International Outlook
Why Bush, Blair & Co. Won't Go It Alone On Iraq--Just Yet
The heated transatlantic argument over how to disarm Saddam Hussein's Iraq is approaching a climax. After Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector Hans Blix briefs the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 14 on Iraq's cooperation--or lack thereof--the squabbling council members will have to settle down and decide what to do. The options range from giving weapons inspectors substantially more time and resources, as the French, Germans, Russians, and Chinese are demanding, to a unilateral U.S. declaration that Iraq is in "further material breach" of Security Council resolutions. That would be the trigger for a Washington-led attack on Baghdad soon.
In between these positions, however, remains one last diplomatic move that the Bush Administration still would like to pull off: a new Security Council resolution effectively authorizing the use of force against Saddam. Britain, America's leading ally in the debate over Iraq, would likely propose the resolution, which would build on the toughly worded document passed by the Council in November, known as 1441. That required Iraq to cooperate in eliminating its weapons of mass destruction or "face serious consequences." Both Britain and the U.S. would then wage the intense diplomacy necessary to win backing for the resolution. "We will push very hard if we think it's a winnable objective. A second resolution could be very useful, especially if it yields an international coalition," says an Administration official. Nine of 15 Security Council members would have to approve, with no vetoes from the three "permanent five" members currently opposing the war: France, China, and Russia.
It would be an uphill fight. But there are numerous reasons why the Administration thinks one more diplomatic push for U.N. backing for war is worth it. Apart from the political cover it would give President Bush, a new resolution would also help British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Australian Prime Minister John Howard combat domestic critics of war. A resolution "goes to bolster world opinion and most importantly helps shore up Middle Eastern and Arab support," says Isobel Coleman, senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.
Less discussed, but no less important, are the "day after" issues, which could be easier to tackle if the U.S. has the backing of a resolution. These could include everything from peacekeeping to dealing with up to $60 billion in Iraqi foreign debt. "The prospects of success in terms of a more secure region are greater, and the risks are diminished, if there is broad support," says Samuel R. Berger, National Security Adviser in the Clinton Administration.
The diplomatic dance is likely to play out by March. That's about as long as the Administration is expected to give Saddam to act on his very last chance to disarm--and the Security Council to agree to a new resolution. The U.S.'s backers in the diplomatic corps think that may be enough time to swing France, Russia, and other key opponents on the Security Council--or at least to get them to abstain on a vote, especially if Saddam is still stalling the inspectors.
If not, barring a sudden change of heart by Saddam or a coup against him, the U.S. and Britain will then lead its "coalition of the willing," with or without a new U.N. resolution. That may leave the Security Council wondering what role it has left to play.
By Rose Brady
Sandy Berger on the Iraq Showdown
The former National Security Adviser says success during -- and after -- a war will be more likely with an international coalition
As National Security Adviser from 1997 through 2000 -- and deputy adviser for the previous four years -- Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger dealt firsthand with a number of the hot spots now presenting tough challenges to President George W. Bush. One of those hot spots was Iraq.
Berger also served in a period when America's diplomatic leadership was held in high regard in both Europe and most of the Middle East. Today, Berger is chairman of the Washington (D.C.) consulting firm Stonebridge International. He took a few minutes to share his views on the Iraq crisis with BusinessWeek Senior International News Editor Pete Engardio. Here are excerpts of the interview:
Q: Why is it so important that the U.S. secure backing from the U.N. Security Council for military action against Iraq?
A: I think it makes a difference for the pre-war, the war, and the post-war. If we have very broad support, it puts the maximum pressure on Saddam Hussein to either voluntarily disarm or get out of town. As long as he sees divisions between us and the Europeans, he has room to maneuver.
In the conduct of the conflict itself, the more this has international mandate, an international imprimatur, the more likely it is that the Iraqi generals and public will take matters in their own hands fairly quickly, because they will see this as the international community coming at him. If this is seen as essentially a British or American enterprise, it will be easier for Saddam to maintain some support within the military around him. So international support may make a difference in the prospects for a quick success.
On the flip side, the risks are greater if this is seen as a British-American war rather than an international confrontation. Those risks could include turmoil in the region, anti-American terrorism, or political polarization in the Middle East along an Israeli-Palestinian fault line.
Q: Why is such support important for the aftermath of the invasion?
A: Afterward, we need allies in the peace as well as allies in the war. This will be costly and risky. This is not going to be a situation where there is a war and a post-war. I prefer to see this as a Saddam and a post-Saddam situation.
I think Saddam will be toast in a short period of time. In the beginning, we will be liberators. But that doesn't mean we have a secure, orderly situation. Even if he's gone, it will be messy.
We may have to do this job with a "coalition of the willing." But the prospects of success in terms of a more secure region are greater, and the risks are diminished, if there is broad support.
I don't think a second Security Council resolution is necessary as a legal matter. This is not a lawyer's issue. It's a strategic issue. I think if we had a second Security Council resolution, even if it's less robust than we would like, it would give a lot of cover to a lot of people.
Q: How do you interpret France's strong opposition? Will it support a U.S.-led war eventually?
A: I had assumed that, in the final analysis, the French would fall in line. I'm less certain of that than a few days ago because of what the French did in NATO, where they drew a line in the sand at a very strange place.
We all knew there would be a reckoning in the Security Council, that everyone would have to decide where to draw lines. But the French prematurely and foolishly have drawn this line over whether we even plan for providing for a NATO member, Turkey. That's either a reflection of a much harder French position, or it's their posture to make a strategic shift in a few weeks.
Q: How does the U.S. get out of this diplomatic jam?
A: This diplomacy needs to be done privately. If in fact we could reach some understanding with the French and others that after three weeks, rather than two -- that within some finite period they would support us if Iraq is not in full compliance, then we could wait for their support. If what they mean is two months, however, then probably that is more time than momentum and the dynamics of the situation warrant.
Basically, what needs to be happening beneath the noise is a private conversation between the French, Germans, Russians, and others, where we might show a little flexibility with the timetable.
Q: Could this situation have been alleviated with better diplomacy?
A: I think there is some residue of resentment over a couple of years in which we have been quite unilateralist in the way we've treated our allies. We're going to confront Saddam. The question now is whether we do it as a world united or divided, and we have to do the most that we can to bring those allies on board.
Q: What are the chances that the U.S. will be able to raise much money for the war and reconstruction if there's no second Security Council resolution?
A: The Gulf War cost $78 billion, and we got about $70 billion from others. But it will be virtually impossible to get others to share the cost of this conflict, and that could be $50 billion-plus. It will be pretty hard to get people who did not participate in the coalition to contribute.
It will be easier to get burden-sharing for nation building if there is broad international support, because other countries will have a stake in the future Iraq.
GLOBAL WRAPUP
Crackdown in Colombia?
Colombians expect President Alvaro Uribe to crack down on rebel groups in the aftermath of a recent bombing of a social club in Bogotá, which killed 32 and injured 170. The country's largest rebel group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), is suspected to have been behind the bombing. Uribe, who enjoys a popularity rating above 60%, was elected last year on a law-and-order platform.
In keeping with that image, the President on Feb. 12 rejected a FARC proposal that the government set up a demilitarized zone as a precursor to peace talks. Instead, analysts expect Uribe to rely on Colombian troops, some of whom are now receiving counter-insurgency training by U.S. special forces, to combat the insurgents. The U.S. is spending $470 million a year to aid Colombia in its 39-year battle against rebel groups.
GLOBAL WRAPUP
London Drivers Beware
Mayor Ken Livingstone will impose an $8 "congestion charge" on drivers in the center of his crowded city, starting on Feb. 17. Livingstone hopes the new scheme will slash traffic by as much as 20% and raise an estimated $210 million a year. He plans to use the funds to improve London's creaky public transportation system--a move he hopes will help him win reelection next year.
But the gamble may backfire. Many drivers oppose the charges, which will be mandatory in central London on weekdays from 7 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Hidden cameras will record vehicle numbers. And steep fines will be charged to cheaters.
|
Copyright 2003, by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.
Printer-Friendly Version
