#11
Kommersant
February 27, 2003
COST OF THE QUESTION
Much more is at stake than the fate of Saddam Hussein or Iraq
Author: Gennadi Susoyev
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]

EVERYONE HAS ACCEPTED THAT WAR IS INEVITABLE. IRAQ WILL BE INVADED IN EARLY MARCH - WITH THE SILENT CONSENT OF THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL OR WITHOUT IT. ALL THE SAME, THE UNITED STATES PERSISTS IN TELLING THE WORLD OVER AND OVER AGAIN WHY IT MUST ATTACK IRAQ.

To all appearances, the Americans no longer have any doubts about whether or not to strike at Iraq. To all appearances, the international community is no longer facing a dilemma concerning the new war in the Persian Gulf. Everyone has accepted that the strike is inevitable. Iraq will be invaded in early March - with the silent consent of the UN Security Council or without it. It does not really matter. What matters is that the war is unavoidable.

All the same, the United States persists in telling the world over and over again why it must attack Iraq. It commits more and more forces to the propaganda battle. America's opponents - Russia, Germany, and France in the foreground - persist in telling the world why this war should not happen. They are also throwing their best forces - from foreign ministers to chancellors and presidents - into the propaganda counter-offensive.

This persistence on everyone's part is explainable. The matter no longer concerns only Saddam Hussein or Iraq (their fate is all but sealed). The stakes are much higher. The dispute is about what is going to happen after Iraq. Accepting the inevitability of the death of the still-prosperous regime in Baghdad, the world's leading countries are fighting over the future rules of global politics.

Two solutions to the problem are already discernible. The first solution is promoted by Russia, Germany, and France. What they say comes down to the following: no, we do not rule out the possibility that Saddam should be punished; but let us do everything step by step - put forth the demands, inspections, find Saddam guilty, determine the punishment, and finally carry out the punishment itself. The second solution is promoted by the United States and Britain. They say that Saddam's guilt does not have to be proved, and that punishment should be immediate.

Washington's reasoning is cynical and inconsistent. According to this logic, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein should be bombed - but North Korea's Kim Jong-Il should not. Even though the latter is no better than the former, and even appears to possess nuclear weapons. The difference between them is that Kim Jong-Il could make a response and bomb American allies (Seoul or Tokyo), while Saddam Hussein cannot. He cannot make a response yet: and that is why he has to be disarmed.

If this reasoning is raised to the level of global politics, the list of potential targets for American Tomahawks would be fairly long. It would include dozens of countries with authoritarian regimes. Every one of them might be accused of having the potential to acquire nuclear weapons at some future date, and therefore branded as posing a threat to the international community. In other words, every one of those countries could be convicted out of court (see Solution Two).

BACK TO THE TOP    #246 CONTENTS    NEXT ARTICLE