|
Despite Baghdad's conciliatory gesture early this month, Washington seems unwilling to play down its war rhetoric to force President Saddam Hussein from power. However, the cost of the war against Saddam will be too great for the United States.
Since the failure of United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan in early July to persuade Iraq to permit the return of UN weapons inspectors after a three-and-a-half-year hiatus, the Bush administration has stepped up its threats of war.
Concern over Iraq's alleged development of weapons of mass destruction is only one of the excuses the US Government used to justify its military action against Saddam.
Saddam's clear-cut and uncompromising anti-US stance poses a major challenge to Washington's critical strategic interests in the Middle East, which has more than 60 per cent of the world's oil reserves.
Washington has wanted to overthrow Saddam since 1991 to set up a pro-US regime in Iraq.
Sanctions are only one of the means used to this end, along with political isolation and military attacks.
However, instead of shaking Saddam's rule by rousing dissatisfaction among the Iraqi people, the sanctions have made the Iraqis more antagonistic towards the United States because they have caused the deaths of more than 1.5 million Iraqis, including 600,000 children.
The September 11 attacks on the United States provided the Bush administration with the best opportunity for removing this long-standing "thorn" in the Middle East in the name of the "anti-terrorism" campaign. But the proof of Iraq's connections with international terrorist networks is nothing more substantial than a US accusation.
Militarily, there is little doubt that the United States would be able to overwhelm Iraq. But the Bush administration should also contemplate what the war will bring to the United States.
First, if Saddam were overthrown, Washington might have to spend billions of dollars to keep a post-Saddam Iraq stable. The war that George W. Bush is planning to launch is different from that launched by his father in 1991. The 1991 Gulf War had gained the formal approval of the UN Security Council and was ostensibly aimed only at ending Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
This time, the White House might find it difficult to find a new political force capable of replacing Saddam.
Second, though advanced US weaponry could force a change of regime, the Iraqi people's anti-US sentiments would not be erased in this way. US soldiers may have to be dispatched to the Middle East for years if the United States has to fight on the ground, which could also cause resentment among US voters.
Third, a US pre-emptive war against Iraq could spur the desperate militants of other countries to which Washington is hostile to resort to more extreme actions against US civilians.
In fact, the unilateralism and hegemonism of US foreign policy is the fundamental cause of terrorism against the United States. A US strike against Baghdad could only intensify the hatred and make the cycle of violence worse.
Fourth, the United States would be more politically isolated in the international community.
With the hardening of the US war threat, stiff opposition from US allies has eroded their once firm moral support for the US "anti-terrorism" campaign.
While European allies agree on the need to pressure Saddam to co-operate with UN weapons inspectors, most see the prospect of another Gulf War as deeply destabilizing for the Middle East and potentially so for the fragile world economy. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who has often spoken of "unconditional solidarity" with the United States since September 11, has now warned that any pre-emptive strike against Baghdad could destroy support for the US-led "war on terror."
Major Middle Eastern countries have expressed clear-cut opposition, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, and even Kuwait, which was occupied by Iraq in August 1990.
Other key countries in the international community, such as China and Russia, have also voiced concern over the US attempt to topple Saddam by military force. Russia is reportedly planning to sign a US$40 billion economic and trade co-operation agreement with Iraq despite opposition from the United States. This could complicate Washington's plans to topple Saddam.
The United Nations gave the same message, questioning the legal basis of any US military attack against Iraq.
Without international support, in particular the support of its Arab allies, Washington's leading position in the Middle East would be further weakened. This position has already been undermined by its pro-Israel stance on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. In turn, this would have a negative impact on Washington's strategic interests in the region.
Washington should bear in mind that security cannot be achieved by force, which only induces hatred and confrontation.
It is time for the Bush administration to rethink its behaviour and show more respect for international opinion.
(China Daily August 22, 2002)
|
