IRAQ: ci sono alternative all'opzione militare

["Nello Margiotta" <animarg@tin.it>]

There Are Alternatives to a Military Option  (ZNET)
  by Hans von Sponeck , the former UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq
Counterpunch
January 10, 2002


In October 1998, the US Congress defined US policy on Iraq and passed the
'Iraq Liberation Act'. It contains a passage which confirms that the
ultimate objective of the United States authorities is the removal of Saddam
Hussain and his government. This puts the tug of war between the US
Departments of State and Defence into its real perspective.

With the recent demise of the US Iraq containment policy the issue is not
'whether' Iraq should be next on the list but 'how' this can be justified
and made palatable to the governments in the Middle East and to the
so-called coalition partners, particularly in Europe. The American public is
not the problem. The majority either does not know the issues and therefore
does not care or is traumatized by the humiliating atrocities of 11
September and receptive to the medicine of a military response.

There can be no disagreement that perpetrators must be brought to justice.
The rhetoric escalation of recent months by US politicians and their media
followers in accusing Iraq of supporting international terrorism is void of
evidence. Not a single incident can be traced to Iraq from the attacks on
the US embassies in Nairobi and Daresalaam to the 1993 and 2001 World Trade
Centre bombings. The anthrax crime is an internal US affair. US intelligence
agencies, moreover, know that Iraq no longer possesses the weapon systems
which would allow the use of the WMD capacity which still exists in the form
of Iraqi scientists. To admit this, however, would be the death nail to the
entire self-serving US Iraq policy.

The US 'case' for an attack against Iraq is therefore nowhere convincing,
not even in Britain. The list of those who warn against military action
grows day by day. Bundeskanzler Schroder recently warned in the German
Parliament that choosing new targets in the Middle East would backfire and
'could explode in our faces'. Leaders in the Middle East among them King
Abdullah of Jordan, Presidents Mubarak and Assad, Dr. Amr Moussa,
Secretary-General of the Arab League, the former Saudi intelligence chief
Turki Ibn Faisal and even the two Kurdish leaders in northern Iraq, Barzani
and Talabani echo this concern. The US authorities can not ignore these
apprehensions. The long struggle against terrorism can not be won without
allies. An attack against Iraq would endanger fragile partnerships and not
contribute to eliminating the causes of conflict in the Middle East. Quick
fixes with military hard-ware will not produce the civilian soft-ware for
stability and peace.

Eleven years of a self-serving US policy of economic sanctions against Iraq
have not removed Saddam Hussein, the ally of the 1980s, but destroyed a
society and caused the death of thousands, young and old. Evidence of the
damage attributable to sanctions is contained in many reports of reputable
international organizations. To say this is not to overlook human rights
violations carried out by the Iraqi authorities. National lawlessness,
however, is no justification for international lawlessness. The
International Bill of Human Rights and other international law in the case
of Iraq have simply been ignored, creating conditions of double punishment
for innocent civilians.

The question that needs an urgent answer is what kind of an international
road map is required in the case of Iraq to get things straight? First and
foremost, Iraq must be given the opportunity to show its face where it
counts, the UN Security Council. This will only be possible when the US
displays statesmanship and begins to talk to its adversary. Iraq's Deputy
Prime Minister Tariq Aziz has repeatedly offered dialogue on all issues.
This should no longer be rebuffed. There is a wealth of intelligence
information about Iraq on military and political issues in the hands of the
United Nations to gauge the sincerity of Iraq's willingness to dialogue. The
repeatedly postponed meetings between the Government of Iraq and the UN
Secretary General which finally took place in New York on 26 February
constituted a good beginning. At that time, the Iraqis placed before
Secretary General Annan a comprehensive position paper on all outstanding
issues from missing Kuwaitis to stolen property, compensation and
disarmament. Even if this submission was defective, it should not have been
dismissed by the US/UK as 'nothing new'. It could have been a useful
base-line for talks. Regrettably, after this first meeting, the UN Secretary
General was muzzled by US /UK insistence that their bilateral policies had
to be sorted out before these multilateral talks could resume. There has not
been another meeting since then. The deadlock with the resulting exhorbitant
human costs thus continues.

The negotiating role King Abdullah of Jordan had accepted at the March Arab
Summit in Amman for similar reasons has not fared much better. Both UN and
Arab League initiatives should be given a chance. Confidence building
measures of this kind would prepare the ground for 'hard thinking and plain
speaking' at the forthcoming 2002 Arab Summit in Beirut and in the UN
Security Council. In fact, King Abdullah has visited Kuwait. He should no
longer postpone his visit to Baghdad.

Those who argue that this would constitute a propaganda victory for Saddam
Hussein should be reminded that the resolution of this major international
conflict is a pre-condition for averting a deepening global crisis. They
should also understand that the resolution of this conflict is not about
saving political faces but about saving human lives. The urgency of the
moment is for the international community to end one of the great injustices
of our time.

The oil-for-food programme, the aging life-line for the civilian population
has just been extended by the UN Security Council for another six months. No
agreement has been reached on improving conditions under which this
programme is implemented. Its severe limitations in terms of funding and
scope means that the civilian population is forced to remain a hand-out
society. People will continue to die prematurely. Those who live will face
more hardship and deprivation. At the beginning of this year, the mortality
rate for Iraqi children under five, according to UNICEF, had increased by
160% compared to 1990, the highest increase among the 188 countries UNICEF
had surveyed. Should this alone not be a strong motivating force for the UN
Security Council to intensify efforts to find a political solution?

Having the removal of Saddam Hussein as a declared objective, it can not be
expected that the United States will bilaterally be willing to negotiate
with Baghdad. The US, however, also knows that the replacement of
governments can not be the order of business in the multilateral context of
the UN. This presents a difficult dilemma for the Americans. It could only
be overcome if they were to agree to a discussion of the draft resolution
for the resumption of arms inspection and the lifting of economic sanctions
presented by the Russian Government to the UN Security Council last June.
This proposal foresees the return of arms inspectors to Iraq as demanded by
the Bush administration and the lifting of economic sanctions after 60 days.
The Iraqis have neither accepted nor rejected this proposal.

Here is an opportunity that presents a political option to another military
confrontation with Iraq. It must not be missed. Friends and allies of the US
and the UK should not avoid the obligation they have to play their part and
do so with commitment and perseverence. It will not be easy. This is a call
on the European Union which, as an entity, and through individual member
states has so far participated only half-heartedly in the Iraq discussion.
It is also a call on Iraq's friends, other than Russia, to impress on Iraq
that cooperation with the Russian proposal could be the beginning of a
comprehensive process to normalize its relations with its neighbours, to
begin national reconstruction in exchange for re-accepting arms monitoring
and verification and the continuation of a military embargo on Iraq, as a
potential buyer of armament and on potential exporters of arms to Iraq.

Such an approach would also be an important contribution to the wider Middle
East Peace Process. Iraq and Palestine are no longer issues that can be
handled separately. Solving one without the other will mean that peace will
not return to the area. This leads to only one conclusion, the international
community including the United States must accept a multi-pronged
intervention as a first step towards solving the crises in the Middle East.
Dialogue and negotiations, not military confrontation, should be the basis
for this approach.




Nello

change the world before the world changes you

www.peacelink.it/tematiche/latina/latina.htm