3) The United States--and more broadly the entire Western world--wants to be the "good guy" and, more important, wants the rest of the world to consider it to be "the good guy." But, are we spoilt children? So many unfinished projects: the Balkans, Afghanistan... We seem to be like people so enthusiastic at the start of a project, who quickly tire of it and want to move on to something else once it becomes clear that "all that stuff is too complicated." Let us not forget, however, that all of these "unfinished" and abandoned sites fester, breeding problems and destabilizing entire regions around them. Yes, the Western world is eager and ready to transform the Middle East. Is it prepared, however, to do this, not by dictating, but by patiently negotiating a peaceful means for political and economic modernization?

 

Philippe Moreau Defarges is senior research fellow at the French Institute of International Relations (IFRI) and teaches international relations at the Institut d'Études Politiques de Paris. Prior to this, he spent much of his career as the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, focusing upon European Union issues.

 

 

A Mere Formality?

The Importance of Not Acting Against the World Majority

 

Pang Zhongying

 

It is both logical and reasonable that in an interdependent era, an international problem requires an international solution. President Bush's remarks at the United Nations General Assembly signals a return to the right direction -- seeking international support for a determined action against Iraq that is adequate for coping with a regime he termed "a grave and gathering danger" to the world. However, we cannot ignore the timing of Bush's speech -- delivered at a time when there is very little international backing for a possible attack on Iraq and when there has been broad and vocal disagreements not only around the world but even within the United States over the proper course of action.

 

The unilateral policies undertaken by the Bush Administration since taking office two years ago have evoked a great deal of criticism and opposition. This was dramatically reconfirmed only a few weeks ago at the Johannesburg Summit on sustainable development, when fierce attacks were launched on American government policy by many government representatives as well as members of the NGO community.

The tendency toward unilateral action, indeed, Bush's seemingly headstrong insistence that the United States could act without consultation with other states, has produced real headaches even for America's close allies. British Prime Minister Tony Blair shares Bush's assessment that Saddam poses a "grave threat." Nevertheless, Blair has been concerned about Bush's lack of attention to working within the international system. Thus, his advice that the United States should set a deadline for Iraqi compliance through the United Nations, with a strike only occurring if Saddam refuses to surrender to UN-based demands. For Blair knows very well that no war against Iraq can be fought without a solid and clear international mandate to legitimize any action, even more so since mainstream public opinion around the world does not support an American attack against Iraq.

 

It is also clear that the Bush Administration's unilateral policy vis-à-vis Iraq could widen the cracks in the international coalition of the war against terrorism. The president's speech to the General Assembly, in essence, his speech to the world, was his declaration of war against Iraq. If Iraq is not prepared to surrender on the terms outlined, Washington has made it clear that it will not rule out military strikes, whether with or without international support. This raises the specter of real anarchy in the international system, which affects the ongoing campaign against terrorism. Moreover, military power has its limits, particularly with regard to Iraq. Unilateral military intervention against Iraq does not provide an effective solution to the problem of international terrorism, and runs the risk of further aggravating uncertainty and disorder throughout the Middle East, and the rest of the world.

 

One cannot also ignore the domestic factors behind this speech. Bush's challenging international diplomacy takes place only weeks before midterm elections, and retaining control of the Congress is the number-one consideration of his staff. They have concluded that the Iraq issue would help the Republicans to win, since they are facing attacks from the Democrats, a troubled economy, and the President's own position is eroding. So, the President, by speaking before the General Assembly, and negotiating with the other permanent members of the Security Council, keeps the Iraq issue in the headlines through to November.

 

Pang Zhongying is Associate Professor of International Relations and Director for the "China's Relations with East Asia" program of the Institute of International Studies at Tsinghua (Qinghua) University (Beijing).

The Bush Administration and Iraq:

A Cautionary Warning

A Conversation with Yuri Shchekochikin

 

The Honorable Yuri P. Shchekochikin is a member of the Russian State Duma and the vice-chairman of its Committee on Security, and a leading figure within the liberal Yabloko party. He spoke with In the National Interest editor Nikolas K. Gvosdev after President George W. Bush made his speech before the United Nations General Assembly.

 

Shchekochikin expressed concern at the course of American policy, saying that he fears President Bush is making "a classic mistake" in his approach to Iraq. Unilateral American designations of other regimes and leaders as "enemies, partial enemies, partial friends, or true friends" carries with it the seeds of an anti-American backlash. Shchekochikin felt that Russian public opinion, not simply among traditionally anti-American sectors (leftists, the elderly) but across all classes, would recoil from any assertion that the United States has the right to attack Iraq on its own, even if Iraq is in violation of UN resolutions. Indeed, he noted that until recently, the Bush Administration appeared to place little value on the UN system as a means for finding a solution. After having displayed scant trust in the UN system, why should the other members of the UN trust Bush and his assessments that Saddam Hussein is the enemy of the international community? In other words, Shchekochikin intimated that broad sectors of the international community are not going to be convinced that Hussein poses a threat to international peace and security simply on the assertion of the American president.

 

Shchekochikin stressed that Russia is committed to the war on terrorism, but reiterated a long-standing demand that the United States provide conclusive proof that Iraq is linked to terrorists or is engaged in open support of terrorism. In the year since the tragic events of September 11^th, he noted, the American intelligence community appears to have been unable to clearly demonstrate such a link.

 

Asked whether he sees any parallels between President Bush's speech on Iraq and President Putin's comments regarding Georgia(1), Shchekochikin answered with an emphatic yes. "As Iraq is for you, so Georgia is for us", he noted. The Bush Administration, he emphasized, cannot turn a blind eye to what is happening in Georgia, ignoring Russian concerns about the transit of fighters and funds from Georgia into Chechnya. If the United States dismisses Russian concerns, Putin has no incentive to support Bush with regard to Iraq. (2)  Shchekochikin worries that such disagreements could then prevent Russia and the United States from working together to find constructive settlements that address their concerns vis-à-vis Georgia and Iraq, opening the possibility that each country may conclude the only alternative is to launch unilateral military operations, which he fears in both cases (whether Russian action in Georgia or American action in Iraq) could escalate into major conflicts.

 

Indeed, Shchekochikin advises the administration not to rule out negotiations as a way to find a peaceful solution to the Iraqi crisis, noting that despite the links between the Chechen separatists and international terrorism, especially Al-Qaeda, the Russian government last fall opened up a dialogue with the Chechen leadership in an ongoing attempt to try and end the fighting. He feels that the United States should not and cannot ignore the opposition of most of the international community to military strikes against Iraq. He also reiterated that if the United States ignores the concerns of other states, again raising the question of Russian complaints against Georgia's harboring of suspected terrorists, it cannot then expect that other states, including Russia, will support its efforts with regard to Iraq.

 

Shchekochikin was not at all certain that Russia would automatically support (or at least refrain from vetoing) new UN resolutions authorizing use of force against Iraq.  (3)  In 1990, he observed, the situation was different. Iraq had invaded and occupied another sovereign state, Kuwait. There was a clear reason and justification for coalition military action. Now, there is little support for pre-emptive action. Shchekochikin was doubtful that a majority could be obtained in the Security Council, and cited a prevailing mood in Europe that the situation with Iraq, even if not ideal, was stable.

 

Shchekochikin's final words of caution was that the United States not undertake a course of action vis-à-vis Iraq without full knowledge of the potential consequences. He does not share the expectations of some in the administration who feel that a military campaign against Baghdad would be of short duration, instead raising the specter of a long and bloody campaign. Moreover, "American boys are not suited to be colonial soldiers"--in other words, Washington is not prepared to shoulder the burdens of a long-term occupation and reconstruction of Iraq.