Tense Baghdad-Washington relations reach anticlimax?

By Riza Sihbudi

JAKARTA (JP): Iraqi President Saddam Hussein said on Nov. 17 that his country was not in the least interested to engage in a direct confrontation with the United States and hoped that a diplomatic solution would be sought so that a fresh military conflict would not break out in the Middle East.

A few days later, Saddam allowed all members of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to return to Iraq. Saddam's unexpected softening attitude turned out to earn a good response from U.S. President Bill Clinton, who offered additional "humanitarian aid" to Baghdad with his proposal that Iraq be allowed to sell more oil in order that it may purchase greater quantities of foodstuffs and medicines.

Under the UN Security Council Resolution No. 986/1995, known as the oil-for-food formula, Iraq is allowed to sell its oil through the United Nations to the maximum value of US$2 billion per semester.

The proceeds can be utilized only to purchase foodstuffs, medicines and other basic necessities for the Iraqi people, who have fallen victim to the UN-imposed sanctions and embargo.

According to Washington, Clinton has proposed that either the period in which the program carried out under this formula be extended or the variety of goods that Iraq is allowed to purchase be expanded.

Clinton has notified his proposal to two permanent members of the Security Council, Russia and France, which (along with China) have shown their apparent dislike for the U.S. military approach in dealing with Iraq.

Clinton has even especially asked the favor of Russia's foreign minister, Yevgeny Primakov, to mediate in the conflict between Iraq and the United States, which began to resurface in late October when Saddam expelled from Iraq U.S. citizens serving at UNSCOM.

Many quarters are harboring the hope that Saddam's softening attitude and Clinton's positive response may ease the tension between Iraq and the United States and consequently avert the outbreak another Persian Gulf war.

During the last two decades, nations in this region have witnessed the outbreak of two big wars in the Gulf area, namely the Iran-Iraq War spanning from 1980 to 1988 and the Persian Gulf War between Iraq and the U.S. and its allies from 1990 to 1991.

It is only natural, therefore, that people in the region would hate to see the outbreak of another armed conflict as this would only plunge innocent people into a deeper pit of suffering. Is it true, however, that the softening of attitudes on the part of Saddam and Clinton would by itself bring about peace to this region?

As has been written in various Iraqi publications recently, whether or not a war will break out, one obvious thing is that Baghdad has secured a "victory" and the U.S., on the other hand, has sustained a "defeat".

This evaluation may be highly subjective. Nevertheless, if we study the development in the political arena in the Middle East in nearly a month of the recent Iraqi-U.S. crisis, we may say that this evaluation is not widely off the mark. It is evident that Clinton's obsession to repeat the success of his country in the Persian Gulf War has failed to materialize.

During the Gulf War, the U.S. was able to unite military forces of at least 28 countries, Arab or otherwise, to attack Iraq. Now there are only two countries, Britain and Israel, that have openly supported Clinton's plan for military action against Baghdad.

So, in the present Iraqi-U.S. crisis, not a single Arab country is willing to take sides with Washington, not even Kuwait, which became the victim of Iraq's aggression during the Gulf War.

Although Kuwait condemned Saddam as being the cause of the crisis, it rejected any form of U.S. military intervention against Baghdad. The same attitude has been displayed by former foes of Iraq such as Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

The popularity of Uncle Sam among countries in the Middle East has been declining since its failure to pressure Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to abide by the peace agreement with the Palestinians.

The unwillingness of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (three influential Arab countries generally known as U.S. "friends") to attend the fourth "Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Economic Summit", co-sponsored by the U.S. and Israel, in Doha, Qatar, from Nov. 16 to Nov. 18 is another indication of Washington's dimming image in the Middle East.

In the meantime, Israel has ignored UN resolutions in greater frequency than Iraq (and also Libya, the Sudan and Iran, to which the U.S. continues to adopt a hostile attitude).

The U.S., nevertheless, has never accused Israel of "opposing the desire of the international community", a label that the White House has been using to corner Iraq.

It is not clear to which "international community" Clinton refers. It may well be that what he means is "the international Zionist community", considering that Iraq, Libya, the Sudan and Iran are known for their strong rejection of Israeli domination and hegemony in the Middle East and also for their opposition to the U.S.-initiated Middle East peace scenario -- which is now stuck.

Therefore, it is likely that Saddam's softening attitude is linked with the victories he has scored in his short-term objectives by triggering the present Iraqi-U.S. crisis.

They are the increase in the price of oil in the world market, the breaking up of the former U.S. coalition from the Gulf War, the greater sympathy from the international community for the plight of Iraqis as a result of the U.S.-sponsored UN embargo and the widening anti-U.S. attitude among most Middle Eastern nations.

On the other hand, Clinton's positive response may be interpreted as an admission that the U.S. success in the Gulf War six years ago is nothing more than a mere exception which would be difficult to repeat.

If this assumption is correct, it is very likely that the present Iraqi-U.S. crisis could find a settlement on the negotiation table although the U.S. keeps increasing its military muscle in the Gulf region -- especially now that former U.S. president Jimmy Carter has expressed his willingness to act as a mediator.

Unless, of course, U.S. arrogance underlined by the spirit of neocolonialism makes this superpower unable to read these "signs of the time".

The writer is a researcher at the Indonesian Institute of Sciences.