MERIP
Middle East Report
Middle East Report Online
Newspaper Op-Eds
Contact Info
Subscribe
Back Issues
Internships
Giving
Search
Subscribe Online to
Middle East Report

Order a subscription and back issues to the award-winning magazine Middle East Report.

Click here for the order page.

SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS

Report of the Task Force for a Responsible Withdrawal from Iraq June 2008 [Click to view PDF]

Primer on Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict
Click here (PDF)

[Click here for HTML version]

 

 

 
MER 206 Table of Contents

The US-Iraq Crisis

Editorial

Not all in Clinton's administration were happy with his grudging acceptance of the UN-Iraqi agreement negotiated by Secretary General Kofi Annan. It is likely, however, that at least some were grateful to have a way out of their self-created political trap. Weeks of escalating rhetoric against the backdrop of a massive and carefully choreographed military buildup in the Persian Gulf and continued defiance in Baghdad, had brought Washington to the brink of launching a major military strike. The only alternative would have been to acknowledge that it really had no viable policy towards Iraq.

By the time that moment approached, however, it had become embarrassingly and publicly clear that such an attack, however punishing, would do little or nothing to diminish Iraq's capacity to develop biological and chemical weapons. It would, according to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Hugh Shelton, kill a minimum of 1500 Iraqi civilians. It would also raise the political temperature in the region to an unpredictably dangerous level, especially in countries governed by US allies, and put the question of double standards back at center stage for the Arab street, already outraged over US failures to press Israel in the peace process.

The danger now is that the US, having reluctantly done the right thing in agreeing to Annan's mission and then in voting in the Security Council to accept the deal he wrought, is keeping up its preparations to do the wrong thing in the not-very-distant future. By continuing the military buildup in the area and especially by asserting the claim that previous UN resolutions somehow legitimize any future US strike against Iraq, Washington has made it clear that it does not recognize any UN or other multilateral constraints on its action.

Washington has failed to fashion a policy that addresses comprehensively and effectively the global threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, or one that replaces the indiscriminate economic sanctions regime that has so devastated Iraq's civilian society with new forms of sanctions that would target Iraq's military rulers and their entourage. Popular pressure-at both the domestic and international levels-played a key role in persuading the Clinton administration that a military assault on Iraq would be politically counterproductive.

In the US, the initial scattered small demonstrations protesting the threat of air strikes were soon joined by a wide range of hesitations, concerns and doubts voiced by Pentagon officials, editorial page writers and middle America. Certainly it is true that some of the opposition came from the right, from Republicans in Congress uneasy only because they did not trust the White House to go far enough in destroying Iraq, and some media hesitation was voiced only after congressional divisions emerged. But the breadth of opposition eventually crept up on Washington policy makers. At the Ohio State town meeting, the challenge to the administration's bombing plans lay not only in the protesters shouting down Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, but in the questioners themselves. Despite being vetted by CNN producers, many were well-informed and skeptical of US claims and some were strongly opposed to a military strike. Tellingly, the Albright-Cohen-Berger team could not provide serious answers. As a tool of asserting or manufacturing consent, the "town meeting" was a debacle.

Perhaps even more persuasive was the attitude of other governments. In the region, even the thoroughly authoritarian and staunchly pro-US monarchies of the Gulf largely stood by, with the exception of Kuwait, refusing to jump onto Washington's war wagon. Saudi Arabia convinced the US not to request use of Saudi bases for launching air strikes, so Riyadh would not have to refuse. Bahrain felt compelled to withdraw an earlier promise of military support. In the UN Security Council, French and Russian opposition to military action was crucial; one could not help but take into account the nascent efforts by Paris and Moscow to begin nibbling at the edges of the seven- yearlong unchallenged US control of Middle East diplomacy.

Even Tony Blair's Britain, caught between its consistent backing of Clinton's war efforts and its current position as president of the EU, moved to distance itself from the US once Annan returned from Baghdad with a negotiated settlement. British diplomats endorsed the UN-Iraqi accord much more wholeheartedly than their American counterparts and remained noticeably cool to Clinton administration claims that the new Council resolution somehow authorized a future unilateral US strike.

The US was stuck. Ambassador Bill Richardson declared that the resolution endorsing the secretary general's agreement represented a "victory" for the US because its language included the threat of "severest" sanctions if Iraq again violated the terms. But Washington is more isolated than ever in its claims that first, the actual language of the resolution means something other than what it says about collective UN, not unilateral US, action being required; and second, that the new resolution is irrelevant anyway because the US already has authority for unilateral action based on earlier resolutions. (The resolution states that the Council decides "to remain actively seized of the matter, in order to ensure implementation of this resolution, and to secure peace and security in the area." In UN-speak, "remain actively seized" means the issue remains on the Council's agenda.)

This time Washington accepted a diplomatic way out of the box. But the threat of a US attack remains serious, even if the constraints facing the Clinton administration remain much the same. Clinton's hostility to the Iraq-UN agreement and the Security Council resolution endorsing it may well reflect the influence of congressional unilateralism at work. But however pragmatic its origins, the position indicates an acceptance by the White House of the anti-UN fury raging across Washington.

What is badly needed now-as it has been for some time-is a new approach that targets Iraq's weapons programs in the context of an effective international response to weapons proliferation beyond Baghdad and that recognizes the centrality of the UN in Middle East diplomacy. At least four components should be the basis for such a new set of policies.

First, on the specific issue of Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions, Washington should acknowledge that this is indeed an issue for the United Nations, and not for the US on its own. It should affirm the actual terms of the cease-fire resolution regarding elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and stop moving the goal posts. The UN resolution does not require that Saddam Hussein be ousted before sanctions can be lifted. However desirable such a change might be, the persistent US demand for it provides only a negative incentive to Baghdad, effectively insuring noncompliance, and undermines the legitimacy of the UN. The Clinton administration, moreover, cannot maintain its specious claim that earlier Security Council resolutions authorize current unilateral military strikes (see Carapico in this issue).

Second, the US must stop simply regretting the civilian devastation caused by the economic sanctions and allow the UN to end them. Sanctions are having only a marginal impact on the regime, but continue to wreak havoc on the Iraqi population, particularly children and other vulnerable groups. The most recent UNICEF report documents 4,500 children under the age of five dying every month from a combination of inadequate medical care, unclean water, nutritional deficiencies and other results of the sanctions. A tight international arms embargo should remain in effect against Iraq, but easing the economic sanctions is necessary to allow Iraq access to the spare parts needed to take advantage of the recent increase in oil exports allowed in the UN's oil-for-food deal. Currently, Iraq remains unable to produce enough oil to take advantage of that increase, since its drilling and refining equipment has not been restored since the 1991 war.

Third, the US should take the lead in strengthening and broadening what is now an Iraq-specific arms control regime. Since 1991, punishing Iraq has superseded the larger goal of monitoring and destroying weapons of mass destruction. This undermines legitimate international interest in nonproliferation. By making the weapons monitoring regime humiliating, indeterminate and punitive rather than focused on disarmament goals, the US undermines the potential of permanent UN-organized monitoring regimes against a whole host of unsavory governments.

The UN should create a new international nonproliferation regime to challenge the entire trade in chemical and biological weapons. Such a sanctions regime would target such companies as the Rockville, Maryland American Type Cultures Collection, that provided anthrax, E-coli bacteria, botulism and more to the government of Iraq throughout the 1980s (as well as bubonic plague stock and "nonlethal" anthrax to alleged white supremacists in the US). This approach would also target the US government itself, whose Commerce Department licensed those shipments to Iraq, as well as the governments of Russia, France, Germany and other countries that licensed or did not prevent similar shipments.

Increased disarmament efforts should also include implementing the specific call in resolution 687 to establish a nuclear weapons-free and a weapons of mass destruction-free zone throughout the Middle East. The US has so far been unwilling even to discuss such an option, since it would mean acknowledging and challenging Israel's advanced nuclear arsenal and the weapons of mass destruction maintained by other US forces and allies throughout the region.

Finally, we must support and work to consolidate the new centrality of the United Nations in this crisis and beyond, in preventive diplomacy, and counter-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This crisis has demonstrated the extent to which the UN can provide real political constraints on the capacity of a government, even the "sole superpower," to initiate war. Despite the anti-UN bluster coming out of Washington, the longer-term lesson of this crisis is that the UN role should be expanded beyond the immediate demands of Iraq crisis management and that the world organization should take the lead in forging a new international Middle East peace initiative to challenge the destructive hegemony of the US over regional diplomacy.

-Phyllis Bennis

DonateNow

Search MERIP

MERIP OP-EDS
Rebranding the Iraq War
 Antiwar.com
 August 24, 2010
Chris Toensing

The war in Iraq is over. Or so the government and most media outlets will claim on Sept. 1, by which time thousands of U.S. troops will have departed the land of two rivers for other assignments. With this phase of the drawdown, says President Barack Obama, “America’s combat mission will end.” The Pentagon is marking the occasion by changing the name of the Iraq deployment from Operation Iraqi Freedom to Operation New Dawn. Full Story>>

Ethno-Sectarian Approach Likely to Have Lasting Consequences
 Bitter Lemons International
 July 22, 2010
Chris Toensing

Which American has done the most harm to Iraq in the twenty-first century? The competition is stiff, with George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and L. Paul Bremer, among others, to choose from. But, given his game efforts to grab the spotlight, it seems churlish not to state the case for Vice President Joe Biden. Full Story>>

It's Time for Israel to End the Gaza Siege
 The Wayne Independent (Honesdale, PA)
 June 29, 2010
Bayann Hamid

Why would the Israeli navy commandeer boats carrying collapsible wheelchairs and bags of cement to the Gaza Strip? Israel says that the aid convoys are trying to "break the blockade" of the densely populated Palestinian enclave. But why is there a blockade in the first place? Full Story>>

Sects and the City
 New York Times Magazine
May 17, 2010
Moustafa Bayoumi

I had almost forgotten I’d sent in an application when the e-mail message appeared, like Mr. Big, out of nowhere. “Hi, Moustafa,” it began, as if we were old friends. “Thank you for e-mailing us regarding your interest in working on ‘Sex and the City 2.’ ”

No way. Last August, I half-jokingly answered an e-mail message posted on a list-serv requesting “lots of Middle Eastern men and women” as extras for the second “Sex and the City” movie (opening this week). Although I must have been one of the very few in the tri-state area to possess all the talents requested in the e-mail (legal to work, Middle Eastern and between 18 and 70 years old), I still never thought I would be selected. Two months later, I got the call. Full Story>>

A Web Smaller Than a Divide
 The New York Times
 May 14, 2010
Sinan Antoon

At first glance, there’s a clear need for expanding the Web beyond the Latin alphabet, including in the Arabic-speaking world. According to the Madar Research Group, about 56 million Arabs, or 17 percent of the Arab world, use the Internet, and those numbers are expected to grow 50 percent over the next three years. Many think that an Arabic-alphabet Web will bring millions online, helping to bridge the socio-economic divides that pervade the region. But such hopes are overblown. Full Story>>

A New Conversation Peace
The National (Abu Dhabi)
April 9, 2019
 Chris Toensing

Iyad Allawi, the not terribly popular interim premier of post-Saddam Iraq, is in a position to form a government again because he won over the Sunni Arabs residing north and west of Baghdad in the March 7 elections. The vote, while it did not “shove political sectarianism in Iraq toward the grave,” as Allawi would have it, rekindled the hopes of many that “nationalist” sentiment has asserted itself over communal loyalty. Full Story>>

Arming Yemen Against Al-Qaeda
 The Register Citizen (Torrington, CT)
 January 21, 2010
Sheila Carapico

Americans got a crash course on Yemen for Christmas.

That’s because we’ve wanted to know more about the little-known, dirt-poor country in southwestern Arabia where the “underwear bomber” who tried to blow up a plane—bound for Detroit from Nigeria on Christmas Day—says he was trained. President Barack Obama says, correctly, that “large chunks” of Yemen “are not fully under government control.” So it seems to make sense to strengthen the Yemeni government, to get at “al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula,” as the local gang of Islamist extremists is known. Full Story>>

Christmas is Bittersweet in Bethlehem
 The Milford Daily News (Milford, MA)
 December 24, 2009
George Rishmawi

Bethlehem, Palestine is a special place to celebrate Christmas. It’s home to the Church of the Nativity and the field where shepherds, tending their flocks by night, spotted the star heralding Jesus’ birth. But apart from the historical mystique, here in Bethlehem we celebrate Christmas much like Christians throughout the world. We hang lights from the rooftops. We erect a tree in Manger Square. We host a Christmas market. Our children carol and perform Christmas pageants. Christmas in Bethlehem, as elsewhere, is a time for family, peace, love and joy. Full Story>>

More Troops Won't Do It
 The Herald (New Britain, CT)
 November 13, 2009
Chris Toensing

For the past two months, President Barack Obama has been weighing Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s request to send an additional 40,000 troops to Afghanistan to “disrupt, dismantle and defeat” al-Qaeda. That same effort, according to Obama, entails ensuring that the Taliban can’t regain control of the country. But a military strategy alone won’t beat al-Qaeda or the Taliban. Achieving lasting stability in Afghanistan will require national political reconciliation, the establishment of a functioning, accountable political system, and a credible government. In this respect, the outcome of Afghanistan’s presidential election, marred by cheating, was a step in the wrong direction. Full story>>

Fort Hood Shootings: Again We Will Be Judged for Acts We Didn't Commit
 The Guardian
 November 6, 2009
Moustafa Bayoumi

So much is still unknown about the shooting at Fort Hood Army base and the motives of the alleged shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan, but still I have that same queasy feeling in my stomach that I've had before: this will not be good for Muslims. Full Story>>

Western Sahara Poser for UN
 Reuters (Africa Blog)
 April 28, 2009
Jacob Mundy

Morocco serves as the backdrop for such Hollywood blockbusters as Gladiator, Black Hawk Down and Body of Lies. The country’s breathtaking landscapes and gritty urban neighbourhoods are the perfect setting for Hollywood’s imagination.

Unbeknown to most filmgoers, however, is that Morocco is embroiled in one of Africa’s oldest conflicts - the dispute over Western Sahara. This month the UN Security Council is expected to take up the dispute once more, providing US President Barack Obama with an opportunity to assert genuine leadership in resolving this conflict. But there’s no sign that the new administration is paying adequate attention. Full Story>>

Letters, He Gets Letters
 Bitter Lemons International
March 26, 2009
Chris Toensing

Shortly before assuming office, President Barack Obama was handed a missive signed by such Washington luminaries as ex-national security advisers Zbigniew Brezezinski and Brent Scowcroft, urging him to “explore the possibility” of direct contact with Hamas. One month after he entered the White House, Obama received an epistle from Ahmad Yousef, a Gaza-based spokesman for the Islamist movement, making the same recommendation. “There can be no peace without Hamas,” Yousef told the New York Times when asked about the letter's contents. “We congratulated Mr. Obama on his presidency and reminded him that he should live up to his promise to bring real change to the region.”

There is no word, as yet, on how the foreign policy doyens' message was received, but Yousef's occasioned a huffy US rebuke of the UN Relief Works Agency, whose top official in Gaza, Karen Abu Zayd, passed the letter to Sen. John Kerry while he was visiting the devastated territory in mid-February. Even a single sealed envelope, it seems, creates the appearance that the Obama administration is breaking with the US vow, enunciated first under President George W. Bush, not to speak with Hamas until it agrees to renounce violence, abide by previous Palestinian agreements with Israel and recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Full Story>>

Elections Are Key to Darfur Crisis
 The Montreal Gazette
March 7, 2009
Khalid Medani

It has been quite a week. For the first time, the international community indicted a sitting president of a sovereign state. Omar al-Bashir of Sudan stands accused by the International Criminal Court in The Hague of "crimes against humanity and war crimes" committed in the course of the Khartoum regime's brutal suppression of the revolt in the country's far western province of Darfur. Having indicted two other figures associated with the regime in 2007, ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo began building a case against the man at the top, and on Wednesday, the court issued a warrant for Bashir's arrest. Full Story>>

Out of the Rubble
The National
January 23, 2009
Mouin Rabbani

Speaking to his people on January 18, hours after Hamas responded to Israel’s unilateral suspension of hostilities with a conditional ceasefire of its own, the deposed Palestinian Authority prime minister Ismail Haniyeh devoted several passages of his prepared text to the subject of Palestinian national reconciliation. For perhaps the first time since Hamas’s June 2007 seizure of power in the Gaza Strip, an Islamist leader broached the topic of healing the Palestinian divide without mentioning Mahmoud Abbas by name.

At a press conference the following day convened by Abu Ubaida, the spokesperson of the Martyr Izz al Din al Qassam Brigades, the Hamas military wing, the movement went one step further. “The Resistance”, Abu Ubaida intoned, “is the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people”. Full Story>>

The Horrors of Israel's Peace
Al Ahram Weekly
January 22-28, 2009
Samera Esmeir

Three weeks after the war on Gaza, Israel declared a unilateral ceasefire but refused to terminate its so-called defensive operations. In response, Hamas declared a ceasefire for one week, until the withdrawal of Israeli troops has been completed. For many in the West, the ceasefire might seem like an occasion to celebrate, for the cessation of military hostilities on both sides will perhaps renew the peace process. But there are reasons to be critical of this ceasefire, since it continues the situation in which Israel acts unilaterally. What we are actually witnessing is a new phase of the catastrophe in Gaza. While the characteristics of this phase are not yet known, Israel's violence has become ever more evident. And perhaps this is why Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert did not mention the word "peace" once in the speech he gave to announce the ceasefire. The "peace process" might soon be revealed as the other side of the coin to war -- its continuation by other means -- that simultaneously feeds it. Full Story>>

A Battleground for the Foreseeable Future
Bitter Lemons International
September 11, 2008
Chris Toensing

Bob Woodward’s four books chronicling the wars of President George W. Bush are sensitive barometers of conventional wisdom in Washington. Whereas the first volume, published in 2002 at the height of the self-righteous nationalism gripping the capital after the September 11, 2001 attacks, hailed Bush’s self-confidence in acting to protect the homeland, the 2008 installment depicts the same man as cocksure and incurious. This much is not news. More educational are Woodward’s hints about the worldviews that will outlast this unpopular administration, embedded in the organs of the national security state. Full Story>>

Egypt Stifles Debate in the United States
 Northwest Arkansas Times
 August 27, 2008
Bayann Hamid

The Egyptian regime has once again succeeded in stifling freedom of speech, this time not in Egypt, but in the US. Earlier this month, an Egyptian court convicted a prominent Egyptian-American activist for his outspoken criticism of the regime’s poor human rights record in American public fora. The court accused Saad Eddin Ibrahim, of "tarnishing Egypt's image" abroad. The conviction referred primarily to writings he published in the foreign press; most notably among them an August 2007 op-ed in the Washington Post in which he criticized Egypt's human rights record and questioned the reasons behind US aid to Egypt. Full Story>>

Want to Fight Terrorism? Think Globally, Act Locally
 Globe and Mail (Toronto),
 August 4, 2008
Khalid Mustafa Medani

Militant Islam is under global scrutiny for clues to conditions that foster its rise, and to strategies for reversing that growth. But the key is not in Islamic doctrine, US foreign policy or formal ties to various nations, as many analysts have asserted. It lies at the community level, with clan and local leaders. Full Story>>

Iraq’s Kurds Have to Choose
 Globe and Mail (Toronto)
 July 30, 2008
Joost Hiltermann

Kurdish parties have become kingmakers in Baghdad , and they know it. As no federal government can work without them, they are pulling every available political lever to expand the territory and resources they control, trying to build the foundation of an independent Kurdish state. But even more than territory, they need security. If everyone acts quickly and wisely, that understanding could help resolve one of the Iraq war’s thorniest issues. Full Story>>

Exiting Iraq Is Easier Than They Say
 The Nation (web-only)
 July 16, 2008
Chris Toensing

The debate over the war in Iraq follows a yellowing script: The minute someone suggests that the US move to withdraw its troops, war supporters cry “Havoc!” True to form, when no less a figure than Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki stated he wants a timeline for a US pullout, John McCain summoned the specter of dire consequences. “I’ve always said we’ll come home with honor and with victory and not through a set timetable,” McCain said. In his major foreign policy speech on July 15, Barack Obama affirmed his support for a withdrawal timetable, adding that the US must “get out as carefully as we were careless getting in.” Obama’s position is the correct one, but he, like many other war critics, has done too little to counter the refrain that withdrawal is simply “cutting and running,” a recipe for disaster. Full Story>>
  Home | Contact/Intern | Background Info | Middle East Report | MER Online | Newspaper Op-Eds | Giving
Copyright © MERIP. All rights reserved.