Iraq: achieving results without military intervention

Contributing Editor Vice Admiral (Retd) Iqbal F Quadir says that results can be (and are being) achieved without war.

What had been forecast in my article “Approaching the end of another era?” in the November 2002 issue of Defence Journal has come about and old Europe as well as Russia and China were now in deep disagreement with USA and her followers on the question of military intervention in Iraq. Major issues lay behind this disagreement. These include vital economic interests of old Europe and Russia in Iraq and Middle East as a whole, their and Chinese fear of world economic and military dominance by USA, the spectre of an emergent imperialistic superpower, the disparity in US approach towards resolving the Palestinian-Israeli problem; and in the case of China, the increased encirclement by US troops starting with their stationing in South Korea and Japan in the East, now in Afghanistan soon to be followed by those in Iraq on China’s West; plus her additional concerns on certain important matters of principle, the primary of these being interference in the internal affairs of another state. The policy of pre-emption lately declared by USBA (United States, Britain and Australia) that formed the basis and logic of their intended attack on Iraq, and which Israel and India were eagerly awaiting emulation; has caused genuine concerns in many countries the world over. Further, in common with the rest of the world, these four major disputants against USA have felt that any unilateral or unauthorized use of military force in Iraq would firstly lead to the demise of United Nations as a useful body for solving disputes amongst nations and of maintaining peace and harmony throughout the world.
Secondly, many countries apprehended that any authorization by UN, implied or otherwise, authorizing use of force by a single country or group of them against another for enforcing a UN ‘Mandate or Will’ would not only undermine the United Nations in the eyes of the world but it would also set up a new dangerous precedent for the future. A quandary thus prevailed in the UN Security Council as to what future course of action to adopt such that Iraq was compelled to comply fully with the UN SC resolutions that demanded complete and verifiable Iraqi elimination of all types of weapons of mass destruction; nuclear, chemical and bio-logical as well as. their production facilities. An important question left out of the current UN formulation on Iraq was the reliability that could be placed on the present Baghdad regime to maintain the de-WMDed status of Iraq after the UN Inspection and Verification Teams had completed their task and departed from that country? Another question of substance was whether UN should become the means and a tool for Saddam Hussain to retain his hold over Iraq that the present UN formulation entailed?
A possible solution to this quandary at the UN was sent by this scribe in the form of a letter to three Pakistani English language national dailies. But none published the letter, which is reproduced hereunder. Called ‘The Iraqi conundrum’, the letter said, “It is high time President Saddam and his close associates realized that his approach to disarmament was proving highly detrimental alike to the interests of the world, Muslims the world over, the Arabs and the people of Iraq themselves. Whatever his cause, the world community represented by the UN Security Council had decided for good or for bad that Iraq because of her past deeds could no longer be trusted with any weapons of mass destruction; nuclear, biological or chemical.
President Saddam should be fully conscious of the fact that there was just no getting away from disarmament demanded unanimously by the Security Council that represented the conscience and the will of the world presently. He has vacillated long enough and the decade long delay in disarmament has lost him any sympathy that earlier existed in the hearts of many people for his cause. No one outside of Baath party felt for him or the party itself any further.
The earlier Saddam handed over the reigns of Iraq to the UN Security Council the better for the people of Iraq, the Arabs and Muslims the world over and the world itself. This was the only way, though God knows best, that he could save the people of Iraq; who brought so much advanced science and technology to that country that Saddam’s inanity and doggedness has caused to be lost; could be saved from further destruction and dishonour that was bound to follow if the Security Council or USA alone were forced to decide on military action.
The bone of contention that remained between Iraq and Security Council was a large quantity of unaccounted material that could be used to manufacture weapons of mass destruction, the means of manufacturing them and the material itself. A point of issue not taken up by the Security Council so far, was the need to establish if any WMDs, their components or their manufacturing technologies have been passed on to others including one of our neighbours whose citizens and industry have been deeply associated with Iraq in this field till recently as established by USA/UK. This was no small matter and needed to be addressed seriously.
Everyone understood well the fallout that was bound to result from any unauthorized military action against Saddam by a country alone or any group of countries. It would mean the end of United Nations however faulty and ineffectual that body had been so far, the start of era of might was right and of possible sudden demise of the present political order in the Middle East leaving the Arabs and the heart of Islam at the mercy of unknown forces from outside and from within. Was all this chaos and turmoil necessary? Only Saddam could decide but the OIC and the Arab League must act quickly to offer Saddam a way out.
Finally, since Saddam and Bath party were the sole cause of present world suffering, could the political and intellectual leaders of the sole super not provide greater wisdom for removing the unwanted and propose a solution better than an expensive and highly destructive war on all counts? I am sure there was still time to find one but that could only happen if President Bush wanted it. The responsibility for peace now rested equally on the shoulders of a feral dictator and the elected president of the sole super power. Let us hope and pray that at least one of them acts with greater prudence.
” For those who might take the above as towing a line of action favourable to one party, it must be stated that the above mentioned letter was emailed as well as faxed on 17 February while the White House spokesman put forward the official demand of Saddam’s removal in his press briefing ten days later on 27 February. Further, it must be appreciated that there would be a fundamental difference between Saddam handing over peacefully to the United Nations Security Council that was favourably disposed towards Iraq and its people than a surrender to USA by a militarily defeated Saddam and destroyed Iraq, economically as well as politically. Further, in the case of an unauthorized military invasion by US, UK and Australian forces; it might become even more difficult for Iraq and its people were the neighbours, attracted by the spoils that must dangle in front of them, also to enter Iraq before US, UK and Australian ground troops occupied the whole of that country. These neighbours could rightly claim that their actions too were no more than mere contributions towards the UN and the publicized US cause and which were in no way different from those USA and UK were enacting themselves.
In the event; Turkey, Iran and or Syria were to march their forces into Iraq, what then would be USA’s reaction? Would she try and stop those Middle East forces from entering and thus extend the area of military conflict? Or, would USA accept occupation of Iraq’s northern oilfields by a third party? One could visualize other equally or more dangerous political and military implications of a free for all that was bound to follow any unauthorized unilateral or combined foreign military intervention in Iraq by USA, UK and Australia, no matter how justified and desirable their intention might appear to them. Further, it would be in the interest of peace and future good of the world were President Bush to reconsider his plans for Iraq and come out with another proposition that would equally achieve the desired UN and US objectives in that country peacefully, and simultaneously lead to an acceptable change of regime in Baghdad.