Tense Baghdad-Washington relations reach anticlimax?

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.