Weighing the options

By Mohamed Hakki
US foreign policy is both cyclical and reactive, neglecting a region for a time and then, in a sudden reaction to a perceived act of hostility, taking a seemingly irrational decision. During the Clinton years, this process bordered on the ridiculous. Bombing what was obviously a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan in 1998, mainly to deflect media attention from a sex scandal in the White House, is a case in point.
Most analysts admit, nonetheless, that trying to formulate a coherent policy towards Iraq is not an easy proposition. But to insist on continued sanctions and bombing of dubious targets, which increase the suffering of the Iraqi people (nearly half a million Iraqi children have died as a result of the sanctions), only guarantees further punishment of Iraqi citizens without affecting Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
The incoming George W Bush administration has confused observers. First came, on 16 February, airstrikes against suspected Iraqi radar sites close to Baghdad. In the Arab world, these raids were felt to be either a carry-over from the Clinton years or an ill-advised move to deflect attention from the ongoing violence in Palestine. Almost all participants in the 1991 US-led coalition against Iraq criticised the strikes.
The attacks came as something of a surprise. While the Bush campaign had criticised the Clinton administration for being "soft" on Iraq and allowing Saddam Hussein to remain in power, a new administration is often an opportunity to change policies that have become ineffective. Thus Arab capitals welcomed Secretary of State Colin Powell's tour of the region last week. A senior Arab diplomat in Washington who met with Powell before his trip said: "At least he listens. Former Secretary of State [Madeleine] Albright never did, and never learned. She just liked to lecture her guests and listened mainly to herself."
The Bush administration is now lining up support for what it calls "smart sanctions," a replacement of the 10-year-old UN sanctions regime with one that targets military and dual purpose imports and clamps down on Iraqi oil exports outside UN monitoring. This has led to a real debate on what to do about Iraq policy, one of several signs that the new administration is willing to pursue new initiatives.
However, there are elements within the new administration that favour risky and irrational policies. Political analysts have dubbed these members of the administration "the war party," supposedly opposed to Powell. The Washington Post has reported that, three years ago, Paul Wolfowitz, the new deputy under-secretary of defence, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of State-designate Richard Armitage and Under-Secretary of State-designate John Bolton all signed a letter to then President Bill Clinton denouncing the anti-Iraq "containment" policy as "dangerously inadequate." "The only acceptable strategy," the letter said, "is one aimed at removing Saddam Hussein from power."
By no coincidence, these same names have advocated the overwhelming use of power in other circumstances. Bolton, whom Israel and its friends wanted as US ambassador to the UN, advised the Clinton administration, in an official memo, to "bomb Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Libya to force them into submission to US policies." Similarly, Wolfowitz advised the administration of Bush senior in 1989 to "attack the Soviet Union if it does not liberate the Baltic States."
In a discussion last week on the "lessons and future of Washington's Iraq policy," held at the conservative Cato Institute, Ivan Eland, the institute's vice-president, and Ambassador Edward Peck, former chief of mission to Iraq, cautioned against "hubristic assumptions" that the Gulf States, the UN and US allies would support military action "to get rid of Saddam." Continued US support of Israel weakens any American claim to changed Middle East policies and both speakers warned against unilateral military action, which would achieve only universal reproach. They also counselled against attempting to assassinate Saddam, on the grounds that it was not only difficult, but illegal. Ambassador Peck said, "Modify the embargo, and everyone wins. There is no rationale whatsoever for total embargo if what we are really concerned about is Saddam's military threat. Food, medicine, clothing, and most other things a nation imports do not threaten anyone."
The US administration, still formulating an Iraq policy, will closely follow the upcoming Arab summit, scheduled to begin 27 March in Amman. President Bush has already said that for the sanctions to work, they must be supported by all of Iraq's Arab neighbours. The US would be well advised to go beyond "smart sanctions" and formulate a comprehensive policy. The Arabs, for their part, would do well to take a proactive role in helping Washington formulate a rational policy that would end Iraqi suffering and induce the Iraqi regime to respect international norms. Only then can there be a period of "constructive engagement."
Recommend this page
Related stories:
Conflicting red lines 1 - 7 March 2001
The US, Saddam and Sharon 22 - 28 February 2001
Irresponsible acts 22 - 28 February 2001
Cowboy politics 22 - 28 February 2001
An all-American dream 22 - 28 February 2001
Washington's favourite demon 15 - 21 February 2001
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
Send a letter to the Editor