Democracy

Economy

Education

Development

Global Issues

Research

Crisis in Iraq:

 Let him who desires peace prepare for war. Flavius Vegetius Renatus (~375 AD), De Rei Militari

 

01/28/03

Undoubtedly, the world is being held a hostage by the crisis in Iraq. As the US and the UK are building up their military presence in the Gulf, war seems inevitable. King Abdullah, in his speech in Davos last Sunday for instance, stated that it would take a miracle to avoid war.

Is there really any way out to avoid a war?

For those who are against war, expressing the rejection on war is good, but suggesting a way out is much better. And for those who support the war, expressing the dangerous threat of WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) is good as well, but suggesting an acceptable and beneficial solution to all is much better. Rather becoming a part of the problem, the world community should become a part of solution by offering a viable, peaceful and acceptable solution that would make everybody happy.

The following is dealing with such solution.

Where are we now?

Before describing the solution, let’s review the last development of the crisis. In yesterday’s briefing of the U.N. chief weapons inspectors to the U.N. Security Council on their progress in Iraq, Hans Blix and Mohamed Elbaradei, suggested that Iraq is still resisting international efforts to ensure its disarmament.

"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it," Blix said.  Blix also said that Iraq has failed to account for a wide range of chemical and biological weapons and missiles. He said there is "strong evidence" that Iraq maintained quantities of anthrax after it claimed to have destroyed its stocks. 

Blix said Iraq has failed to account for a wide range of chemical and biological weapons and missiles. He said there is "strong evidence" that Iraq maintained quantities of anthrax after it claimed to have destroyed its stocks. Source: CNN

In response to the chief U.N. weapons inspectors’ statement, Iraqi UN ambassador, Mohammed Al-Douri, said that the allegations by the U.S. and the UK that Baghdad is hiding weapons of mass destruction are "baseless" and a "big lie".

"We think there is no more need for inspections or inspectors," he said.  Source: CNN

Meanwhile, in an interview with Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, the Secretary of State, Colin Powell said, "The United States possesses several pieces of information which come from the work of our intelligence that show Iraq maintains prohibited weapons."

Powell told "Once we have made sure it can be done safely, I think that in the next week or soon after we can make public a good part of this material." Source: AP

All suggests that military confrontation seems inevitable. However, a closer observation at the press conference by Iraqi UN ambassador, Mohammed Al-Douri, one could see a potential breakthrough in this crisis. In his statement to the press, Al-Douri stated that Iraq is open to all kinds of negotiations. For some, this is nothing but rhetoric as Baghdad often stated the same. But with the amounting possibility of war and given that a military conflict would likely bring the Iraqi regime to collapse, the Iraqi regime might be thinking about an exit strategy to end this crisis that could secure their power while at the same time meet the demand of the United Nations. That leads me to speculate the following possible scenario.

Solution (?)

It is likely that in the next 2 to 3 weeks, the world would witness a miraculous development in this crisis. The Iraqi regime would agree to a full disclosure of their WMD programs and would be willing to let international agency to destroy them, much like what happened in South Africa. In return, the embargo would be lifted up, the war would be avoided and Saddam would remain in power but would be "powerless" militarily.

The UN would be allowed to monitor some of the Iraq’s oil revenues for the improvement of Iraq’s economy (but the problem is there have been many corruption allegations in the UN). In addition, the Iraqi regime, under the supervision of the U.N., must hold a general election within one year.  To avoid further crisis the region, the U.N. with cooperation with NATO and Arab League would be responsible for future security of the region. A greater consensus on a peaceful solution of the conflict of Israel- Palestine would be achieved within one year.

This scenario would leave everybody happy. Let’s examine one by one.

The US and UK. Although not fully be satisfied because Saddam remains in power, they would still be happy because without their military threat, the Iraqi regime would never admit their WMD programs. After all, President Bush often repeated,” Either Saddam disarms himself or let the international community do it.”  Domestically, Bush’s and Blair’s popularity would jump up.

Rusia, France, China and Germany are happy because they would remain have control over their economic interests in the region. The world would also be given impression that in today’s unipolar world where the US is the only superpower, the four countries are still useful in keeping the balance in the international geopolitics.

Saddam and his regime would be happy because they remain in power. In addition, because its willingness to destroy its WMD programs, the Iraqi regime would also get supports from the international community. 

The international community would be happy because war would finally avoided.

The UN would be satisfied because it could promote a peaceful and acceptable solution to all.

This peaceful solution, above all, would benefit the Iraqi people because of three things: (1) There would be no war and (2) their resources would be channeled for productive purposes and (3) a democratic process in underway.

Could it happen?

But could it happen? The only light that is needed to spark the peaceful fire is the willingness of Baghdad to a full disclosure of their WMD programs. Even the moderate U.N. chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix points out that the burden of proof is on Iraq. Imagine a simple illustration where Mr. X says that “I have no money.” Someone else can search all his pockets and all his bags and other possessions and not find any money. That does not mean that Mr. X does not have money. He could hide it at any place he thinks that it is safe to hide. The only person who really knows the truth is Mr. X himself. Whether one can trust Mr. X’s claim it depends upon his trustworthiness.

In the case of Iraq, there are three possibilities.  First, Baghdad does not have any WMD. Second, it has them but already destroyed all of them. Third, it has them but already destroyed some of them. The world has seen that a continuous denial is nothing but a suicidal action. And through out history, facts show that the dictatorial regimes, from Nicolai Ceausescu in Rumania to Marcos in Philippines always ended up in tragedy.

Telling lies in the international diplomacy is common. Almost all countries have ever committed to a certain degree of or full lies in the international diplomacy. Baghdad should admit their WMD programs if they do have. After all, the U.N. Resolution does not say that military force would be taken if Baghdad does have the programs. However, it says that Baghdad must destroy their WMD and close the programs. And if Iraq indeed has the program, the regime could say that it is intended for defensive purposes although the past tends to suggest the opposite.

Saddam Hussein, although he is well known as a dictator, could suddenly become “a prince of peace”.  A regime change in Iraq would occur peacefully in four or five year down the road.

And this solution can be a good model in solving problems in North Korea and elsewhere.

Problems

But the problem today is not so much about Baghdad. It is also about the political games played by a few major countries in this world, from China, France, Germany, Russia, UK and US.

While peace is not in the absence of war, peace also is not in the absence of choice. So far, the US and the UK are sending a signal of a military choice, but the rest of the powerful countries seem to signal a status quo choice. Neither of them is good for the Iraqi people and for the rest of the world. We only hope that the above solution would be discussed by these powerful countries and Baghdad should also see it as a viable one.

And the international community should promote it, rather than offering a status quo option.

 Your comment

Back to top