January 17, 2003

CONTENTS     

WELCOME

Welcome to the first e-mail bulletin for a new project 'Conflict in Iraq - concerns and consequences'. The project is a joint initiative by three foreign-affairs think-tanks - the British American Security Information Council (BASIC), the International Security Information Service (ISIS) and Saferworld to inform international consideration of the political, military and economic dynamics of the crisis over Iraq.

The primary purpose of the project is to ensure that foreign policy towards, and interventions in, Iraq act to strengthen peace and security and are undertaken in accordance with humanitarian principles and international law. The prospect of war in Iraq looms large. The weapons inspectors have, in the words of Hans Blix, "not yet found any smoking guns". But President Bush and Prime Minister Blair insist that Saddam Hussein is hiding weapons of mass destruction and launched a massive build-up of troops in the Gulf. There is a debate as to whether the discovery of empty warheads could indicate a breach in Baghdad's UN ageement, but UNMOVIC has said this is  not yet the "smoking gun" that is being sought. Hasty conclusions are unhelpful and it is important that the weapons inspectors are given time to do their work.

There are divisions within the EU and the US about whether a second UN Security Council resolution would be needed before any military action is taken. Public opinion in Europe is sceptical of the need or rationale for war, and in the US is against unilateral action.

Any international military action in Iraq will have serious regional consequences and global implications. It is vital that all possible avenues to resolve the conflict peacefully are explored. However, daily reporting on the situation has tended to focus on the short-term dynamics of war. A number of outstanding questions need to be explored. 

These weekly e-mail information bulletins, covering specific issues such as the regional impact of a war, economic drivers, military manoeuvres, key political debates and opinion polls, are intended to be a useful resource for government officials, parliamentarians, journalists, academics and NGOs. At the end of January, a website will be launched on which authors from across the political spectrum will be writing thought-provoking discussion papers to instigate a wider debate.

We hope you find the project a useful resource and would welcome any comments or feedback.

If you would like to unsubscribe from these email updates, please email: unsubscribe@iraqconflict.org.

"The burden of proof is not on the United States, it's not on the United Nations or the international community to prove that Iraq has these weapons. The burden of proof is on the Iraqi regime to prove that it is disarming, and to show the inspectors where the weapons are." Donald Rumsfeld, Pentagon briefing 15 January

"Baghdad, its people and leadership, is determined to force the Mongols of our age to commit suicide at its gate."  Saddam Hussein 17 January (BBC Translation)

"Last week was only the first week they (the inspectors) were in there, with their full complement. Let the inspectors do their task. I don't think there is any point putting an arbitrary timescale on it."  Tony Blair, 13 January

UK and European Debates

UK - divisions over second UN resolution

After a week of continuing public unease at the prospect of a war in Iraq, Prime Minister Blair strongly reiterated his commitment to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, with or without a second UN resolution. Blair restated this during his January 13 press conference "if you did have a breach, went back to the UN and someone put an unreasonable or unilateral block on action then in those circumstances we have said we can’t be in a position where we are confined in that way".  Blair has re-emphasised his support to the weapons inspectors, saying that they need time and space to do their job, having only had one week working in their "full complement".  The Prime Minister’s justification for military action is that Britain is at threat unless biological and chemical weapons are kept out of terrorists hands.

Blair’s comments should have gone some way to quell calls by the Conservative Party that the government’s mixed messages were a sign that the PM was ‘wobbling’ on Iraq, and failing to make the case for British involvement in the conflict.  The Foreign Secretary Jack Straw was blamed for the confusion after stating that the chances of war had receded to 60:40 against.  This remark drew criticism from the Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon who quickly dismissed the figures as unhelpful and Blair failed to endorse them.  The Liberal Democrats have positioned themselves as the largest parliamentary party most adamantly in favour of UN backing before military action should take place.

Some reports suggest that Blair also faces opposition from more than half of his own Cabinet if he involves troops in a US-led war without an ‘overt UN mandate, substantiated by evidence President Saddam has hidden weapons of mass destruction’. (Guardian 15.01.03, Cabinet tells Blair: Stick with UN on Iraq)

Pressure mounts in House of Lords

During Question Time in the Lords on January 14, a former British envoy to the UN, Lord Richard (Labour) gave a stern warning not to go to war with Iraq unless there is a new UN mandate.  Baroness Symons, the Foreign Office Minister told him "we would, if possible like to secure another security council resolution before any military action was taken.  That is the government’s position".  A wary Lord Howell (Conservative Foreign Affairs Spokesperson) stated that if the government went ahead without another resolution they would have to make a clear case for war to a "rather confused and sceptical British public". Lord Craig (crossbencher), a former Chief of the Defence Staff, asked whether UN inspectors had been able to corroborate claims made in the Government’s dossier last year about the extent of Iraq’s biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.  Symons admitted there was "not one single fact that would lead one to say that there were weapons of mass destruction" but that a "very powerful case was made".      

UK voices outside Parliament

Douglas Hurd, former Conservative British Foreign Secretary expressed concerns over the consequences of a pre-emptive strike on Iraq in a recent article in the Financial Times.  The benefits of overthrowing Saddam Hussein risked "turning the Middle East into an inexhaustible recruiting ground for anti Western terrorism" (Douglas Hurd “War with Iraq will not end the dangers” 03/03/03). 

Religious leaders have been particularly vocal in their opposition to war with Iraq. The Bishop of Oxford said a fresh UN resolution is “absolutely essential if military action was to be morally justified”  Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, leader of the Catholic Church in England and Wales and the Pope have also voiced concern.  Only Chief Rabbi, Dr Jonathon Sacks has suggested that war might be justified.

EU – a united voice?

If the EU is to have a real influence over events politically it will have to agree a common position on what the next steps should be. However, this will be difficult.  Despite a degree of convergence of opinion between member states recently, differences regarding policy towards Iraq still remain, especially over the use of sanctions.  Over the coming months the role of the High Representative will be debated and the outcome will be crucial.  Whilst many wish to see the establishment of a proper European foreign secretary, it is questionable whether the political will of national leaders is there to give that person genuine responsibility (Quentin Peel, Europe needs a united foreign policy, the Financial Times 06/01/03).  The conflict in Iraq could be a real test in the discussions over an evolving common foreign policy.  Both France and Germany stand behind the need for a second UN resolution before any military action could be taken on Iraq. Gerhard Schroder this week stated that Germany would “make its basic position unmistakably clear in statements and votes” though it is still unclear whether this stance would include voting against a war within the UN Security Council. (The Times 15/01/03)

The Greek Presidency looks for common stand

In a speech setting the priorities of the incoming Greek EU Presidency, Prime Minister Costas Simitis stated that Iraq must fully comply with the resolutions of the Security Council. He said that the conflict in Iraq was the “priority in our agenda” and added that the main aim of the United Nations process should be to “lead to a positive outcome and that war be avoided”. The Prime minister later reiterated this point in a television interview, again calling for efforts to avert war and to “ensure that the Union takes a common stand on the issue”.

EU peace mission

The Greek Government is also looking towards embarking on a peace mission.  George Papandreau, foreign minister of Greece, has said that they would seek to persuade Arab countries to mediate between Baghdad and the USA. The trip is still in the planning stage and would include visits to Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia as well as meeting with Palestinian and Israeli officials.  The Greek minister is likely to be accompanied by Chris Patten and Javier Solana. 

EU concern over humanitarian costs of military action

As the largest international donor, the EU is looking ahead and drawing up contingency funds in dealing with the humanitarian crisis expected if there is military action in Iraq.  There are concerns that a transatlantic division of labour has emerged during recent conflicts with the US leading military conflicts and the EU footing the bill for post-war re-building. The EU has been the largest single donor to Kosovo for example, providing more than 800 million euros to the area during 1999-2002 (European Voice, 9-15 January 2003), and the EU is also already paying billions of euros to help re-build Afghanistan. Chris Patten, EU external relations commissioner, has indicated to the Guardian this week that difficulties may arise if military action is outside a UN mandate.  “I would find it much more difficult to get the approval of member states and the European Parliament if the military intervention that had occasioned the need for development aid did not have a UN mandate.”

US Debates

Latest positions

“I am sick and tired of games and deception,” said President Bush on Tuesday January 14, “he has been given 11 years to disarm and we have given him one last chance.”  Although President Bush offered no real deadline to Iraq or no date for a possible attack, the administration says that a full-scale launch could not realistically happen before late February or early March, given the current troop logistics and political considerations, both national and international. 

Regime change debates in US and Europe

Although disarming Iraq remains the stated priority, the intention of the Bush administration to effect regime change in Iraq has showed no signs of waning.  In the past week, George W. Bush has met with several Iraqi opposition leaders, presumably to discuss the structure of a post-Saddam Iraq.  Reports have also surfaced of various scenarios that are being devised to bring this about.  The possibility of the Iraqi leader’s exile is one that has been proposed, and commanded some support, within some Arab and European states.  The question of whether the US would accept the resignation of Saddam is, of course, largely dependent on who his replacement(s) would be, and it seems unlikely that the US would be willing to accept him/them if, by doing so, logistical control over the rebuilding of Iraq were to be sacrificed.

Costs of war

Original Congressional Budget Office estimates for the cost of military action in the Gulf ranged from $14 to $20 billion for deployment and return, along with an extra $6 to $9 billion for each month of any war prosecuted. These were seen as not inclusive of allies' contributions nor for post-conflict costs. On 9 January Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research estimated additional costs of 1.6 million jobs from the shock caused by a new oil crisis and a sustained annual reduction of 0.1% in GDP from increased terrorism and even greater cost requirements for counter-terrorism measures as a direct response to US hostilities. Their report developed research by William Nordhaus and others originally published in November by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Brown-Kind Congressional letter

Representatives Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Ron Kind (D-WI) are circulating a Congressional letter for signature promoting adherence to UN Resolution 1441 and for inspections to be given a chance to work. The letter will be sent to the President next week.

UN ACTIVITIES

Inspections

On 16 January, slightly less than two months after the 27 November resumption of inspections in Iraq, inspectors visiting the Ukhaider Ammunitions Storage Area found twelve empty 122mm chemical warheads, eleven of which were empty and one of which required further evaluation.  The response to these findings by the US and the UK – the two biggest supporters of military intervention in Iraq – has been decidedly measured.  Speaking on the Today Programme, Foreign Office Minister Mike O’Brien argued that there was “no rush to judgment”.  When asked whether or not such findings constituted a material breach, he replied simply that “we will have to wait and see what the inspectors say”.  More notably – particularly in the wake of Bush’s recent intimations of time running out for Saddam – the American response has been equally conservative, with US Ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte identifying the findings only as an “interesting development”.  Whether these discoveries ultimately lend credence to the ‘doves’ argument that inspections can indeed work as yet remains unclear.

Ostensibly, the inspections taking place in Iraq thus far have proceeded without incident, with prompt access and no interference when seeking access to suspected weapons sites.  In his briefings to the UN Security Council, given on 19 December and 9 January, Dr. Hans Blix (Executive Chairman, UNMOVIC) made reference to the gaps that remain in the Iraq weapons declaration and the questions that therefore arise from them.  On 9 January, Blix observed that while the absence of the proverbial ‘smoking gun’ was welcome, this absence did not demonstrate that the accusations of Iraqi non-compliance were without basis.  During these briefings, the contents of the 12,000 page Iraqi declaration of 7 December were identified as containing a substantial amount of recycled information from previous years.

Food aid

In the event of a war in Iraq, a recent UN report predicted that one of the key areas of disruption would be to food supplies.  It has been estimated that approximately 60% of the population depend on a monthly food basket.  A conflict in Iraq would disturb this already-tenuous supply.  Given that many families receiving such aid sell some food to generate income for other needs, they can be expected to have little in the way of reserves if the supply is interrupted.

LATEST POLL RESULTS

In general, US opinion broadly supports military intervention in Iraq, even one that includes a ground attack.  Contrary, perhaps, to the perceived unilateralism of the American public, much of this support appears to be contingent upon whether such intervention is supported by others in the international community.  In a December poll conducted by the Los Angeles Times, 68% of those surveyed agreed strongly or agreed somewhat (44% and 24% respectively) with the statement:  “the United States should take military action against Iraq only if that military action has the support of the international community.”  This same poll found a slim majority (52%) of respondents holding a favourable impression of the United Nations and 72% believing that George W. Bush needs to provide more evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.  Nonetheless, one Gallup poll conducted this week showed that despite a drop in the approval ratings for the Bush administration’s foreign policy, support for invading Iraq has remained relatively constant, while one last week demonstrated that preventing Iraq from attaining weapons of mass destruction was seen by 86% of respondents as a “very important” goal for US military action.

REGIONAL AND STRATEGIC IMPACTS

Palestine

In recognition of the importance of a resolution to the Palestinian question to a successful outcome from today's crisis in the Middle East, the UK government this week held a conference on Palestinian Reform. The conference was the cause of a deepening rift between the Israeli and UK governments. In a Ministerial statement, UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said, "We were joined through a video link by Palestinian Authority Ministers and civil society representatives, as the Israeli Government had unacceptably denied permission for them to travel to London." Nevertheless, agreement was achieved on constitutional reforms, commitment to free and fair, open elections, and further commitments over the next months to develop plans to consolidate a Palestinian authority.

North Korea

Elsewhere, voices continue to be raised regarding the differing approaches taken to the attempted acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq and North Korea.  The official US State Department response to such allegations has tended to argue that the circumstances of the two cases are sufficiently different to require different responses. Nonetheless, the apparent inclination of the Bush administration towards a diplomatic resolution vis-à-vis North Korea and a military resolution in relation to Iraq has exposed a lack of policy continuity, despite the fact that voices have been raised in Congress and in the US public expressing equal concern over North Korea as over Iraq.

UP-COMING EVENTS

Jan 18 & 19: Blix and ElBaradei meet top Iraqi officials in Baghdad.

Jan 24: Scheduled date for US to begin smallpox vaccinations for health and emergency workers.

Jan 27: UN Security Council’s report on weapons inspections due.

Jan 28: US State of the Union speech.

Jan 29: UN Security Council discusses report.

Jan 31: Bush and Blair will be meeting at Camp David.

Jan 31: Deadline for Pentagon report on coordination and integration of all US non-proliferation activities. 

Feb 3: Possible date for US annual budget.

Feb 15: Mass anti-war protests planned across Europe.  

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).