Why an attack now would be so very dangerous
January 31 2003
George Bush must wait for the weapons inspections in Iraq to run their
course, writes Malcolm Fraser.
For many reasons, George Bush would be wrong unilaterally to attack Iraq
before the United Nations weapons inspectors have completed their task.
It is not surprising, in the short time since they returned to Iraq, that
they have not yet been able to inspect all facilities and all parts of the
country. It would be wrong and irresponsible for President Bush to deny
them time to do so.
It is not good enough for President Bush to say that Iraq has had 10 or 11
years. In the past four years, the weapons inspectors have been out of the
country. They have only just resumed their task, and the time scale must
begin from their re-entry.
Nobody doubts the importance of this issue, but the way the process is
followed is significant. In matters of this kind, the process by which a
nation or the international community comes to a decision is almost as
important as the decision itself.
If President Bush moves without UN sanction and before the inspectors have
completed their task, the international community will be grievously
weakened. The Security Council will have been snubbed and denigrated by the
US, not because it was not doing what it ought to do, but because it was
not able to do it within President Bush's time scale.
There will be many consequences from precipitant military action. It will
be seen as an American action and not as an international action. While
President Bush speaks of a coalition of the willing, the willing may be
Britain and Australia alone. That hardly constitutes a balanced
international force, as was the case in the first Gulf War. France and
Germany have said they will not be involved. Russia will not be involved.
Importantly, if President Bush acts in defiance of the UN, it will
seriously weaken efforts made over the past 50 years to establish an
effective system of international law.
Very few Australians support a war in Iraq without UN sanction. Such a war
will make it easier for Islamic fundamentalists to attempt to depict this
as a Christian war against Islam, and perhaps too many will believe them.
It will also make it easier for terrorists to gain recruits.
Opinion in Israel is seriously divided. Israelis have reason to fear the
consequences of such a war. NATO allies will be disturbed. The prospect of
a Kurdish state emerging from the ashes of the conflict would have serious
implications for Turkey, which would oppose, possibly militarily, any such
development. Autocratic regimes in the Middle East would have increased
concerns about the prospect of terrorist actions from al Qaeda.
Some believe US soldiers will be welcomed by the Iraqi people. That may be
so, but the West should not underestimate the capacity of the Iraq regime
to persuade its citizens that America and the West are responsible for
their difficulties.
There is talk of an American military government at the end of the
conflict. It would not be long before such an occupation would come to be
hated and opposed by most Iraqi citizens.
It is difficult to see how a unilateral war, led by the US, can avoid
destabilising the Middle East to a much greater extent than is now the case.
There are other consequences for particular regions. To our north is the
largest Muslim state. In Indonesia, moderate Muslims have been able to
prevail over fundamentalists, but the Bali bombing was clearly a
fundamentalist act and one designed to destabilise the Indonesian economy.
A unilateral US invasion of Iraq will make it harder for the Indonesian
Government to oppose and thwart the efforts of the fundamentalists. Up to
this point, there must be praise for the way Indonesia has pursued the
post-Bali investigations. Australia's capacity to work with Indonesia would
be much diminished. Our association with the US would be cemented in
people's minds. Our capacity to assist in regional difficulties would be
much weakened.
Most of these negative factors would diminish or disappear entirely if the
UN process is allowed to continue to its logical end. The fact that the UN
inspectors have come across empty shells capable of carrying chemical
weapons is not sufficient cause for going to war. Indeed, if the US is as
sure as President Bush seems to be that Iraq still has weapons of mass
destruction and still has a nuclear program, why can he not share that
evidence with the weapons inspectors and point them in the appropriate
direction so that proof could become public?
The fact that the US has been unwilling or unable to do so strongly
suggests it does not have that capacity or firm knowledge. Despite the
rhetoric from the US and Britain, the case is not yet proven.
Also, Iraq and al Qaeda are separate problems. Iraq went to war against
Iran because of Iranian fundamentalism. In that conflict, Iraq had the
support of the US. If reports are accurate, it would also seem that the US
gave Iraq unorthodox support for the conflict. How therefore can those
actions be turned on their heads and used as proof of Iraq's guilt?
If President Bush could be persuaded to give the inspectors time to do
their job, in two or three months their report will be on the table for the
world to see. The result might be clear, either for or against Iraq. It
could also be in the uneasy middle ground. But whatever the circumstances,
if the processes are allowed to continue, the prospect for agreed,
concerted international action will be very much improved.
If President Bush is so impatient that he must act before this time,
whatever the consequences of the specific conflict in Iraq, he will make
the world a more dangerous place.
Malcolm Fraser is a former Liberal (conservative.) prime minister.
http://theage.com.au/articles/2003/01/30/1043804463509.html
