Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, April/May 1999, pages 110-115

Waging Peace

MEPC Discusses Iraq’s Future Amid Congressional Indifference

Faced with the gradual but steady escalation of the undeclared war against Iraq, the quiet but firm opposition of America’s Middle Eastern allies, and the warning by America’s most knowledgeable military leader that the policy of arming Iraqi opposition groups, as expressed in the Iraq Liberation Act (ILA), cannot work, the U.S. Congress has adopted a policy of firm indifference.

Only Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) continues to speak out in Congress. On Feb. 2, in remarks entitled “How Long Will the War With Iraq Go on Before Congress Notices?” Paul pointed out that for eight years, with no constitutional authorization, the undeclared war has gone on against a country that has never committed aggression against the U.S. He said that as a result of the policy, the U.S. has invited terrorist attacks against itself, provoked hostility in the Middle East, and torpedoed efforts to develop long-term peaceful relations with Russia.

Five days earlier, Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni, who commands U.S. forces in the Gulf, bluntly told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the ILA was misguided. “I’ve seen the effect of regime changes that didn’t quite come about the way we would have liked,” he said. “The last thing we need is a disintegrated, fragmented Iraq because the effects on the region would be far greater, in my mind, than a contained Saddam.”

This infuriated Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who pointed out that the ILA was “the law of the land.” To this Zinni replied that there are 91 Iraqi opposition groups, and none of them “has the viability to overthrow Saddam.” Arming them, he said “could be very dangerous.”

It was in this context, and on the same day that Zinni spoke to the Armed Services Committee, that the Middle East Policy Council (MEPC) sponsored a half-day seminar on the subject, “After Saddam, What Then for Iraq?”

At the conclusion of the seminar, moderator and MEPC President Chas. Freeman rightly said that it was the best discussion of the subject that has taken place on Capitol Hill. Unfortunately, that was not saying much.

The speakers, selected to provide a range of views on the subject, included National Intelligence Council (of the CIA) Estimates Vice Chairman Ellen Laipson, Iraq Foundation Executive Director Rend Rahim Francke, Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) Research Director Patrick Clawson, and Middle East Institute (MEI) Program Director Andrew Parasiliti.

Although Laipson insisted she was presenting her own views and not necessarily those of her agency, she gave what was probably an accurate representation of the consensus opinion within the U.S. intelligence community. Accepting the premise of Saddam’s departure, she answered several questions that would immediately arise.

First, she said, the fears by some that Saddam’s departure would lead to Iraq’s fragmentation are probably unfounded. “The odds are overwhelming that Iraq will remain united,” she said, pointing out that Iraq was a viable country long before Saddam, and his departure need not provoke “an identity crisis.”

However, she said, the odds are also strong that Iraq will suffer a period of instability after Saddam, and whatever kind of government emerges from the period of instability will almost certainly not be democratic in the Western sense. In the long run, however, the period of instability need not necessarily be bad for Iraq or for the West.

Regarding future relations with Iraq’s neighbors, she said that she thought they would be ready and eager to welcome a new Iraqi government back into the neighborhood, although Iran may feel uncomfortable with the amount of attention that will probably be going to Iraq.

It is always illuminating to hear Clawson speak, because he can be counted upon to present accurately the current Israeli line on whatever subject is under discussion. (Clawson’s organization, WINEP, was originally set up by AIPAC board members as its think tank, and, although it now claims to be independent, its views remain as consistently supportive of whatever Israeli government is in power as those of AIPAC.)

Clawson was enthusiastic in his support for the new U.S. policy of providing military and financial support to Iraqi opposition groups, as provided for by the ILA, which authorizes up to $97 million for such support. At the beginning of his talk, Clawson added the important condition that the success of the policy would depend upon there being “a significant positive reaction by the Iraqi people and the military,” in effect a popular revolt.

He didn’t say how unlikely this would be, but the rest of his presentation hinged on this assumption. In the event of such a revolt, Clawson said, Saddam’s army would just melt away.

Also, he suggested, the new government would be grateful to the U.S., and the U.S. and the region would benefit in several ways: Iraq would abandon its weapons of mass destruction programs; the Gulf balance of power would change, because two of the three major powers would be friendly to the U.S.; the U.S. would be less reliant on Saudi Arabia, which would ease some of Saudi Arabia’s internal problems; Israel would be more relaxed and more likely to move the peace process forward; Syria would find itself surrounded by countries friendly to the U.S. and would be more responsive toward the peace process; and the world energy situation would improve.

Parasiliti wasted little time in throwing cold water on Clawson’s rosy scenario. He said flatly that the Iraqi opposition will not overthrow Saddam, so discussion of it in Congress and elsewhere in the U.S. government only leads to well-founded cynicism in the Arab world.

Parasiliti said the U.S. need not and should not get into the game of picking a winner in Iraq. He was also critical of the sanctions program, pointing out that people in the Arab world do not understand why the Iraqi people are being made to suffer. He acknowledged, however, that the sanctions have been effective in limiting Saddam’s ability to reconstitute his weapons programs.

Turning to what might be expected in post-Saddam Iraq, Parasiliti believes that the military, the parliament, and the Iraqi Ba’ath Party all will play a role. He also said there is a real possibility that a mood of anti-Western revanchism will arise.

When the sanctions are lifted, assuming the world community is prepared to make some kind of accommodation regarding Iraq’s huge debt and reparations burden, Parasiliti expects an appreciable and immediate improvement in Iraq’s economy.

In conclusion, Parasiliti said that, although internal political forces will be the primary determinant of what happens in Iraq, the world community, especially the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, should be prepared to announce a massive economic support program for a post-Saddam Iraq.

Francke, an Iraqi-American who has worked extensively with the Iraqi community in northern Iraq and in exile, was not optimistic about what will happen in Iraq after Saddam. She said there are really only two models for change: the classic military coup, or an insurgency from the people, and neither of them is likely to pass the tests of legitimacy and stability.

A military coup fails both tests, she said, because the military reflects the various divisions within Iraqi society. Therefore any military leader who takes power will face a power struggle from within the military establishment.

A popular insurgency would, at least initially, appear to have more legitimacy, but it would result in serious stability problems, Franke said. Then, if it appeared to be succeeding, it would likely provoke a military coup, thus degrading its legitimacy. While there may be an opportunity for a negotiated settlement, this would require an established civilian alternative, which seems unlikely, she concluded.

During the question period, Clawson strongly disagreed with Parasiliti’s calling the present policy, and its attendant Iraq Liberation Act, “cynical.” He said that in the past when popular uprisings occurred, the U.S. was not able to help them. Now the U.S. is in a position to offer assistance, Clawson said, but discontinuing the present policy would make the U.S. unable to help.

Parasiliti called this argument nonsense, saying if the U.S. supports the wrong group or groups, it will only generate more cynicism. For example, Parasiliti said, the Iraqi National Congress (one of the seven Iraqi dissident groups designated eligible for U.S. assistance) is not known within Iraq as a particularly patriotic group.

Regarding whether a policy of changing the regime in Iraq has support within the region, Francke said she believes the governments of the region generally agree with the objective, but they do not agree about what tactics or strategy should be used to achieve this objective.

Finally, to the audible discomfiture of most people in the audience, Clawson downplayed the humanitarian situation in Iraq. He said that right now the Iraqi people are in a better situation than two billion other people in the world.

—Shirl McArthur

Author Phyllis Bennis Assails Hypocrisy In U.S. Iraq Policies

Renowned author Phyllis Bennis, a former correspondent for the Pacifica radio network and currently a research fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC, spoke Jan. 27 at Georgetown University’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies on the recurrent crises between the United States and Iraq.

Bennis said the current U.S. policy of dual containment toward Iran and Iraq aims at preventing either country from developing into a regional power that might contend with U.S. interests in the area. Bennis attributed the U.S. position to the fact that both Iraq and Iran are nations that contain three indigenous elements of power: water, size and population, and oil.

Unlike other powers in the region such as Israel, she said, with these elements Iran and Iraq both possess the internal capacity for power, and that poses a threat to U.S. dominance in the area.

Also central to understanding U.S.-Iraqi tension is recognition of the United States abandonment of the United Nations and its multilateral forum in favor of a policy of aggressive unilateralism, Bennis maintained.

“This should come as no surprise because the United States embrace of the U.N. was always a fraudulent one,” she said. “It was not one based on respect for the United Nations’ truly multilateral democratic character. It was always framed by efforts to undermine the democratic capacity of the U.N. and it was always framed by an instrumentalist view of the U.N. The U.N. was, in many ways, a means of asserting U.S. foreign policy and a way of claiming an international credential for unilateral action.”

Bennis charged that the United States no longer considers it necessary to confer with the Security Council on Iraq. To the extent that the U.S. may wish to engage itself in a policy of assertive multilateralism, it now looks instead to NATO, Bennis said.

She told her audience that within the last 6 to 12 months the U.S. has given up its commitment to disarmament in favor of a militarily-driven effort to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussain. “This is perhaps the most tragic of these various abandonments in the particular sense of Iraq, because the only shred of a saving grace that ever existed in the U.S. strategy toward Iraq was that it could set the stage for broader efforts of disarmament throughout the region,” Bennis said.

After providing her interpretation of the current U.S. position toward Iraq, Bennis laid out several actions she believes should be taken. She called first for an end to economic sanctions, explaining that, according to the World Food Program and UNICEF, 200 children have died daily for the past 18 months, despite the oil-for-food program. Rather than de-linking economic and military sanctions, she pointed out, the United States offered a proposal that would raise the cap on the oil-for-food program.

“The idea of raising the cap is not particularly dangerous for the U.S. because the Iraqi government does not have the capacity to pump enough oil to reach the existing cap,” she said. But, for the U.S. government, “sanctions have become a weapon of mass destruction.” And, in clear violation of the U.N. resolution that calls for sanctions to remain in place only as long as it takes for Iraq to abide by the U.N.-imposed conditions involving weapons of mass destruction, the United States has reaffirmed its own position that economic sanctions will remain in place as long as Saddam Hussain remains in power.

Secondly, Bennis described the need to reassert the centrality of the U.N. in the context of Iraq policy. A fundamental aspect of this is broadening who takes up issues concerning Iraq, Bennis explained. She called for the Disarmament Committee of the General Assembly and the Commission on Disarmament, organizations specifically charged with disarmament issues, to take up the discussion on Iraq.

The third option Bennis advocated was to make UNSCOM’s reports public, including the names of countries exporting weapons. According to Bennis, the United States exports 60 percent of the world’s arms and the five permanent members of the Security Council together account for 85 percent of the world’s arms exports. “Countries with a pre-eminent responsibility in the United Nations for peace and security are, by a huge proportion, the dominant source of weapons around the world, and that includes everything from small arms to nuclear arms,” Bennis stated. For example, throughout the 1970s and 1980s the U.S. was a major military ally of Saddam Hussain and his regime, Bennis explained. Even after Iraq’s use of chemical weapons against Kurdish civilians, the United States continued to provide military intelligence, equipment and supplies to Iraq.

And, in a very interesting set of developments in the 1980s, Bennis remarked, the United States provided seed stock necessary for biological weapons to Iraq’s military. “The American Type Culture Collection, a biological seed company in Maryland, was requested by Baghdad for germ stock of E-coli and anthrax. Although some individuals in the State Department expressed concern, the Commerce Department granted the company a license to ship all requested items,” Bennis said. “Now is that why the U.S. has been so concerned with the biological weapons program, because they know what was there, because they sent it?” asked Bennis.

Moreover, if, as Richard Butler stated, “the vast majority of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction have been accounted for,” the goal should be to curb the export of these weapons, Bennis said. The only solution to this phenomenon is to force UNSCOM to go public with currently classified documentation on the origins of Iraq’s weapons programs.

Lastly, Bennis called for a deeper understanding of disarmament. Often cited is Article 22 of U.N. Resolution 687, which calls for economic sanctions to remain in place until the issues dealing with weapons of mass destruction have been resolved. However, Bennis said, we never hear discussion of sections such as the Preamble or Article 14, which call for Iraqi disarmament to be implemented in a context of regional disarmament, with greater efforts directed toward creating a nuclear weapons and chemical and biological weapons-free zone in the Middle East.

“And as we all know,” Bennis said, “there is only one nuclear power in the Middle East and it isn’t Iraq.” According to Bennis, this realization demands confronting the presence of Israel’s nuclear arsenal and the instability it creates for the region. What it also demands is the articulation of an Iraqi policy that is no longer mired in double standards.

To put it simply, stability will only emerge when Iraq is no longer targeted as the sole violator of human rights, as the only country under a dictatorial regime, and as the only country pursuing a weapons program, Bennis said. “If we are worried about what Saddam Hussain is doing to the Kurds, we have to be equally concerned with what Turkey is doing to the Kurds. And, if we are concerned with the spread of weapons of mass destruction, we have to understand what it means when the United States sells 50 Black Hawk helicopters, weapons used to kill Kurds, to Turkey,” Bennis concluded.

—Sadia Razaq

CPAP Examines Potential British and European Roles in Israeli-Palestinian Peace

The Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine invited Jonathan Farley, principal lecturer at the Department of Defense Studies of the Command and General Staff College at Blackmore, to discuss on Jan. 28 Britain’s view of the peace process and its influence on the future of U.S. Middle East policy.

According to Farley, the first meaningful step in the peace process occurred after the October 1973 war, with the early disengagement of the region. Limited Israeli withdrawal from Sinai in 1974 and Golan in 1975 culminated in the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt in 1979. Although all of these events marked movement toward a final solution, they did not secure any satisfactory arrangement for the Palestinians.

For the European Union, the first formal stance taken toward a Palestinian settlement was the 1980 Venice Declaration, in which leaders of European states formally expressed sympathy for the Palestinian people and recognized the need for an independent Palestinian state, Farley said. Although the declaration championed civil and political rights for Palestinians, it was benign in the sense that it offered no real sacrifice on the part of European nations. Moreover, Europe followed the declaration with a long period of inactivity.

“This was not entirely Europe’s fault, because Europe after 1980 was very much in the process of getting itself together,” Farley said. “I tend to argue that after 1973 the European Union experienced a period of political and economic stagnation, caused by the fact that there was recession and resistance to the formation of a Confederation of European States.” The conservatism that permeated this period caused a great hesitation within the Union to take any bold political steps, in either domestic or foreign policy.

To some extent the 1986 Single European Act eased the conditions of the Union and allowed for a more cohesive bundling of the European states. The act allowed for a Council of Ministers to make their decisions not by unanimity, but by a qualified majority vote. However, following the 1986 legislation, 1991 gave rise to the Maastricht Treaty, a significant retreat from the Single European Act. Specifically, the Maastricht Treaty stipulated that any decision the European Union took relating to foreign policy had to be reached by inter-governmental cooperation. Essentially, that meant a return to unanimous voting and few foreign policy initiatives emerging from the Union, due to a lack of agreement.

As far as Europe is concerned at the moment, clear foreign policy goals remain to be articulated. According to Farley, this is partly because for the past few decades foreign policy has been governed by internal developments within the European Union, which have diverted attention from other areas of the globe. Furthermore, there still is a strong hesitation to return to a procedure of majority voting, leaving foreign policy controlled by individual states.

Secondly, progress on the peace process is not vital to European states, as single powers or as a collective. “Obviously, European governments are in favor of the peace process,” Farley said, “but how willing they are to make sacrifices or secure its advance, I am unsure about.

“There is not a great deal European governments can do to put pressure directly on Israel or Washington,” Farley explained. He noted that even the United States government has limits to the extent it can pressure Israel, due to the financial support of the Democratic Party by the Jewish community.

More significantly, Farley said, is that Europe is entirely unwilling to allow local difficulties to jeopardize its fundamental relationship with the United States. According to Farley, although the European Union has not particularly supported the peace process it has offered a great deal of sympathy for the Palestinian people and it has offered significant amounts of economic aid to the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Concluding his lecture, Farley discussed the tangible costs for Israelis, Palestinians and Europe of securing a meaningful resolution. For Israel, peace would inevitably mean renouncing sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza, an end to the construction of ideological settlements, abandoning the notion of expelling Palestinians to the east bank of the Jordan River, and reconsideration of the status of Jerusalem.

For the Palestinians, there would be the need to accept the reality of a militarily and economically more powerful neighbor and a final Palestinian state that would be no more than 23 percent of the British Mandate. As for Britain, securing peace in the region would bear no great cost, Farley noted, simply because it would continue to follow its path of inactive sympathy.

—Sadia Razaq

What Next? Toward a Responsible Iraq Policy

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) held a Foreign Policy Symposium Dec. 29 at the National Press Club in Washington, DC to discuss U.S. policy in Iraq. ADC issued a hard-copy transcript of the symposium to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and to all senators and U.S. representatives. ADC Media Director Hussein Ibish moderated the symposium, complete transcripts of which are on ADC’s Website: http://www.adc.org

At the symposium retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Eugene J. Carroll, Jr., deputy director of the Center for Defense Information (CDI), discussed the “ill-conceived objectives” of Desert Fox which, he said, were “to delay and degrade Iraq’s suspected weapons of mass destruction.” Carroll said these limited objectives couldn’t change the political posture in Iraq. In fact, he said, Desert Fox united Iraq against American aggression.

Describing the costs of the bombing, Carroll said: “On the positive side, thankfully, no U.S. or British lives were lost. We don’t know the extent of death in Iraq. The dollar cost for U.S. actions only exceeded $500 million. But what are the other costs? First, the loss of the valuable presence of UNSCOM in Iraq.”

Another cost, Carroll continued, is the resulting criticism, protest, and loss of support from a number of Muslim states, U.N. Security Council members, and many of our closest Western allies. “In short, the decision to strike Iraq this time was a no-win action by America,” Carroll concluded. “Far from having achievable objectives worth the cost, our use of force constituted little more than punitive reprisals…and of course, the destruction fell not on Saddam Hussain, but on the already victimized and suffering Iraqi people.”

Denis Halliday, former United Nations assistant secretary-general who resigned in protest as head of the U.N. humanitarian relief efforts in Iraq, discussed the long-term consequences of U.S. policies in Iraq. “The sanctions have resulted in malnutrition and death that is horrible and criminal,” Halliday said. But these results could be ameliorated as soon as sanctions are lifted, he said, if there were an immediate investment in rebuilding the health, infrastructures, and education in the country.

Not so easy to rectify, Halliday charged, is the long-term destruction of family the sanctions have caused. He described a country suffering as a result of divorce, unemployment, hopelessness, and depression, homes stripped of everything worth selling, and the best and brightest leaving the country and causing a brain-drain.

Families have lost dignity and self-esteem and the old values of behavior and decency. Children beg in the streets and there is serious crime. “The social damage caused by eight years of brutal sanctions will not easily heal,” he concluded.

Phyllis Bennis, Middle East specialist, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), and author of Calling the Shots: How Washington Dominates Today’s U.N., said that economic sanctions are a violation of human rights that must end. She discussed U.S. efforts to disarm Iraq while turning a blind eye to or participating in arming the rest of the region. Bennis asked the government to make public the sources of Iraq’s weapons, charging that in the 1980s the U.S. sold Iraq the very weapons that it seeks to destroy today. She concluded her remarks saying, “For disarmament in the arms-glutted region, we must target suppliers. The largest arms dealer in the region is poorly placed to determine who has the rights to arms.”

Former Arab League Ambassador to the U.N. and to the United States Dr. Clovis Maksoud, who currently is director of the Center for the Global South at American University in Washington, DC, described the anger and frustration in the Arab world as a result of U.S. policy in Iraq. “The good will of President Clinton in Gaza has been squandered,” Dr. Maksoud said. People’s frustration has deepened. “That’s a prescription for explosion. Iraq is on the conscience of Arabs, even those who suffered from its aggression. Arabs realize the basic unfairness of vengeance taken against the Iraqi people.” Dr. Maksoud concluded, “It is widely thought that Britain and the U.S. are reconstructing their imperial role in the region. The U.S. needs to reassess its policies in the Middle East.”

—Delinda C. Hanley

Highway of Death Massacre Forum

The DC Coalition to Stop the War Against Iraq commemorated on Feb. 26 the eighth anniversary of the highway of death massacre—the U.S. bombing of tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers retreating from Kuwait during the Gulf war– by holding a mail-in of sanctioned items, a vigil and an open forum.

“We are here to hold witness to the crimes our government has committed in our names,” DC Coalition member Ramsey Kysia told the ensemble. “We are here to remember the men and the women and the children that our government has killed in our names. And we are here to speak out, in case our leaders believe they have our consent to continue this slaughter.”

Packages of bandages, thermometers, medicine and shampoo were among the United Nations-sanctioned trade items collected in front of the main Washington post office. The goods will be sent to needy Iraqis through Voices in the Wilderness, a Chicago-based humanitarian organization.

The DC Coalition, which is a consortium of local organizations actively opposed to U.S. sanctions and bombing of Iraq, also held a vigil outside Union Station to remember those who had died in the U.S. bombing campaign carried out while the Iraqis were retreating. On Feb. 26, 1991, U.S. planes immobilized the 60-mile convoy on the road from Mutlaa, Kuwait, to Basra, Iraq, by disabling vehicles at its front and rear. They then bombed the trapped vehicles with weapons that included napalm and cluster bombs, killing a large number of Iraqi soldiers and civilians.

Shortly before the sunset vigil, protestors carrying placards that read “Sanctions are a weapon of mass destruction” and “Drop medicine, not bombs,” distributed educational material in front of Union Station. A teacher chaperoning a herd of students into the station yelled, “Do you want them to invade Kuwait again?” a reference to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on Aug. 3, 1990.

“This is why I’m here,” said a frustrated Monica Tarazi, an Arab studies major at Georgetown University. She said that few Americans seem to be aware that the primary victims of the United Nations sanctions being imposed upon Iraq are children and the other most vulnerable members of Iraq society, not Saddam Hussain and the Iraqi military.

After the vigil the group walked to St. Aloysius Church for a series of talks and discussions. Kysia began the evening with a summary of the effects of sanctions and bombings on the Iraqi people.

“Over the last eight years there has been an almost five-fold increase in the number of cancers and birth defects being reported in Iraq, including a six-fold increase in leukemia,” Kysia said. “Estimates of the total war dead during our initial, six-week bombing campaign range from 150,000 civilian and army to over 250,000 dead. Estimates of total deaths from the war and sanctions over the past eight years since range from U.N. estimates of just under 1.1 million to Iraqi claims of over 1.9 million dead.

“Whichever statistics you wish to use, we are actively, and even enthusiastically, engaging in the genocide of the Iraqi people,” Kysia added.

Through a translator, Iraqi Gulf war veteran Fahad Mustapha urged Americans to demand a change in their government’s policies. “If this is truly a democratic country, the U.S. should be accountable for its actions,” Mustafa said. “If you don’t do anything…what are people in the future going to think of you?”

In the discussion that followed, people described individual and group efforts to change U.S. Iraq policies. One man told Iraqis present he was on a 20-day, liquids-only diet to “repent for what our government did to your people.”

Another audience member said his organization was trying to raise $34,000 to place an ad in The New York Times protesting sanctions and bombings. Foreign policy analysts, educators and organizations, he said, were being solicited to sign the full-page ad.

Political endeavors are also under way, according to Eric Gustafson, founder of the Education for Peace in Iraq Center. The center is seeking to introduce a resolution in Congress to “de-link economic sanctions from military sanctions” against Iraq.

In addition, students from local universities said anti-sanctions and anti-war sentiment was burgeoning on their campuses. Information booths, student government resolutions and educational film festivals are being planned, they said.

The day was “a good jumping-off point to build a stronger movement,” according to Melanie Maycock of the DC Coalition. “We got a lot of myths dispelled, saw lots of new faces and did some networking…This was a good organizing tool.”

—Salina Khan