Disarmament Diplomacy

News Review

UN-Iraq Relations Remain Stalled as Fears of New War Grow

Nearly three years after the expulsion of weapons inspectors from Iraq, indecisive consideration of options for breaking the profound impasse in UN-Iraq relations are taking place amid growing concerns that the United States may be contemplating major military action against the Saddam Hussein regime as part of its global war on terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Such action would seem to have little chance of attracting international support, and could place immense strain on the global coalition against terrorism which has taken shape since the horror of September 11. Notwithstanding the political and diplomatic risks, the Bush administration, with significant support in Congress, is hinting strongly that Iraq may be 'next in line'. On November 7, for example, Secretary of State Colin Powell told reporters after a meeting in Washington with Kuwait's Deputy Prime Minister Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah: "With respect to our activities in Afghanistan, that is our first priority. We must defeat al Qaeda, we must end Osama bin Laden's terrorist threat to the world and deal with the Taliban regime... After that...we will turn our attention to terrorism throughout the world, and nations such as Iraq, which have tried to pursue weapons of mass destruction, should not think that we...will not turn our attention to them..."

On October 11, President Bush asserted once again, without much expectation, that Iraq must readmit weapons inspectors: "There's no question that the leader of Iraq is an evil man. After all, he gassed his own people. We know he's been developing weapons of mass destruction. And I think it's in his advantage to allow inspectors back in his country to make sure that he's conforming to the agreement he made after he was soundly trounced in the Gulf War. So we're watching him very carefully..." The same day, the Iraqi Information Ministry issued a statement providing details of a rare meeting between the US and Iraq at the United Nations on October 7 in which US Ambassador John Negroponte warned Iraqi Ambassador Mohammed al-Douri of a "crushing" reply if Iraq took advantage of the US campaign in Afghanistan to "use force against your neighbours or Israel or the Kurdish side or any other part of the Iraqi people". The Ministry also released al-Douri's scathing written reply, describing Negroponte's message as "threatening," "naïve," "silly" and "arrogant". US officials had earlier confirmed press reports of the meeting. On October 10, an unnamed US official told Reuters: "It was a stern warning. There was enough in there to indicate that they really got the message."

The administration concedes that, despite rampant speculation, no strong evidence has yet emerged directly implicating Iraq in the September 11 attacks or the subsequent anthrax mailings. The White House insists, however, that irrespective of any such connections, Iraq remains a threat to regional and global security which must be dealt with. On November 18, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice stated: "We do not need the events of September 11 to tell us that this [Saddam Hussein] is a very dangerous man who is a threat to his own people, a threat to the region, and a threat to us because he is determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction."

Major action against Iraq would seem likely to command broad domestic political support. On October 16, Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman urged the removal of the present Iraqi regime as "phase two" of the anti-terrorist campaign: "As long as Saddam is there, Iraq is not just going to be a thorn in our side, but a threat to our lives. ... [Saddam's removal has] got to start with more support of the Iraqi opposition, that's the beginning of it... At some point, there would be a military component." The issue cuts across party lines, however, with a number of senior Republicans urging a more cautious approach. On October 20, Republican Representative Henry Hyde, chair of the House International Relations Committee, observed: "I do think we should watch Mr. Hussein...and try to erode his authority... But as far as launching an all-out war, I think that would be a mistake."

International opposition to major action could be expected to be led by Arab states supportive of the US campaign in Afghanistan. On October 20, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak cautioned the White House: "Don't widen the battlefield. If you do, you will have public opinion against you, not only in the Arab world..." On November 16, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder stated simply: "Britain, France, Germany and others agree with each other that this [widening of the conflict] would be wrong to do..." Earlier (October 29), UK Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon told Arab journalists in London that the campaign in Afghanistan "is not a prelude to a wider war."

On the diplomatic front, the US and UK continue to argue the case for the UN Security Council to move towards a 'smart sanctions' regime, establishing a list of military and dual-use goods which would continue to be embargoed while allowing restrictions on civilian-only imports to be lifted. Russia continues to oppose the scheme, partly out of doubts about the likely extent of the goods to remain under sanctions, but principally out of concern that the proposal is unlikely to advance progress towards a comprehensive political solution, including a return of weapons inspectors to complete their task and a full lifting of all sanctions. Iraq's position, meanwhile, remains one of blanket refusal to countenance the return of any inspection teams as, in the words of Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz on September 27, all WMD-related "materials were inspected and destroyed long ago, and Iraq doesn't have any biological or chemical weapons or any means to use them against any country. I say that clearly."

Aziz's assurances, of course, are widely dismissed as worthless, most outspokenly by the US. Addressing the BWC Review Conference in Geneva on November 19, John Bolton, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, told delegates: "Beyond al Qaeda, the most serious concern is Iraq. Iraq's biological weapons programme remains a serious threat to international security. ... The United States strongly suspects that Iraq has taken advantage of three years of no UN inspections to improve all phases of its offensive BW programme."

On July 3, after Russia made clear its preparedness to veto a UK resolution on sanctions reform, the Security Council set itself a deadline of November 30 to try and reach a new understanding (see Disarmament Diplomacy No. 59, July/August 2001). At that point, either new arrangements will be put in place or consideration will be given to a further extension of the 'oil-for-food' programme designed to afford provisional humanitarian relief. On November 21, State Department spokesperson Richard Boucher made clear that Washington would persist up to the deadline in working for a breakthrough: "The United States remains very firmly committed to rebuilding a Security Council consensus on Iraq, around a new approach that precisely targets controls to prevent the Iraq regime from rearming, particularly with weapons of mass destruction, and to further improve the humanitarian conditions of the Iraqi people. We believe that the draft resolution which the United Kingdom presented contains the elements that will most effectively implement this approach. ... Russia...is the only Security Council member that is not yet in agreement with this new approach. We remain in close consultation with Russia, aimed at reaching an agreement for Security Council action as soon as possible."

Note: on November 29, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 1382 extending the oil-for-food programme by another six months, until May 30, 2002. Under the terms of the resolution, on that date the Council will adopt a Goods Review List (GRL), set out in Annex 1 but "subject to any refinements...agreed by the Council in light of further consultations", specifying items still requiring approval for import. All other goods would fall into two categories: items banned from import without exception, namely arms, munitions and military equipment; and items cleared for import without restriction, i.e. civilian goods and produce not mentioned in the GRL. See next issue for further details and reaction.

Reports: Iraq says no contact with bin Laden or Taliban, Reuters, September 27; America warns Iraq, Baghdad says US raids illegal, Reuters, October 10; Iraq says warning from US diplomat is 'stupid', Reuters, October 11; Iraq says it has been warned by US, Associated Press, October 11; Bush watching Iraq carefully, calls Saddam evil, Reuters, October 11; Lieberman urges focus on Hussein, Associated Press, October 16; Mubarak says terrorism can be reduced, not stopped, Reuters, October 20; Avoid Iraq war, rebuild Afghanistan, lawmakers says, Reuters, October 20; British say no evidence Iraq linked to anthrax, Reuters, October 29; US to look at Iraqi weapons after Afghanistan war, Reuters, November 7; Prospects bleak on 'smart sanctions' for Iraq, Reuters, November 8; Schroeder - Europe opposes war beyond Afghanistan, Reuters, November 16; Campaign far from over, US says, Associated Press, November 18; Text - Bolton says Iraq, North Korea violate biological weapons pact, Washington File, November 19; Excerpt - US committed to Security Council consensus on Iraq sanctions, Washington File, November 21; Security Council extends Iraq 'oil-for-food' programme for six months, adopting resolution 1382 (2001) unanimously, UN Press Release SC/7229, November 29.

© 2001 The Acronym Institute.