March 21, 2003

CONTENTS     

EDITORIAL

The conflict in Iraq demonstrates a tragic failure of international diplomacy. However, whether or not the use of military force was necessary to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction is no longer the issue. Now that the fighting has begun urgent new concerns arise.

First, and most importantly, those prosecuting the attack must seek to ensure that casualties are minimised and the oppressed citizens of Iraq re-inherit their country once the conflict ends, which we all hope will be very soon.

Second, the Allied forces should uphold the standards of international behaviour that they are seeking to enforce. This requires the maximum discretion in the application of military power. For example, the use of cluster bombs should be discounted and the targeting of public utilities avoided. Weapons already banned under international law, such as chemical incapacitating agents or chemical riot-control agents, must not be used as this would significantly undermine the Chemical Weapons Convention and the very international norms we seek to uphold. Of course, the prohibition on the use of chemical or biological weapons also applies to the Iraqi military, which has already been warned that any such use will be treated as a war crime.

Third, far greater resources should be devoted to dealing with the inevitable humanitarian consequences, including from those states that opposed military action. The successful post-conflict reconstruction of Iraq into a thriving democracy is critical, not just for the sake of Iraq’s citizens but also to demonstrate to others in the region the benefits and attractions of living in more pluralistic societies. A reconstruction effort of the magnitude of the post-World War II Marshall Plan, with the UN at its core will be necessary. However, there must be doubts about whether this will happen given action has fallen short of earlier promises by President Bush and the international community to make the rebuilding of Afghanistan a priority. Existing US plans for post-Saddam Iraq do not go far enough and will have to contend with even less international support than was available in Afghanistan. 

Fourth, any political framework that is developed by the constituents of Iraq and the international community should be just and minimise the risk of civil war. This process will also require effective engagement with Iraq’s immediate neighbours to reassure them that their security will not be threatened. Policy towards Iraq should also be pursued in tandem with far greater, and more even-handed, diplomatic efforts to secure peace in the Middle East overall. Policy towards the Middle East has been perceived as inconsistent. The rapid implementation of the 'Road Map' (for Israel and Palestine) must now become a central priority and not be allowed to wither through lack of the necessary political will to implement it.

Fifth, once the war is over, efforts must turn to exploring further the lamentable diplomatic failures that led us to this point. Rebuilding relationships and institutions will be a pressing challenge. The Iraq crisis has shown why international institutions and law are so necessary. Ultimately, the UN has been sidelined and it is important that this does not become the norm for future military intervention.

The transatlantic relationship has also been badly damaged both in terms of institutions (i.e. NATO) and inter-state relations. While not without its flaws, the relationship between Europe and North America has been one of the greatest forces for positive change in the world, and has helped to deliver peace and prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic. Should the relationship collapse, it will have grave consequences, not only for Europe and North America, but also for the whole world. Cooperation on foreign aid, encouraging the spread of democratic institutions, conflict resolution, and arms control are some of the critical transatlantic policies that would suffer. The EU has also been severely divided just at a time when progress could be made towards strengthening the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Divisions have also emerged with applicant countries on the eve of EU enlargement.

Building alliances with the many US policymakers, politicians, and political thinkers who remain committed to the American traditions of idealism, internationalism and multilateralism, as well as a greater sensitivity by European governments to growing concerns over threats to the United States, especially from non-state groups, will be crucial.

So, if the price of tearing the brutal dictator from his lair is to be the blood of the innocent we owe it to those Iraqis who survive to help them build a more prosperous and secure future for themselves and to restore the world's now fractured political leadership. 

Dr Stephen Pullinger, Director, ISIS
Dr Ian Davis, Director, BASIC
Paul Eavis, Director, Saferworld

“Perhaps if we had persevered a little longer, Iraq could yet have been disarmed peacefully or – if not – the world could have taken action to solve this problem by a collective decision, endowing it with greater legitimacy, and therefore commanding wider support than is now the case.” UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.

“The Iraqis did co-operate with us and [the Americans] lost patience some time at the end of January and the beginning of February.” Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix.

“Why is it now so urgent that we should take action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years and which we helped to create” Former UK Foreign Secretary Minister Robin Cook, in a statement following his decision to resign from the Cabinet as Leader of the House the decision to go to war without the backing of the UN.

"The criminal little Bush has committed a crime against humanity," Saddam Hussein.

“If you are ferocious in battle remember to be magnanimous in victory…you will have to go a long way to find more decent, generous people than the Iraqis. Show respect for them.” Lt Col Tim Collins, British Commander in the Gulf.

“The military action against Iraq is a big political mistake.” Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“The continued disregard for public wisdom by the United States will completely ruin the valuable achievements by government s and nations over half a century to consolidate co-operation for peace.” Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kaharrazi.

“Pakistan deplores the initiation of military action against Iraq.” Kurshid Mehmood Kasuri, Foreign Minister, Pakistan.

"Saddam Hussein will go quickly, but not alone: in a parting irony, he will take the UN down with him." Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board.

Regional and Strategic Impacts

US target Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan

Following reports that the Taliban and al-Qaeda forces were regrouping in Kandahar, US forces have launched the largest operation in Afghanistan since the battle in Tora Bora a year ago. The start of the war in Iraq has seen an increase in attacks on coalition forces in Afghanistan although US forces are keen to separate the two theatres of war. ‘Operation Valiant Strike’ has been seen by some observers as a US show of force to demonstrate that they are more than capable to operate simultaneously on two fronts. (FT 20/03/03)

Turkish troops look to use war to quell Kurdish assertion

A vote on March 20 in the Turkish parliament finally conceded to the American request for support in the war against Iraq by allowing US forces to use Turkish airspace. The parliament, which had voted against US forces being deployed in Turkey on March 1, also approved a government motion to allow Turkish troops to enter Kurdish areas on the border with Iraq, and if desirable, within Iraq itself. The deployment has confirmed fears from the international community and Kurds that Turkey is looking to prevent the formation of a Kurdish state, which might lead Turkish Kurds to seek similar affirmation of independence. Kurdish leaders in northern Iraq have made clear that any invasion by Turkish military will be met with force. (The Times 21/03/03)

Burning oilfields impact on markets and raise environmental concerns

Iraq has set alight around thirty oil-wells in Southern Iraq near the country's oil centre of Basra (Parliamentary announcement by UK Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon March 21). When the story of the fires initially broke, there was panic on world oil markets, but OECD members pledged to maximise output in response, causing prices to drop slightly before trading closed on March 20.Wholesale destruction of the fields - which contain the second biggest proven reserves of crude oil in the world is the feared, worst case scenario. 

According to Friends of the Earth, devastating damage was done to the oil industry in Kuwait during the 1991 war. During the nine months that the wells burned, average air temperatures fell by 10 degrees C as a result of reduced light from the sun. The costs of environmental damage were estimated at $40 billion. About a thousand people were estimated to have died as a result of air pollution. A dozen nations have submitted damages claims due to environmental degradation caused by that war to the UN. The claims total $79bn. 

Concerns grow that the regional environmental impact could be significantly worse than the fall-out from the 1991 Gulf War. Hans Blix was quoted as saying, “To me the question of the environment is more ominous than that of peace and war.”

Middle East Road Map   

The US administration agreed on March 16, to publish the ‘Road Map’ to peace in the Middle East (drawn up by Russia the EU the UN and US last December) as soon as the new Palestinian Prime Minister was named. Mahmoud Abbas was officially appointed Palestinian Premier on March 19 but the plan has still not been published. The plan outlines a timetable for the creation of a viable Palestinian state but Israel prefers to replace ‘independent’ Palestinian state with ‘certain attributes of sovereignty’ (The Independent 21/03/03). Some have speculated that the US is stalling in an attempt to guarantee Israeli restraint should Iraq fire missiles at them as they did during the last Gulf war.  

Israel fails to provide gas masks to Palestinians

The Israeli Defence Force (IDF) has failed in its promise to provide gas masks to Palestinians to protect them from potential chemical and biological attacks from Iraq. Some 60,000 Palestinians under Israeli administrative and security control have not been issued with kits despite an order from the Israeli high court to do so. Tensions are already high in the occupied territories, as fears have risen that the IDF will use the war to impose curfews and tighten controls in the region.

UK and EUROPEAN Debates

UK/ US consultation over start of war

Downing Street has denied that Tony Blair was not informed of the initial attack on Baghdad. However, reports speculate that he was ‘informed but not consulted’ due to the timing being dictated by CIA intelligence about the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein. Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon further elaborated on the transatlantic communication process when he drew a distinction between knowing that targets were on a hit-list and knowing when they would be struck. (Guardian 21/03/03)

Use of cluster bombs debated

In a Commons emergency statement (20/03/03) confirming that British forces were in action in Iraq, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon acknowledged that British forces would use cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells in Iraq if necessary. This was condemned by Labour backbenchers fearing the threat to civilians. Hoon stated that it was his duty to give British troops the best equipment possible. Aid agencies have long called for cluster bombs to be banned as part of the Ottawa agreement banning anti personnel landmines, noting that between 9 and 30 per cent of the bomblets fail to explode on impact. Gulf war veterans also claim DU shells may have links to Gulf War Syndrome and could cause cancers. Mr Hoon said ‘there was not the slightest evidence’ that DUs caused cancers.

UK pledges more aid as UN warns of crisis

In a statement to the Commons, Foreign Office minister Mike O’Brien said that the UK government has pledged an extra £70 million towards any humanitarian needs as a result of the current war on Iraq. The funds follow £30 million already allocated by the Ministry of Defence. The pledge came as the UN warned that 60 percent of Iraqis would run out of food after four to six weeks of conflict due to a reliance on the present oil-for-food programme. (The Financial Times 21/03/03)The UK Government has also published a document on March 21 outlining its vision for Iraq and its people following military action.

Focus on aid after hostile EU summit

After tense negotiations EU leaders agreed a joint statement on Iraq on March 20, which does not mention the word 'war'. EU officials are now pressing EU leaders to concentrate on humanitarian concerns. Romano Prodi, the European Commission President, has called a special meeting today on humanitarian aid.21million euros in aid could be made available to be used at short notice and a further fund of 270million euros could be used to provide shelter and food for Iraqis. The issue of reconstruction is more sensitive as countries are split as to whether they should be asked to fund repairs after a war they oppose. (The Independent 21/03/03)

US DEBATES

Military action stifles debate within the US

As to be expected, with the outbreak of military action, debate in the media focused on 'rallying around the flag' and members of Congress buried their hatchets and endorsed the US troops. Democrats who had opposed the October 2002 resolution supported the new resolution before Congress. Senate Democrat Leader Tom Daschle, previously highly critical of Bush’s failure to achieve UN support, said, “the president is the commander in chief and today we unite behind him." There remained, however, some Democrats resolutely refusing to join in the expression of support for troops.

Post-conflict scenarios dominate debates in Washington

The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee has been holding hearings on Iraqi reconstruction. Its chair, Richard Lugar, was careful to assert what he saw as the primary goal of the proposed occupation. This, he claimed, must be “to ensure security by preserving the territorial integrity of Iraq while simultaneously finding and destroying the weapons and materials of mass destruction and their means of delivery.” Senator Biden, member of the Committee agreed, proposing that such efforts must be made “under a UN flag, as opposed to a US flag, [so as to] minimalize resentment from malcontents in the region and beyond.” This discussion follows publication by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) of a thirteen-page report entitled Vision for Post-Conflict Iraq last month. Claire Short, UK Secretary of State for International Development, was visiting the US to discuss humanitarian aid and reconstruction on March 20-21.

Cost debate looks likely to surface again

Notably, on the day hostilities started, the New York Times editorial focused on the dollar costs of war, and the Administration's silence on this subject, despite its rocketing budget deficit. If the war drags on we can expect to see many more debates on the cost and how it is to be covered.

UN ACTIVITIES

The inspectors having been evacuated from Iraq, it remained only for UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Hans Blix to deliver his Introduction of draft UNMOVIC Work Programme to the UNSC on the 19 March. Blix spoke of his regret that, as he put it, “three and a half months work carried out in Iraq have not brought assurances needed about the absence of weapons of mass destruction or other proscribed items in Iraq.”

The UNSC also heard from Gustavo Zlauvinen – representing Mohamed ElBaradei on behalf of the IAEA. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fisher reiterated that “Germany emphatically rejects this impending war,” while Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov claimed that the US would have Russian support if his government was convinced by UN inspectors of the charges against Iraq. However, he noted, “the Security Council today is not in possession of such facts.”

When interviewed on the BBC’s Today Programme, Blix went further than he did in his brief report to the UNSC regarding his opinions on the war. He expressed scepticism regarding Washington’s intentions to see the inspections process through, stating: “I somewhat doubt that when (the Security Council) got the resolution last November they really intended to give under three-and-a-half months for inspection.” He also pointed out that the sites identified by intelligence services in fact yielded very little to UNMOVIC inspectors.

LATEST POLL RESULTS

United States

Polls released since President George W. Bush laid out his Monday night ultimatum to Saddam have, unsurprisingly, demonstrated an increase in support for this action and an acceptance of the need to go to war against Iraq. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted in the hours after Bush’s speech to the nation, showed that 66% of respondents supported the 48 hour deadline for Saddam to leave Iraq. This was complemented by the 68% who considered that the US had done all it could to resolve the crisis diplomatically. On the assumption that the 48 hour deadline would pass with Saddam still in Iraq, 44% approved of going to war and believed it to be the right thing to do, while 21% accepted the option primarily to support the President. Meanwhile, 30% continued to disapprove outright. Three days later, March 20, another CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll showed support as having risen to 76%, with only 20% continuing to disapprove of going to war. Flying in the face of suggestions that an invasion of Iraq would be likely to inflame resentment of the US, only 34% claimed to feel in more danger and 65% said they did not.

An ABC Newspoll also conducted on March 17 showed similar figures, and a marked increase from a poll taken during the first week of March, with 64% approving of Bush’s handling of the situation. Support for the then-looming war was put at 71%, up 59% in a poll conducted between 5 and 9 March. Insofar as the expected effect of the war on the likelihood of terrorist attacks, 48% of respondents believed that war with Iraq would decrease this risk, with 39% believing it would increase. Another poll, conducted for NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, indicated that 50% of respondents considered it unrealistic to expect the threat of terrorism to reduced with 42% deeming it a realistic expectation.

Europe

As war drew closer, support in Europe ranged from guarded to nearly non-existent. The UK was an exception. A Yougov poll showed 50% believing that the UK and US would be right to take action against Iraq, with 42% considering it wrong. When asked whom they blamed for the failure of diplomacy in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), only 2% blamed Prime Minister Tony Blair, 35% blamed Bush and 50% blamed French President Jacques Chirac.

A poll conducted over the last couple of months, but formally released on 18 March by the Pew Research Center showed public support for war as very low, even in those European countries whose governments supported US actions. Italy, for example, contained only 17% support for joining in a war with the US. Support in Poland was at only 21%, while support in Spain was lowest at 13%.

Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of protestors took to the streets across Europe on March 20, the day bombing started in Baghdad, and continued to demonstrate the following day. Many demonstrations in Britain were marked by an unusual number of schoolchildren.

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.

Home - Mission - News - Opinion - Publications - Links - Search