| |
GETTING SADDAM
PART 4: Voices of
opposition
By David Isenberg
PART 1: A plan is hatched
PART 2: Military preparations
PART 3: Iraq prepares
Map
As the Bush
administration contemplates invading Iraq one thing is
clear. It is not going to win any popularity contents.
While various nations would, privately, be pleased as
punch to see Saddam Hussein shuffle off to the mother of
all retirements, their public reaction is uniformly
negative.
Official sentiment seems largely
unchanged from when Vice President Dick Cheney, who made
a 10-country tour of the region in March to gauge views
on the removal of Saddam Hussein, failed to garner much
in the way of support from Arab leaders.
On July
16, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said that
Moscow would oppose any military action against Iraq,
saying that fears over weapons of mass destruction could
be eased through diplomacy. "News of preparation of
military action against Iraq worries us," Ivanov told a
news conference. "Russia will oppose any unilateral
military action undertaken against Iraq without the
approval of the United Nations Security Council."
The 22-member Arab League has made it clear to
the US that all the 22 members of its organization are
opposed to any strike on Iraq.
Even Qatar, whose
Al-Udeid airbase is being readied for an eventual attack
on Iraq, also says that its policy is not to allow the
use of its soil for attacks against any fellow Muslim or
Arab country.
"Iraq is an Arab state with which
the people of Qatar share a common history and cultural
bonds. There could be a popular backlash if Qatari soil
is used by the US for the destruction of Iraq," a Qatari
official was quoted at a recent league meeting in Saudi
Arabia.
Similarly, Bahrain, home to the US
Navy's Fifth Fleet, voiced opposition to any US military
strike on Iraq, saying that the sentiment was shared in
the Arab world and by several European leaders. "We do
not support recourse to force against Iraq, whether the
strike be American or any other. This position is shared
by our Arab brothers and several European leaders,"
Defense Minister Sheikh Khalifa bin Ahmad Al-Khalifa
said on July 16.
China, at best, is ambivalent.
On the one hand, Beijing will not want to isolate itself
or risk US fury by appearing to stand in the way of the
war on terrorism. Plus it has no great love for Islamic
regimes, considering its own problems with Muslim
separatists. On the other hand, it remains ever wary of
American unilateralism, particularly if George W Bush's
"new war" brings with it far bolder use of US military
force. And, given recent US reports on China’s "growing
threat" to Taiwan, China probably is not eager to do the
United States any favors; at least not without a
significant quid pro quo.
At a meeting on July
22, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, a
moderate Muslim leader who has become a key US ally in
the fight against terrorism, hosted Iran's President
Mohammad Khatami. They agreed that military action
against Iraq would not improve global stability.
About the only ones who are in favor of invading
Iraq are the usual suspects, the opposition groups in
Iraq and those in exile outside Iraq. A case in point
was the conference of approximately 90 Iraqi officers in
exile and opposition representatives who met in London
from July 12-15 in the presence of Prince Hassan of
Jordan, who specified that he had come in a personal
capacity in response to an invitation.
But what
the conference really showed was that the United States
had still not found a political solution for a change in
power. The opposition is divided, reflecting the ethnic
and religious mosaic in Iraq. That may be why exiled
Iraqi opposition members at a meeting in London on July
26 abruptly cancelled an expected announcement of plans
for a "provisional government" in their country, amid
reports of splits in their ranks. Even figures within
the opposition believe that the close association with
the United States taints some of these groups. As one
Iraqi in exile noted, groups like the Iraqi National
Congress and the Iraqi National Accord are discredited
partly because they failed in their attempts to
overthrow Saddam and partly because they are tainted by
their excessive reliance on the CIA. In this view US
policy should recognize that the Iraqi population would
not rally to the leadership of anyone who is viewed "as
an agent or a tool of the United States or British".
Most outside observers have long been dubious
about the ability of the opposition to be militarily
effective or to cooperate with each other. General
Anthony Zinni, former head of the US Central Command,
which would direct any military campaign against Iraq,
testified before Congress that "they have very little,
if any, viability to exact a change of regime in and of
themselves. Their ability to cooperate is questionable."
That may be why the United States has just
invited the six main Iraqi opposition groups to talks in
Washington later this month on removing Saddam. This
will mark the first time that the US administration has
issued a joint letter from the Pentagon, the State
Department and other agencies.
Some opposition
groups that could be militarily significant are
skeptical. In northern Iraq the Kurds have achieved what
comes the closest they have ever been to political
independence. Protected by US and British aircraft and
financed by their share of Iraq’s oil money that is
being administered by the United Nations, they have
built up two mini-communities that give them much better
conditions than Iraq offers. And they are, for very good
reasons, Saddam's deadly enemies.
They are
inevitable partners for a US invasion. But they have
definitely not been envisaging risking what are now the
tolerable conditions in which they live without
guarantees. In the knowledge of the harm they have
suffered they are insisting that the United States means
what it says and really does invade and occupy Iraq. And
that there are credible plans for a new and democratic
regime in Baghdad.
Also, neighboring states are
concerned that the Kurds will try to break away and form
an independent nation, something that would suit neither
Iran nor Turkey - two countries that border Iraq and
have large Kurdish minorities. Any war on Iraq will have
to include Turkey because of its proximity and its US
bases - mainly the Incilik air base near Adana - that
would serve as a jump-off point for attacks on the
northern part of Iraq.
PART 5: The
aftermath
(©2002 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd.
All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
