Target Iraq: The consequences

Valentin Kunin, The Statesman, Asia News Network, Calcutta

The Afghan counter-terrorist operation has ended. So, what will the United States do now? Whom will the U.S. Armed Forces target? Quite a few foreign mass media bodies are discussing this issue rather actively. The list of possible targets includes Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, which, as the U.S. Administration claims, have terrorist camps on their territory.

A recent speech made by President George W. Bush implies that Washington might well target Iraq after Afghanistan. This conclusion stems from the U.S. leader's statement to the effect that America will act accordingly with regard to those who develop mass-destruction weapons for terrorizing other countries. Bush demands that Iraq receive UN inspectors, also convincing the world that it doesn't develop any mass destruction weapons whatsoever.

It's an open secret that some countries are now developing such weapons; in fact, they don't even conceal this fact. At the same time, there is no convincing evidence of any similar Iraqi programs. Moreover, Baghdad's complicity in the Sept. 11 airliner attacks in New York and Washington hasn't been proved. Nevertheless, Bush's openly anti-Iraqi speech directly accused Baghdad of backing international terrorism.

All this prompts one to think that Washington has so far failed to get rid of the rather protracted Iraqi syndrome. Moreover, the U.S. Administration still wants to overthrow the current Baghdad regime by force.

Just like Bill Clinton's administration, the Administration of President Bush continues to flex its military muscle, as it pressures Baghdad. U.S. warplanes conducted a number of unprovoked attacks on Iraq during Bush's tenure. Dozens of peaceful civilians were killed and hundreds more wounded as a result.

Various Iraqi opposition groups, which are staying outside Iraq, continue to receive U.S. assistance; by the way, such assistance began under Clinton. First of all, this concerns the so-called Iraqi national congress. In June 2001 the U.S. State Department informed Congress about the U.S. Administration's intention to provide that organization with US$6 million for the sake of invigorating its activities.

At the same time, the Bush Administration tried hard to preserve current anti-Iraqi economic sanctions, which had been introduced by the UN after the Gulf War. Consequently, the U.S. and Britain tried to impose their smart-sanctions plan on the UN Security Council this summer. For its own part, Russia voiced its intention to veto that draft resolution, thus nipping the smart-sanctions plan in the bud.

Moscow's consistent position concerning the Iraqi settlement, as well as the global political situation, which has changed after Sept. 11, forced the U.S. to agree that the latest UN Security Council resolution on Iraq include a provision making it incumbent on all Security Council members to aspire for a comprehensive Iraqi settlement on the basis of Security Council resolutions, and to advocate the return of international inspectors to Iraq. Moreover, anti-Iraqi sanctions should be suspended and eventually lifted. Russia had insisted on this provision for quite a while because this can make it possible to settle the crisis around Iraq at long last.

On the one hand, Washington apparently agrees that the Iraqi crisis should be deblocked in line with international law norms and the UN Charter too. On the other hand, though, Washington accuses Baghdad of developing mass-destruction weapons, which might ultimately be acquired by international terrorist organizations. The U.S. perceives this as a sufficient pretext for the possible use of military force against Iraq. However, no one has so far proved conclusively that Iraq does develop such weapons.

It goes without saying that such military operations would entail a number of consequences, as far as Washington is concerned. First, nearly every Muslim country, including those which maintain relatively good relations with America would militate against the U.S.. Second, U.S. military operations against Iraq are unlikely to be approved by Washington's NATO partners. At any rate, Western European countries are now saying that it would be inadmissible to use military force against Baghdad.

And, third, Russian-U.S. relations, that are now improving, would inevitably be aggravated as a result of that possible attack against Iraq. This would negatively affect bilateral interaction in different areas, including coordinated anti- terrorist operations. Does Washington heed all these consequences, as it makes threatening statements with regard to Baghdad?