Iraq: Game, set, match
UNITED NATIONS Ñ Under the looming shadow of an American military strike and facing intense diplomatic pressure from many Arab nations, Baghdad has agreed to allow the unconditional return of UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq. The dramatic breakthrough came after discussions between UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and the visiting Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri. The White House reacted very cautiously to the developments knowing that Saddam was likely playing his well-honed tactical tricks to forestall both any new Security Council mandates as well as impending military action.
While the UN arms inspectors booted out of Baghdad in 1998 could be set to return to resume their elusive quest for SaddamÕs weapons of mass destruction, thereÕs little doubt that the Iraqi regime is playing to the gallery showing apparent flexibility.
At the same time, as this column has stressed, Washington would be very wise to go through the charade of the inspections knowing full well that Saddam will resort to bullying, blocking, and blustering but will then give the US the causus belli to use military force.
In the meantime, an Anglo/American military buildup must proceed in parallel.
Though stalling tactics are part of the shopworn Saddam strategy to gain time to build what many intelligence observers fear could be a nuclear device, Iraq has long-ago shifted and re-hidden its weapons of mass destruction. Arms inspections per se are a means to the goal of BaghdadÕs actual disarmament. And then thereÕs the practical issue of the logistical time lag in re-starting the inspection process in itself.
But a new phase of the Iraq GAME has certainly begun. The US would be prudent not to jump the gun but to allow Saddam to let the inspectors in, to take the proverbial bait, and thus give the US the time to choreograph the strategic buildup for likely offensive operations in January/ February 2003.
While the Bush Administration is preeminently wise to concentrate its efforts on securing a clear US Congressional Mandate for future military options, wasting too much political capital for a new UN Security Council resolution could be laborious and counter-productive. While the fifteen member Council is predictably divided over SaddamÕs latest ploys, previous Council resolutions are already in place mandating an inspection regime. What the resolutions lack is a clear spelling out of the consequences for SaddamÕs non-compliance.
The game-board is thus SET, at issue is whether we wish a re-writing of the rules. Though veto-holding Council members Russia, China, and France stress that thereÕs no need for a new resolution, this is technically true. The diplomatic divisions which re-emerged in the wake of the Iraqi offer to permit inspections are not unexpected and part and parcel of the very dynamism of working within a multilateral forum. As President George W. Bush warned, ÒIf the UN Security Council does not deal with Iraq, we will.Ó
Beyond the political calculus, thereÕs the obvious but oft overlooked bottom line that Russian, French and PeopleÕs Republic of China petroleum producers have and wish to have a yet wider stake in Iraqi oil production. The Wall Street Journal reports that companies which initialed deals with Iraq in the 1990Õs for major production after UN sanctions are lifted include RussiaÕs Lukoil ; FranceÕs ELF Aquitaine and Total; and BeijingÕs ChinaÕs National Petroleum. Curiously, these countries seem to reflect, should we say a Òmore open-minded viewÓ of Iraq than does the USA.
Concerning the Russian case, weÕre reminded of the close comradely ties between Baghdad and the former Soviet Union. That friendship still continues on some levels and this is not unusual. Yet one must ask Russia the rhetorical question; does it see its future business and trade relations revolving closer to the USA or with Iraq? Vladimir Putin will have no real problem answering that.
The Bush Administration would be wise to play a tactical game of allowing the inspections to go forward, allowing the world to see we are not trigger happy, while preparing for the strategic military Match.
John J. Metzler is a U.N. correspondent covering diplomatic and defense
issues. He writes weekly for World Tribune.com.
See current edition
of
   |
