said
on February 28, “If there is no longer any need for a no-fly
zone in southern Iraq, then the discussions would take place
between us and the US about the removal of those forces from
the kingdom”
UK
and European Debates
Prime Minister Blair suffers House of Commons rebellion
over Iraq
On February 25 Prime Minister Tony Blair, in
a statement to the House of Commons confirmed that the UK,
Spain and the US had drafted a second UN resolution on Iraq
but were willing to delay voting on it until the March 7
report by UNMOVIC, in order to give Iraq “one further final
chance”. Blair dismissed a French, German and Russian
memorandum to the UN to discuss giving UNMOVIC more time to do
its work, adding UNMOVIC was not a “detective agency”.
The following day, Blair suffered the largest rebellion of his leadership
(believed to be the largest revolt by MPs from a governing
party in Britain ever), when 121 Labour MP’s voted that a case for military
action was “as yet unproven” following a six-hour
parliamentary debate
on Iraq. A total of 199 MPs
voted against the Government, including all 52 Liberal
Democrats, and 13 Conservative members including former
Ministers Kenneth Clarke and John Gummer.
However Blair succeeded in maintaining the support of
the majority with the final count 199 for and 393 against the
amendment.
Europe’s
future stalled over Iraq divisions?
The Convention on the Future of Europe was launched last year
as a process of defining and reviewing the aims and
institutions of the EU. The
Convention seeks to address the challenges facing the EU and
improve its internal and external operation.
The final proposals were due to be submitted to the
European Council in June 2003, but this could
be delayed because of divisions over the Iraq crisis.
Following the attack
by Chirac on their pro-American stance over Iraq, six
Eastern European candidate countries are demanding that the
start of the treaty talks in June be delayed until they have
joined the Union. Ten
candidate countries are holding referendums on membership this
week but they have warned that citizens will not want to vote
for a Union, which would soon undergo serious changes without
their input.
German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer ruled out
any extension of the time frame, “it is all the more urgent
the Convention finishes its work on time” he said, referring
to the divisions over Iraq. However, the Head of the
Convention process, Giscard D’Estaing said divisions were so
deep within Europe that it was fruitless to discuss foreign
policy issues (Financial Times 28/02/03).
EU-US
Meeting of Foreign Ministers
On
February 28 Foreign Ministers met in Washington DC for their
semi-annual meeting. At the Press
Announcement, the Greek Foreign Minister, Pappandreou,
said "we need to use all possible diplomatic means, every
window of opportunity, in trying to resolve this crisis, even
at the last moment, peacefully".
US
Debates
Post
Saddam Iraq
In the United
States, President George W. Bush unequivocally linked the
disarmament of Iraq by force with the removal of Saddam
Hussein in an address to the American
Enterprise Institute.
In it, he claimed that the US would not determine the
new form of an Iraqi government but, equally, would not allow
one dictator to be replaced by another.
More pointedly, he claimed that if force was used,
“the mission will be complete disarmament, which will mean
regime change.” He also
talked of the change in leadership within Iraq as opening
doors for democracy throughout the Middle East.
In a radio
address on March 2, President Bush compared a
post-Saddam Iraq situation with that in 1945 Europe and Japan.
He said his objective was to repeat the success of building
fellow democracies, not engaging in prolonged military
occupation. The Washington
Post editorial of March 2 urged the President to seek an
international solution, with an interim administration run by
a non-American.
The Royal Institute for
International Affairs published a report
today (March 3) on the regional fall-out from a war in
Iraq. It sets out the many challenges to any ambitious plans
for a smooth transition towards democracy and free-market
economies in the region. We will be publishing a paper by Ambassador Robert
Barry, previously head of the OSCE, on the issues around a
post-Saddam Iraq later this week.
Last
week also saw some discussion
of the potential financial costs of a war, which in the
short term has been variously
estimated at between $50bn and $200bn for the United States.
In addition, the wider possible impact
on the domestic economy was also queried, with differing
scenarios examined depending on the length of the war.
LATEST
POLL RESULTS
In the United
States, support for a war with Iraq appeared to remain much as
it has for the last few weeks and down slightly from the high
it appeared to reach in the wake of Secretary of State
Powell’s speech to the UN Security Council.
A CBS
News Poll conducted between the 24 and 25 February claimed
that 66% of the American public would approve of military
action against Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
The same poll, however, demonstrated a concern for
inspections to be given a chance to run their course, with 36%
believing that military action should be taken soon and 62%
believing that UN inspectors should be allowed more time
instead. A February 25 and
26 Fox
News/Opinion Dynamics poll put support for military action
against Iraq somewhat higher, at 71% - up slightly from 69%
support the Fox News polls demonstrated on the February 11 and 12.
The most
recent of these, a CNN/USA
Today/Gallup Poll, more closely followed the results of
the earlier CBS poll, putting support for an invasion at 59%.
As in weeks previous, the perceived importance of UN
– or at least broad multilateral support – was emphasised.
The percentage of those opposed to an invasion in the
face of UN opposition was shown to be 40%, while those who
would support such an invasion even in the face of UN
opposition was slightly less, at 38%.
Elsewhere,
the more deeply-held scepticism within the public of two traditional
US allies – the United Kingdom
and Canada – appeared to continue unabated.
A Yougov
poll starkly demonstrated this contrast, with 73% opposing
British participation in the event of UN opposition.
Even if a second resolution authorising the use of
force is passed, support for war with Iraq is 59%, with 30%
opposed and 11% unsure. Still
more tellingly, support for allowing UN inspectors more time
in Iraq is 75%. In
Canada, an IPSOS-Reid
poll released on 28 February showed Canadian support for a war
up slightly, from 45% to 51%.
The same poll also indicated 62% support for allowing
more time for the UN to continue inspections and the same
amount of support for providing military assistance only in
the event of UN authorisation.
UP-COMING
EVENTS
March 7: Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei report to the Security Council, which could preface a
vote on the Second Resolution soon afterwards. Foreign
Ministers will convene at the meeting.
March 11: 123rd Meeting of the OPEC Conference –
Vienna, Austria.
March 17: UN Commission on Human Rights Session – Geneva,
Switzerland.
End
of March: Blix submits "key remaining disarmament
tasks.”
April
1: Deadline for Pentagon report on weapons to defeat hardened
and deeply buried targets.
May
31: Deadline for National Academy of Science study on nuclear
and conventional weapons.
June
3: NATO Ministerial meeting – Spain.
If you would like to unsubscribe from these email updates,
please email: unsubscribe@iraqconflict.org.
If you would
like to subscribe another email address, please email: subscribe@iraqconflict.org
and include your name and affiliation (optional).
We welcome any comments
or feedback.
|
