Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 1998, Pages 23, 79

United Nations Report

What Are Friends For? Saddam May Provide Diversion From Clinton's Domestic Woes

By Ian Williams

By early February, it seems almost certain that Saddam Hussain would give Bill Clinton a diversion from the White House's domestic woes. The fragile compromise over the nationality of the UNSCOM (U.N. Special Commission) inspectors and where they can inspect was breaking down rapidly. It was unlikely to be helped by the floating—and equally quick sinking—of an implied American offer to drop its old insistence on sanctions remaining for as long as Saddam Hussain does.

The only remaining question was tactical. The British saw nothing wrong with using force to coerce cooperation if necessary, but wanted reinforcement of the legal position for doing so. That would take the form of a resolution describing Iraqi actions as a material breach of Security Council resolutions.

However, that would risk defeat by the Russians and Chinese, who may be tempted to wield their vetoes against a draft resolution that would surely be seen as the trigger for military action. Such a defeat would clearly weaken the legal position of Anglo-American military efforts, which is why the U.S. delegation was much less enthusiastic about going back for another resolution.

Washington has, anyway, maintained that it still has the legal right to intervene from the original U.N. Security Council resolutions that called upon countries to take action to reverse the occupation of Kuwait. Others were less convinced, and of course the White House political position internationally was not helped by the sex-scandals surrounding the president, which allow any action he takes to be seen as a "Wag the Dog"-style diversion.

On the other hand, there is little doubt that the Iraqis are, legally, in the wrong. After the failure of Saddam Hussain's clumsy attempt to annex Kuwait, Iraq accepted the terms of the "Mother of All Resolutions" 687, binding Iraq to disarm all its weapons of mass destruction, and to destroy their industrial capability to manufacture them.

Part of that deal involved the U.N. certifying that Iraq had actually done so. It is often overlooked that it also involved continuing monitoring even after Iraq had been given a clean bill of health and even if sanctions had been lifted.

The Iraqi government has consistently lied about what it has done and what it is doing with its chemical and biological warfare, nuclear and missiles programs. It has almost equally consistently been caught out in its dissimulation. The Iraqi attempts to demonize Richard Butler, the Australian diplomat who heads UNSCOM, are really attempts to shoot the messenger. Even his low-key predecessor, Rolf Ekeus, would have had to bring back the same tidings, implying the same reaction and consequences.

Butler's Australian truculence makes him an unlikely candidate to turn the other cheek anyway, and his vigorous defense of UNSCOM has not made any friends in Baghdad, but politeness would be unlikely to achieve any further results. However, speaking to the Council of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations in front of an Israeli flag, as Butler did at the end of January, is certainly a diplomatically maladroit move in the regional context.

At the same time, it is also clear that economic sanctions have done nothing whatsoever to weaken the Baghdad regime's grip on power in Iraq. If anything, like the U.S.'s unilateral embargo against Cuba, they have helped unite domestic opinion against foreign-imposed injustice. And, in a very real sense, they are unjust. They have killed untold numbers of children and impoverished many of the people who might have been counted on to oppose Saddam. The victims are the ordinary Iraqis who have never been given a choice about whether they wanted Saddam Hussain's brand of Ba'thism to represent them.

Rising Concern

The rising international concern will be partially allayed by an increase to some $3 billion in the amount of oil Iraq is allowed to sell in the "oil for food" deal. However, it's unlikely to be enough.

It is not just in the Middle East that people wonder whether the seven-year-long sanctions persist in part because it is only Arabs suffering. It is in stark contrast with Serbia, where Slobodan Milosevic was voted in by handsome majorities before and during a genocidal war which killed almost as many people as there are Kuwaitis. The sanctions against Serbia were never applied as rigorously as against Iraq, and were lifted as soon as possible.

Partly that is because Milosevic is a shrewder politician than Hussain and knew how to cover his trail and cut his losses. But it would be hard to deny that being Arab raises the possibility of sanctions being used against you!

Above all, when even Albright and Clinton, the two most pro-Israeli figures ever to run American foreign policy, blame Netanyahu and Likud for the impasse in the peace process, their unwillingness to apply U.S. leverage to Israel gives Baghdad a potent political weapon domestically and regionally.

However, we should not lose sight of why sanctions were originally imposed. It was after an armed Iraqi invasion, annexation and stupidly brutal occupation of a sovereign state. Sanctions are in the U.N. armory as a means of avoiding warfare, and the purpose was to persuade Iraq's leader to withdraw.

Because of his stupidity, he didn't and his troops suffered a humiliating defeat. And lest anyone think that being a victim of sanctions makes Saddam Hussain a hero, let us remember that as a consequence of his actions, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians lost their jobs and homes in the Gulf, while the Arab cause was weakened to the point where the PLO had to accept the Oslo agreement with all its concessions and humiliations.

The Chinese and Russians are calling for a diplomatic solution. This is somewhat unrealistic and implies the Chinese have forgotten their own history. Chairman Mao Tse Tung remarked memorably that "political power comes from the barrel of a gun," and that holds pretty well for diplomatic power as well. The Ba'thists have always been quick learners on this point, as their internal and external behavior proves.

There are no heroes in this conflict—and unlikely to be any real winners. The prestige of the U.N. and international law will suffer from its perceived partiality if there is vigorous enforcement, and equally from its obvious impotence if Saddam Hussain effectively defies the U.N. resolutions. The U.S. and UK are unlikely to hit the magic spot of causing sufficient damage to enforce compliance, with no civilian casualties. The only guaranteed losers are the Iraqi people, who have had to suffer international sanctions and domestic tyranny for so long.

Western Sahara a Bright Spot

One bright spot in an otherwise gloomy region is Western Sahara. So far, the referendum agreed on in the talks brokered by former Secretary of State Jim Baker are on schedule for Dec. 8th this year. Although they are eight years later than scheduled, so far Morocco and Polisario both seem to be cooperating and adhering to the deal that was brokered.

The Security Council, eager to get this long-unfinished piece of business off its plate, has been brushing aside logistical objections from U.N. staff, and providing extra staff and support for the peacekeeping and referendum-monitoring mission. The main problem is still determining exactly who is allowed to vote, but so far there has been much less acrimony than before over the process.