WEB NOTES

 GIVE IRAQ ROOM TO BACK DOWN: 
THE US HAS PUT SADDAM IN A CATCH-22 SITUATION, 
LEAVING A FIGHT TO THE DEATH AS THE ONLY OPTION

by Laurie Nathan
February 21, 2003

It isn’t hard to identify a plan that would defuse the Iraqi crisis and prevent a catastrophic war.

Three weeks ago I joined a civil society peace mission to Iraq, organised by the Centre for Economic and Social Rights in New York. We had several meetings with Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz and other officials. They are convinced that their country will be invaded by the US even if they co-operate fully with the UN weapons inspectors. 

The implications are self-evident. Disarmament is illogical since it would impair Iraq’s ability to defend itself against an attack that is inevitable. Damned if it does not comply with the UN Security Council resolutions and damned if it does, Baghdad can see no way out of this catch-22.

The Iraqi conviction that an invasion is inevitable is not paranoia. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 defines the US policy goal as removing Saddam Hussein’s regime from power and promoting the emergence of a democratic government. In November last year Dr Richard Perle, the chair of the US defence policy board, told British parliamentarians that the US would attack Iraq even if the UN weapons inspectors give Baghdad a “clean bill of health”.

The US objective of regime change through force consequently undermines the UN objective of disarmament. It constitutes a substantial disincentive for Iraqi compliance with Security Council resolutions. It places Iraq in a lose-lose position where the only option open to them is a fight to the death.

There is an obvious solution to this impasse: Iraq should be given a guarantee that it will not be invaded if it complies with the Security Council resolutions to the unequivocal satisfaction of the UN weapons inspectors within a specified period.

This formulation is premised on the necessity for Iraq to comply with the UN resolutions; it does not compromise the resolutions, the Council or the weapons inspectors; and the specification of a deadline for disarmament would preclude indefinite procrastination by Iraq.

There is no certainty that President Hussein would consent to the plan given his history of aggression, deception, and defiance of the UN. Yet there is also ample historical evidence that parties in conflict are most intransigent when their survival is at stake and they are completely boxed in. The only way of avoiding a fight to the death is to provide a viable alternative.

The consent of President Bush is equally unlikely given his determination to oust Hussein but there is no other way to avert a war and salvage the credibility of the Security Council.

The UN Charter empowers the Council to authorise force in order to “maintain or restore international peace and security” as a last resort where other means of addressing a threat to international peace and security are inadequate.  Neither the US nor the UN weapons inspectors have provided compelling evidence that Iraq poses so grave a threat that force is justified. Intensified weapons inspections and monitoring would contain the threat by preventing Iraq from producing and deploying weapons of mass destruction.

Most importantly, resort to force is more likely to undermine than maintain or restore international peace and security:

• An invasion followed by an occupation of Iraq will fuel the virulent anti-American sentiment in the Arab world and other countries with large Muslim communities. It could provoke violent uprisings, overthrow of governments and acts of terror in the Middle East and elsewhere.

• An invasion could precipitate the very danger it seeks to prevent. According to the CIA, the likelihood of Iraq initiating a chemical or biological attack on the US is “low” but the possibility of Iraq using these weapons in response to a US attack is “pretty high”.

• President Bush has said that the US is prepared to use nuclear weapons in response to a chemical or biological attack by Iraq or to destroy Iraqi bunkers that contain such weapons. First-use of nuclear weapons would remove the international restraints on nuclear warfare, with potentially catastrophic implications for the India-Pakistan conflict and the North Korean crisis.

• A unilateral invasion by the US would fatally undermine the credibility and authority of the UN Security Council as the primary forum for managing and resolving international crises. Although the Council is a deeply flawed mechanism, the world would be a vastly more dangerous place without it. A unilateral invasion could establish a precedent that leads to global anarchy.

The unhappy outcome of the plan presented here would be the retention of a brutal regime in Iraq. This needs to be balanced against the international perils and the massive damage that a war would cause to civilians. Tens of thousands of people will die in the course of hostilities and through the collapse of medical and public health services. An invasion is the worst of all possible options.

An edited version of this article was published in The Sunday Argus on 16 February 2003