|
March
17, 2003
CONTENTS
EDITORIAL
The limited
success of the inspection process has persuaded much of the
international community that inspections should continue. Yet
the signs are clear that war now looks not only inevitable,
but imminent. At this ‘moment of truth’ diplomats within
the UN Security Council have a few more hours to reach a
decision. However, the Bush Administration’s patience with
the UN process has all but disappeared. In the Azores and on
Washington talk shows yesterday, President Bush, Vice
President Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell all made
clear that it was too late for Iraq to disarm, too late for
further weapons inspections and too late for more diplomacy to
get the world to support the US 'causus belli'.
The British, Spanish and Portuguese
governments also appear resigned to war without UN approval.
It is often
said that no one wants war, that war is a desperate and final
option. Whatever the truth, another war in Iraq certainly
represents a failure. The indication is that whatever images
we receive, there will be terrifying destruction within Iraq.
US war strategy implies the use of the world’s most
intensive aerial bombardment, designed to crush the morale of the Iraqis and
cause the regime to collapse. However,
assuming desperate survival tactics using urban warfare on the
part of the Iraqi administration, the number of casualties,
both civilian and conscript, could be enormous.
Iraq
is also the first test of the new Bush doctrine of preventive
war. The threat of transnational terrorism and weapons of mass
destruction suggests that we can no longer wait for
conclusive evidence of an imminent attack. Without an effective, internationally agreed
method of deciding what is legitimate and illegitimate
behaviour, based on
a careful checklist of criteria, any state will be able to set
itself up as judge, jury and executioner. The failure to build
a broad coalition in support of pre-emption in Iraq has set a
dangerous precedent.
Ian
Davis,
Director BASIC
QUOTES OF THE WEEK
"Tomorrow is a
moment of truth for the world... the day that we can determine
whether or not diplomacy will work." President
George Bush speaking March 16.
"Rarely have a war's
proponents been so blind, so wrong and in such a rush." Guardian
leader editorial 17 March.
"We
are in the final stage because after 12 years of failing to
disarm him [President Saddam], now is the time to decide…we
cannot have a situation where we go back for endless
discussion."
Prime Minister Tony Blair
speaking March 16.
“I
have had my moments of doubt, but I am entirely convinced.
Some of us wonder why it is so hard for the nation to
understand what this is all about.” Lt-Col
Blackman of the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, based in
Kuwait, on the lack of British public support for the war.
“American
power, even deployed under a double standard, may be the best
means of advancing human progress.” Robert
Kagan, author of ‘Paradise and Power’, a recently
published book on America and Europe’s role in the new world
order.
“American
policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided
insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.” From a
letter to then President Clinton in 1998 regarding Iraq from
the Project
for the New American Century. The letter was signed
by Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul
Wolfowitz.
UN
ACTIVITIES
The UNSC
remains deadlocked over the question of a resolution on Iraq
authorising the use of military force, with France, Germany
and Russia
continuing to be vehemently opposed.
With war looming, the Security
Council decided to hold a closed meeting on March 17.
Although originally scheduled to take place at 1500
local time, this meeting was moved forward to 1000, indicating the
sense of urgency. It
was later
announced by the US, UK and Spain that they had withdrawn
their draft resolution. This
was accompanied by the assertion that, as a consequence, these
three states still reserved the right to disarm Iraq in
whichever way they deemed necessary.
Nonetheless,
the past week has seen UN inspections continue as usual.
The destruction of the Al Samoud 2 missiles continued
throughout, with 65 having been destroyed as of March
14. Attempts
to interview Iraqi scientists have continued to fall prey
to demands on the part of interviewees for witnesses or
tape-recording. Today, however, UN inspectors admitted that
they had been
advised by the United States to leave Iraq and were
seeking instructions from New York.
UK discussions
on the legality of war
Rabinder
Singh QC from Cherie Booth’s chambers, Matrix, backed
legal opinion last week that argued resolution
1441 does not explicitly sanction the use of force (The Times
14/03/02). In
an unusual move, the UK Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, has
broken with the convention of his office to issue a written
Parliamentary reply that UN resolutions 678, 687 and 1441
together amounted to legal cover for prosecution of military
action. This appears to go against reports last week that his
advice was unclear.
General
Assembly able to call for unity?
In
an
article of March 14, the journalist Robert Fisk said that
the UN General Assembly has the power to stall any action in
Iraq and call for collective action (of the UN). UN
resolution 377, created by the US during the Cold War to
prevent the a Soviet veto during the Korean war, states the
General Assembly can call for collective action if “... the
Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the
permanent members, fails to exercise its primary
responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and
security”. The resolution would allow the Assembly to step
in, as it has ten times in the past, if the Security Council
is not unanimous on any second resolution.
Regional
and Strategic Impacts
Arms
conference opens in shadow of war
The sixth International
Defence Exhibition and Conference, IDEX 2003, opened
on March 17 in the UAE. The event has some 820 companies from
46 countries exhibiting, despite the potential war in the
region and the announcement this week by the US Embassy in
Dubai, warning American citizens of a heightened risk of terror
attacks (FT 17/03/03).
US frustration at Turkish indecision
The US administration's apparent frustration at
Turkey’s indecision about whether
or not to allow US forces to be deployed on its soil has led
the US to consider using
Jordanian airspace instead as a means to reach northern Iraq.
Reports that Turkey is planning to use heavy armour and troops
to go into Kurdish controlled northern Iraq have led to strong
diplomatic words in opposition from the US. Zalmay
Khalilzad, the US envoy on Iraq, has
been meeting with Turkish government officials.
A Turkish advance would put the US in a situation where
airborne troops, deployed from planes flown in through Jordan,
would be caught between Turkish troops advancing on Kurdish
positions. (FT 17/03/03) .
Recep Tayyip
Erdogan, Turkey's new Prime Minister, has indicated that it is
unlikely that any new resolution will be put to the
Parliament. US naval missile forces have moved into the Red
Sea in order to have a clear line of fire without using
Turkish airspace.
UK
and European Debates
Blair faces
continued parliamentary opposition
Tony
Blair faces continuing difficulties in persuading his own
party to support a war in Iraq, possibly without UN backing.
He is holding an emergency cabinet
meeting on Monday 17, to report back on the Azores
meeting. Robin
Cook, Leader of the House, resigned at this meeting, and
indications are clear that Secretary of State for
International Development, Claire Short, would also resign is
war started without a UN resolution. Former Foreign Office Minister Tony Lloyd estimated that the
number of rebel MPs that might vote against the government in
a parliamentary vote (expected Tuesday 18/03) could rise from
122 to 160. However, a ‘very effective
operation’ (Sunday Telegraph 16/03) is being carried out by
Labour whips and others to prevent rebellion on a grand scale.
At the Liberal Democrat party conference this weekend, Leader Charles
Kennedy accused Tony Blair of abandoning the UN route in
his preparations for war. At the Conservative party conference,
leader Ian
Duncan Smith reiterated his support for any military
attack on Iraq emphasising that Britain’s security is at
stake.
Humanitarian
cost concerns
The
UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Activities (OCHA)
has received only £18.75m of the £75m (Guardian 10/03/03)
requested in February to cope with the humanitarian
consequences of war. The UK Department for International
Development has doubled its contribution to the UN relief
effort to £6.5m, using money from its departmental
contingency fund. However, leading aid agencies including Oxfam
and Care International are boycotting government offers of
money out of concern that Britain and America may launch an
attack without UN backing.
Responding in a written
statement to a Commons Select Committee report on the
humanitarian crisis in Iraq, Clare Shortalso noted that:
“…It is clear that a UN
mandate will be required to provide legal authority for the
reconstruction effort”. EU Commsioner for External
Relations, Chris Patten, again voiced his concerns that the
EU might not be able to fund reconstruction in Iraq if the
war did not have UN backing.
Friction between military and humanitarian
planners has surfaced in southern Iraq, where it is reported
that the British army is ‘ill prepared and unenthusiastic to
act in a humanitarian role’ (Independent 17/03/03) There is
only one NGO operating in the region, and aid groups say they
are hampered by a huge lack of funding and information from
the military about what to expect in Iraq. There are no
stockpiled food reserves in bordering Kuwait, nor will Kuwait
open its borders for Iraqi refugees.
British
companies cut out of rebuilding Iraq
Even
though diplomatic efforts to avert war in Iraq have continued,
the US government has solicited
bids for the rebuilding of a post war Iraq. The US Agency for International Development (USAID) is
conducting a “limited selection process” for contracts to
rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq, which may end up costing
some $900 million. In a similar development to those after the war in 1991 British companies have been left out of
the process. “Why should Britain share the blood in
war…but not be allowed to share in the economic upturn
afterwards?” asked Richard O’Brien of Amicus, Britain’s
largest manufacturing union. The cost of the total bill for
the reconstruction of the country has been put at between one
to eight billion dollars by the US-based Council
on Foreign Relations, whilst the Adam Smith Institute has
called the reconstruction of a post war Iraq “one of the
most ambitious and complicated state-building tasks since the
end of World War II”. (Financial Times 17/03/03)
US
Debates
Announcement
2000 March 17
President
George Bush will give a televised address later today (2000
Eastern time) in which many analysts believe he will
announce the formal US reaction to the stall in international
negotiations - and possibly state that time has run out for
Saddam Hussein.
Hardened
resolve
With
the failure to find support for the proposed UNSC resolution,
the discussion in Washington centred on the March 17 deadline
for disarmament that the resolution had proposed.
As the week wore on with no appreciable movement
towards achieving such a resolution, this proposed deadline
became a focus and American displeasure with the UNSC became
even more pronounced. It
was again asserted that the situation was “a test of the
Security Council, no matter what the outcome.” During a weekend
television interview, Secretary of State Powell admitted
that he was “not expecting, really, a new proposal”,
referring to the determination of France to veto any
resolution that could authorise military force. At the weekend meeting in the Azores between President Bush,
Prime Minister Blair and President Aznar, Bush declared
that nations who claimed a commitment to peace and security
would be obliged to demonstrate it.
Peace plan
This
week also saw Bush articulate what has been referred to as a
road map for peace in the Middle East.
Apparently largely at the behest of Prime Minister
Blair, Bush made a brief
statement on March 14 detailing the plans for the
establishment of a democratic Palestinian state and the
cessation of settlement activities in the occupied
territories.Unprecedented
criticism from former presidents
Former
President Clinton has recently been critical of the apparent
rush to war, but in a scathing attack published on March 9 in
the New York Times, Jimmy Carter, President in the late
1970s, accuses this Administration of threatening the
stability of international law and the relations between
states.
Cheney
links with post war contractor
Of
the potential contracts available for the rebuilding of Iraq,
the task of putting out any oil fires and reinvigorating the
oil network is the largest. KPR, a subsidiary of Halliburton,
has been touted
as the front-runner to land the $3 billion contract as it has
a strong relationship with the military. Halliburton and KPR
received £2bn to run and maintain US bases in Kosovo and
Bosnia and have been paid $33 million for building the Camp
X-ray base in Guantanamo Bay. The nature of Halliburton’s
relationship with Vice President Dick Cheney has, however, been
heavily
criticised, since he is a recent Chairman of the Board of
the company, still owns shares in the company, and in addition
receives around $1 million a year.
LATEST
POLL RESULTS
US opinion veering towards
support for war
The US public appears both
resigned to and increasingly supportive of war. When asked in
a CNN/USA
Today/Gallup poll for opinions regarding an invasion to
take place within the next two weeks, support stood at 64%.
In the same poll, conducted over March 14-15, 78% of Americans were in
favour of an invasion under UN backing, while 54% would still
support war without UN authorisation. In addition, 68%
considered the French veto policy “unreasonable”.
Such findings were reflected by
a Newsweek
poll carried out a day earlier, which put support for war
at 70%. Again,
the question of UN support had a marked effect, with 85%
backing an attack after a supportive UN resolution, 54% if in
conjunction with one of two major allies only, and 43% backing
a unilateral American invasion.
President Bush’s impatience appears to reflect much
of the public mood, with 38% believing that Saddam Hussein
should be given only a few more days to disarm, as compared to
19% and 25% who believe he should be given until the end of
this month or longer respectively.
Finally, a Fox
News/Opinion Dynamics poll conducted 11-12 March also
indicated a majority in support of an attack, at 71%.
It suggested the public was prepared for the possible
consequences, 67% believing it would lead to more terrorist
strikes. Perhaps more worryingly, the poll demonstrated 65%
support for American use of WMD in response to Iraqi use of
WMD against US troops or a neighbouring country.
United Kingdom opposition
also weakens
A
Yougov
poll conducted for ITV’s Showdown in Iraq,
broadcast on March 16, suggests opposition to British
involvement in a war without UN support has dropped from a
high of 73% in January to 60%.
Only 29% of those polled believed that UN inspectors
should be given a few more months to disarm Iraq.
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.
|
