Masses suffer in crisis over Iraq

In the latest international crisis over Iraq all parties are claiming victory--all parties, that is, except the Iraqi masses.

We may never know what exactly precipitated Saddam Hussein's Oct. 29 ordering of U.S. inspectors out of Iraq and threatening to shoot down surveillance flights by U.S. planes over Iraq. It could be--as Richard Butler, the Australian chief of the United Nations' weapons inspector team in Iraq claimed--that the UN was on the verge of discovering a major cache of biological and chemical weapons. Perhaps the removal of the inspection team and the shutting off the cameras gave Saddam a brief respite to move around and reshuffle the weapons of mass destruction he still holds.

There is no doubt that Saddam holds such weapons and intends to use them as he has in the past. But so do all the other parties in this deadly game. The papers have been full of features on the threat of biological weapons of terrorism. A gram of anthrax is said to be enough to kill ten million people. Yet last year the U. S. Congress budgeted over $1 billion for its production. The Russians and French, who are making many business deals with the Iraqi regime, are also actively developing and stockpiling such weapons of mass destruction.

The latest crisis has noticeably strengthened Hussein's hand in his confrontation with the U.S. He was able to drive a wedge into the international coalition of U.S., Russia, Europe, and many Arab governments that wrecked havoc on the Iraqi people during the Gulf War. In part, his success is due to increasing anger in the Arab world over Israeli President Netanyahu's sabotage of the Israeli-Palestinian peace accords. Early in November an economic conference sponsored by the United States in Qatar and attended by Madeleine Albright was nearly boycotted by all Arab governments.

Russia as a permanent member of the UN Security Council took the initiative in resolving the crisis. Russian Foreign Minister Primakov negotiated an agreement with Hussein and pushed it through by demanding that security council members gather in Geneva at a 2 a.m. meeting. Many are wondering if there were secret agreements signed with Saddam.

Elaine Sciolino in the NEW YORK TIMES (Nov. 21) believed that the events of the previous few weeks meant U.S. policy has now shifted to allow Saddam to remain in power and eventually allow the sanctions to be lifted. Hussein was able to bring the issue of the sanctions into the international spotlight and get the backing of Russia, France and other UN Security Council members to spell out what it will take to lift them. Russia has already asked that the UN declare Iraq in compliance with two provisions of the disarmament requirements dealing with long range missiles and nuclear weapons.

Exactly what are the sanctions on Iraq intended to accomplish? Is inflicting pain on the Iraqi people different than the sacrifices that Hussein has exacted from them in the present and the past? The blockade has caused massive death and suffering for want of food and medicine. There are estimates that a million people have perished in the aftermath of the Gulf War due to its effects. Even the Iraqi National Congress, a major opposition force, has had to distance itself with the way the sanctions purposely target the Iraqi people without having any detrimental effect on the grip of Saddam Hussein. One of the primary goals of U.S. policy has consistently been to keep the presently constituted Iraqi state intact. This they have accomplished by at times maintaining Hussein in power and at times distancing themselves from him and calling for his eventual overthrow.

No sooner did the U.S. fight Hussein in the Gulf War than it refused to support the Kurds, Shi'ites and Marsh Arabs who rose in revolt against him. Then as now, U.S. threats to use military force against Hussein are less important than its determination to prevent any independent and revolutionary movement from coming to power in Iraq. The points of affinity are much too great for the rulers to consider that something deeper is needed to dislodge the murderous course of the Iraqi regime.

The checkered history of the Iraqi opposition forces and most specifically last year's outright alliance between the Kurdish leader Barzani and Hussein who has orchestrated campaigns of genocide against the Kurdish population, have done much to undermine the development of a principled opposition movement from within Iraq. Yet this does not mean the overthrow of Hussein can be entrusted to the designs of the U.S. In fact, much of the U.S.'s recent backing-off from a direct attack on Hussein may be due to its fear of growing mass unrest in the region, especially in Iran.

Seismic changes are happening inside Iran that have a bearing on the recent developments. Important to watch is the diversity and virulence of the attacks coming from within the supporters of the regime itself upon the powers and legitimacy of the office of the Supreme Religious Guide. Iran is in the midst of a profound political and social crisis threatening the foundations of the Islamic Republican regime.

In response to this, Hussein has been sending not-so-subtle messages that he hopes "to keep Iran at bay and Iraq's reputation high." Is the U.S. now toying with letting Hussein hang on so as to ensure "stability" against such "disturbances" from below?

CLICK HERE TO GO BACK TO CONTENTS PAGE

CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE TO NEWS AND LETTERS