19 February 1998
Iraq - caught between the US and the UN
The current crisis in the Gulf might look like bully-boy tactics by the US
and Britain, but in fact is a product of the institutions put in place
after the crushing of Iraq by the Allied forces, argues Donna Kingsley
Iraq should expect bombing raids once the moon's cycle is darkest after 24
February. This was the message spelled out in a major speech by US
President Bill Clinton and lengthy debates in both the House of Lords and
the Commons in Britain. Despite some pacifists' posturing there appear to
be few if any barriers to Clinton and Blair having their way and teaching
Saddam Hussein a lesson.
The emphasis on Saddam's alleged nuclear potential has placed 'weapons of
mass destruction' at the centre of the debate. The setting up of the UN
Weapons Inspectorate in the months after Desert Storm marked an important
shift in international relations. UNSCOM, the United Nations Special
Commission set up to identify and destroy Iraq's nuclear, chemical and
biological capabilities, has the power to interfere in Iraq on the pretext
of global security, turning global policing into a 'humanitarian' issue,
policed by a 'neutral' body, the UN. The image of international inspectors
bravely negotiating their way, armed only with clipboards, into the
arsenals of a tin-pot dictator seemed to mark a shift away from the era of
Stormin' Norman and US arrogance. In reality of course, behind the men in
white coats is always the threat of being turned into 'a charcoal
briquette', as North Korea was told in 1995 and as Iraq is finding out at
the moment. It is inevitable that the process of weapons inspecting results
in periodical acts of defiance by the inspected and to the flexing of the
muscles behind UNSCOM.
Despite all the protestations about the use of force, the demonisation of
Saddam is more entrenched now than ever before. Whether the chosen solution
is the diplomacy of the UN chief Kofi Annan or the military threats of the
Clinton and Blair brigade, the underlying belief is that Saddam is the
problem. There is a consensus that something must be done about Iraq.
Pacifist slogans in the UK say sarcastically 'First we arm dictators - then
we bomb their citizens'. There has been a disturbing absence of disbelief
in the increasingly ludicrous claims about the kind of weapons Saddam is
alleged to have at his disposal. Like something from a science fiction
novel, in an article in the liberal-leaning Observer, prime minister Tony
Blair described in gory detail the likely affects of Saddam's stores:
anthrax which makes people 'drown in their own body fluids'; the 'gas
gangrene' Clostridium and Atafloxin which 'induces liver cancer'. The
opponents of the proposed bombing do not seek to expose these fantasies,
but claim that there is a greater risk from bombing the 'presidential
palaces' than from disarming Saddam by negotiation. That Saddam needs
disarming is unquestioned.
Those who see themselves as progressive may have an instinctive suspicion
of the naked bullying tactics of the US and Britain. For them, the crude
threat of smart missiles and ground troops reeks too much of old fashioned
national self-interest. The bleatings from British commentators about the
hypocrisy of war-mongering by the New Labour proponents of an ethical
foreign policy miss the point: ethical foreign policy and bombing Iraq go
hand in hand. Ethical foreign policy is all about identifying and punishing
those states which do not fit into the etiquette of ethics and
humanitarianism as defined by UK Foreign Secretary Robin Cook or US
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Of course there is a tension between
the ethical claims of Britain and the US and the nasty reality of blowing
people's heads off, but the consensus that Saddam is a threat who needs to
be dealt with is the other side of moral outrage. Shouting 'hypocrisy' is
no answer to the self-righteousness of Cook and Co.
Join a discussion on this commentary