Dear Selected TFF PressInfo Recipient ,
It’s a pleasure for us to send you this PressInfo about
the Iraq crisis.
During the build-up of the Iraq crisis, TFF initiated
an international e-mail brainstorm. We asked some 150
peace researchers and conflict-resolution practitioners
around the world to respond, within four days, to the
following six questions:
1) WHAT IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS CONFLICT?
2) WHY ARE WE ONCE AGAIN WITNESSING A MASSIVE MILITARY PROJECT THAT MEETS LITTLE DEBATE?
3) WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE UP TILL NOW – MID-FEBRUARY 98 – AND BY WHOM, TO PREVENT IT?
4)WHAT CAN STILL BE DONE TO PREVENT WAR AND BY WHOM?
5) WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO CREATE A DEBATE AFTER A NEW WAR THAT WILL FOCUS ON ALTERNATIVES?
6) ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT THE ROLE OF THE UNITED NATIONS?
Not all, of course, were able to respond within this
short notice, but those who did provided us with so many
perspectives and proposals – some writing several pages. We
made a selection and edited it all in two PressInfos for you
to reflect on – as another TFF service for peace. This
PressInfo contains the answers to the first three questions.
No 33, the latter
three.
“What is immediately evident,” says TFF director Jan
Oberg, “is that there is so much more to say about the
diagnosis and possible conflict-resolution than you
experienced in the general media coverage. Second, the
experts are much more self-critical about the United States
and Western policies; they clearly see that we are part –
historically – of the problem and not the solution. Third,
we must be painfully aware that the conflict is by no means
solved.”
So, we advise you to keep these points, you may need them
in the weeks and months to come. And please share them with
colleagues and friends.”
1) WHAT IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS CONFLICT – STRUCTURE, EVENTS, POLICIES, CULTURE, STRATEGIC INTERESTS?
• All of it, it’s complex and historical
If the actors themselves or the media reduce it to
“Bill-versus-Saddam” we will keep on making the wrong moves.
Of particular importance is to know something about history,
particularly from Lawrence of Arabia and 1916, the
Sykes-Picot Agreement, and the economic history of oil.
• Cultural/religious differences
The adversaries conduct politics ignorant of the
humanistic aspects of their respective cultures and
religions. Probably they have no dialogue but only parallel
monologues.
• Strategic interests
The military needs to test new weapons under “real life”
circumstances.
• Economic causes
The U.S. in particular must keep control of oil producing
regions as it has no alternative energy policies. The arms
industry will get new orders and arms merchants make
profits.
• Psychological aspects
The superpower insists on being obeyed by a smaller
power, and this smaller power insists on being respected and
listened to. Leaders demonstrate their power, their
prestige, honour and reputation while others pay the price
of the consequences. Personalities are important but so are
the conflicting interests. Right now it looks like Hussein
has out-foxed the only superpower.
• Power politics
The US knows that military strike will not resolve any
problem of the UNSCOM. The real objective for the USA is to
destroy the regime and its leader.
• Domestic politics
Bill Clinton and Saddam Hussein probably feel that
military action will strengthen them, or divert attention
from other, troublesome issues. They both have a strong
sense of mission and try to obtain domestic support to
strengthen their positions.
• High politics based on philosophical nonsense
Three aspects: a) we are telling the Iraqis that we THINK
they hide something but we cannot prove it. If we bomb them,
we have amoral obligation to KNOW that they hide and cheat:
bombing on the basis of a hypothesis that could prove wrong
undermines the whole argument. So, we are requiring the
Iraqis to prove that they don’t hide and cheat. But no
matter what they give us free access to, we can still have
the suspicion that somewhere there is something, for
instance deep down in the dessert, because 2) what we are
looking for (chemical and biological substances) can be so
small that they are virtually impossible to detect. 3) Even
if we could detect every gram and destroy it, once it is all
over, they can quickly be developed again – and the crises
and wars return.
• Conflicts abound among Arab states
The Iraq-Iran conflict was a conflict among Muslims. The
Iraq-Kuwait clash is among the Sunni Arabs. Which capital
will be the power base: Baghdad, Damascus, Cairo or Riyadh?
Similar battles one occurred in Europe among Paris, Madrid,
London, and Berlin. We can choose to mitigate these facts of
life or intervene to make things much worse, lifting it into
a trans-civilization conflict.
2) WHY ARE WE ONCE AGAIN WITNESSING A
MASSIVE MILITARY PROJECT THAT MEETS LITTLE DEBATE,
RESISTANCE AND FEW ALTERNATIVE VIEWS?
• The US and others have sent the wrong signals
Many see America as having saved the world from a
potential Middle Eastern Hitler. But we encouraged Saddam
earlier. When Iraq attacked Iran in September 1980 and the
rest of the world did nothing to stop it, not even condemn
it, it was a terrible mistake to do nothing to oppose the
clearest case of aggression since World War II. The West and
Russia armed and supported Saddam right up until the eve of
his invasion of Kuwait, even though his intentions were
obvious.
• Others have been allowed to develop weapons of
mass destruction
Israel has violated Security Council resolutions and has
nuclear weapons. Iraq has used and threatened to use weapons
of mass destruction, but so has the USA and others, and
Saddam Hussein’s record is one of carefully calculated
reason (as when he was deterred from using such weapons
during the Gulf War). Yes, Saddam is a murderous thug, but
then so is Syria’s Assad, Israel’s Sharon, and all too many
others in the region.
• Others have gone unpunished for similar crimes
Saddam’s attempts to circumvent UN resolutions is said to
justify murderous air strikes (by a power that arrogates all
rights of interpretation and judgment), while others’
similarly-condemned occupations (Syria’s of Lebanon’s Beka
valley, and Israel’s of the Gaza, West Bank and the Golan)
remain unthreatened and unremarked.
• The US has used nuclear and chemical weapons
The United States used chemical weapons in Vietnam. It’s
the only state to have used nuclear weapons (Hiroshima and
Nagasaki) and threatened to use them in a number of crisis
situations – indeed, that’s what deterrence policies between
NATO and the Warsaw Pact was all about for 45 years! Thus,
the United States is not exactly qualified to moralise and
judge others.
• Lack of trust and ongoing demonisation
Saddam Hussein calls America the Great Satan, but
Americans too have dehumanised Saddam, and therefore it can,
without qualms, kill hundreds of thousands of reluctant
Iraqi soldiers — in the same spirit as it attempted to bomb
Vietnam back into the stone age. It bombed Vietnam, Laos,
Cambodia and Iraq — in the name of peace and freedom.
• International law is applied to “them” and not
“us”
The partisan and selective application of “law” offends
the very notion of law. Law must be generic and impartial,
at least in principle, and not based on whim, personal need
or spite. Laws applied only to “them” and not “us” smacks of
what we rightly accuse Saddam of. The permanent five,
nuclear members of the Security Council have consistently
ignored the idea of nuclear disarmament which was the
quid-pro-quo of non-proliferation.
• Post-Cold War insecurity
We lack new thinking and institutions to deal effectively
with crisis like this after the Cold War. If a hammer is
your only tool, that’s what you must use. There is still no
operational globally/regionally oriented security concept
for the post-cold war period. The concept of comprehensive
security has no operational outcome, institutes or
mechanisms. Policies of punishing the designated Bad Guys by
military force and military methods still dominate in world
politics. The tendency towards “peace enforcement” is
wide-spread during the post cold war period. Those who ought
to play a central role – the UN, regional and
nongovernmental organisations – remain in the shadow of NATO
and national interest policies.
• Washington simply doesn’t have a legal case.
Resolution 687 of the Security Council that confirmed the
cease-fire deal with Iraq at the end of the Gulf War gives
no authority for one Security Council member unilaterally to
start up hostilities again. The SC resolutions do not
provide sufficient legal basis. The basic norm is that
starting aggressive war is illegal. This time it is not a
response to war or aggression, it’s the US (in UN disguise)
wanting to initiate it. It doesn’t make sense to invoke the
right to self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter as
if America was about to be invaded.
• Misreading Iraq, false analogies with 1991
Iraq is not a military threat. Mr. Clinton’s profound
mistake is that he has acts all along as if he were back in
1990, in George Bush’s shoes at the time of the Gulf War,
threatened by a military monster armed with weapons of mass
destruction. Saddam Hussein is not being confrontational
because he is strong, as he was eight years ago. He is being
difficult and provocative because he is weak. Saddam Hussein
no longer has the power to invade Kuwait or threaten Saudi
Arabia.
• Chemical weapons overestimated
Chemical weapons have been attributed a potency out of
all proportion to their military value. It is a misnomer to
describe chemical weapons as a “poor man’s nuclear weapon”.
Even for an unprotected population a large-scale chemical
attack would have less impact than a small atomic bomb.
Moreover, while there is no defence against a nuclear device
a city population can be given masks. However nasty, the
chemical weapons Iraq possesses, therefore, cannot be said
to constitute a threat to world peace and security. In
contrast, biological weapons ARE something to worry about,
but in the future more than today.
• Lack of fairness during the 1990s
Iraq did an unacceptable thing and lost the war. One may
ask whether the Security Council resolutions were wise; no
other independent state has been forced to accept
unconditional, unfettered and unlimited access to
installations important to its defence capacity and do so
for an undefined period of time. Sanctions have killed more
than 1 million citizens. There should have been an earlier
outcry of the unfairness of the “peace” arrangements between
Iraq and the U.S. which would eventually emerge in this
showdown. Part of this outcry should have been the
development of an agreed upon international standard by
which all countries in possession of weapons of mass
destruction should be inspected. The U.S. should be examined
under such standards as well as Iraq.
• Confusing the UNSCOM mandate with bringing peace
and democracy
We may not like Saddam Hussein – not even while he was
the darling of the Western powers, but confusing the UNSCOM
mandate with bringing peace and democracy, or whatever, to
Iraq is bound to end in failure.
3) WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE UP TILL
NOW – MID-FEBRUARY 98 – AND BY WHOM, TO PREVENT OR DIFFUSE
THIS THREATENING SITUATION? LESSONS LEARNT OR NOT
LEARNT SINCE 1991?
• Build new institutions
We could have institutionalised conflict-resolution and
peace mechanisms adapted to the post-Cold War world, rather
than expanding NATO. In particular, we could have expanded
nonviolent mechanisms. For example, the OSCE played a
constructive role in the nonviolent East European
revolutions and in the nonviolent demise of the Soviet
Empire. But after the Cold War ended NATO came to dominate
events – and the U.S. dominates NATO. The role of regional
organisations such as the Arab League and OAU should be
boosted.
• Brainstorm good ideas, coming from small
countries
Campaigns in favour of peaceful means, dialogue and
compromises must be mounted. Media can accept a
responsibility for fostering not only violence but also
nonviolence. Independent-minded actors can refuse to offer
support for bombings. Ministries of Foreign Affairs could
gather expert groups for brainstorm sessions on how to come
up with better, short- and longterm civilian strategies
towards conflict-resolution.
• Positive incentives are essential
Iraq must be given assurances that it will not for ever
be the object of investigation, and that other countries
possessing the same weapons will be monitored the same way
as it is/has been. Once and for all, without the ambiguity
of previous occasions, the UN Security Council should
make plain that sanctions on Iraq will be lifted if the work
of the UN inspectors is allowed to proceed until they’ve
completed their task.
• Smaller countries does not HAVE to follow the big
ones
The voice of small, like-minded countries is hardly heard
anymore; it is strange if we remember the traditionally
active policies of the Nordic countries during 1970s. They
now support a tough, military-based policy and forget to
offer their good offices for mediation.
• Inspection should be inspection
Military strikes are being planned by the country whose
citizens are in majority among the UNSCOM. The inspectors
formally are not entitled to hand over the information
received to their countries of origin. But it happens. If
countries who deliver UNSCOM inspectors on behalf of and in
the name of the UN intend to strike militarily those objects
the inspectors are entitled to check and visit, the
credibility of UNSCOM as well as of the UN can be undermined
and its impartiality questioned. This could mean that the UN
inspectors have made intelligence and reconnaissance job to
be used for military strikes in the name of the United
Nations, by the USA and its allies. This is
unacceptable.
• Face-to-face meetings with diplomats
Government and citizens diplomats may not get access to
Saddam Hussein, but there are plenty of others to talk to –
his diplomats in and outside Iraq, Iraqi movements and
ordinary citizens. They must also talk with OSCE, EU, NATO,
the Arab League and other diplomats and influence the
decision-makers in their own governments, no matter where
they are as it is now a world policy issue.
• Visit Iraqi citizens and empathise, now and after
a war
Missions that go there and empathise with the suffering,
innocent civilians can do a lot to reduce the hate of
present and future generations. It’s a way to show that we
do not support our governments’ policies or the killing of
innocent civilians.
• Recognise that sanctions is a weapon of mass
destruction
It should have been acknowledged that sanctions, at least
in this case, is a weapon of mass destruction that must be
condemned. Media could have exposed the suffering of the
Iraqi people must more and highlighted the solid evidence in
FAO and WHO reports.
• Promote a broader debate everywhere
NGOs should not await a post-Saddam era if they want to
achieve a resolution of conflict in the Gulf/Middle East
area. Supranational actors and local actors are the best for
influencing events. The UN may be the only legitimate
non-regional actor in the Middle East. At the same time, we
can raise the debate with our own governments.
• Recognise that military force brings no genuine
conflict-resolution
88,500 tons of bombs fell over Iraq in 1991, more than
100,000 died; then followed 7 years of sanction said to have
cost the lives of perhaps 1 million people. None of it lead
to peace, justice or trustful cooperation between the West
and Iraq; neither did anyone inside Iraq remove Saddam
Hussein. So, what kind of war now will do the trick? The
West chose not to start World War III when Stalin imposed a
series of Soviet client regimes in Eastern Europe. If we
contained Soviet expansion for forty years, we could also
choose to contain Saddam Hussein for a few more years. At
stake is also Iraq’s legitimate claim to integrity, respect,
sovereignty and national self-defence.
Want to comment on this information? Please write your
views to:
tff@transnational.live
