inside the glass house

New political game behind move to lift Iraq sanctions
NEW YORK-- The primary rule in international diplomacy is cast largely in stone: what the United States wants, the United States gets-- at least most of the time.
If military and economic might are the basic criteria in international relations, everything else pales in comparison.

But there have been significant exceptions: the 15-member Security Council, led by France, Russia and Germany, refused to provide the US with the legal cover it desperately needed for an illegal military attack on Iraq. The very justification for the war has still to be legitimised because so far the US has found no weapons of mass destruction inside Iraq.

Asked about reports that Washington may plant evidence of biological or chemical weapons in order to justify its invasion, James Paul, executive director of the Global Policy Forum says: "That is more so the reason why the UN's chief arms inspector Hans Blix would have to go into Iraq and check whether there are fingerprints belonging to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)."

He pointed out that Blix may well say: "Wait a minute. We have been here before and we never saw these weapons of mass destruction. Where did they come from?."
Moreover, UN resolutions specifically say that sanctions will be lifted only when UN arms inspectors-- not the United States-- certify that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction.

But the US has so far opposed a call by Secretary-General Kofi Annan for the return of UN arms inspectors to Baghdad. Meanwhile, an even bigger battle is brewing in the corridors of the world body. Savoring his military victory over Iraq, President George W. Bush has called for the removal of the 12-year-old UN embargo not only to ease the sufferings of the Iraqi people but also to get US oil companies to move into a country with the world's third largest oil reserves amounting to over 112 billion barrels.
"Now that Iraq is liberated", Bush said last week, "the United Nations should lift economic sanctions on that country."

Not so fast, say France, Germany and Russia, who are gearing themselves for a new political tug of war in the Security Council. Legitimately, no international or US trade with Iraq is possible until and unless UN sanctions are lifted.

The US, which was one of the most scrupluous enforcers of the embargo over the last 12 years, has reversed its role and wants the crippling sanctions removed-- perhaps motivated more by self-interest than altruism.

But France, Russia and Germany-- three key members in the Security Council opposing the military attack on Iraq-- do not want sanctions removed immediately for two reasons: firstly, Baghdad is still under US military occupation, and secondly, UN blessings will provide legitimacy for the illegal war.

Since Washington has refused a major UN role in shaping the political future of Iraq, most of the international community will view whatever new Iraqi regime emerges-- rightly or wrongly-- as a puppet of a foreign occupier.

British Development Minister Clare Short said last week that any transitional government established in Iraq would only be legitimate with UN involvement.
"To get a transitional government recognised by the international community, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank require a Security Council resolution and the United Nations to be engaged," Short added.

After a meeting with French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder in St Peterburg last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned of the dangers of "some new kind of colonialism" in which the US may impose its own brand of democracy on a country wholly unsuited for it.

Looked at cynically, the Russian, French and German voting on a "lift sanctions" resolution may eventually depend on US willingness to share with others the massive multi-billion dollar oil and reconstruction contracts and subcontracts.

All three countries also realise that if sanctions are lifted, the UN will lose control of the billions of dollars in oil revenues it now disburses in the "oil-for-food" programme which also comes up for renewal before the Security Council on May 12. The programme, which was jointly supervised by the UN and the government of Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, was responsible for providing food and medical supplies to 60 percent of Iraq's 27 million sanctions-hit people.

Over the past few days, the US has been negotiating behind closed doors for a resolution aimed at lifting sanctions. The US seems to be in a hurry to dole out the big construction projects to American companies -- with the San Francisco-based Bechtel Corporation already getting a contract which could go up to $680 million over 18 months -- provoking anger and protests even from companies in Britain, a country which supported Bush in his war on Iraq.

The US, which went into Baghdad attracted more by its oil than the urge to spread democracy in West Asia, can unleash its oil companies in Iraq only after UN sanctions are lifted. The looting of television sets and furniture in Baghdad last week was "chicken feed", says a cynical Arab diplomat. "Wait until the American oil companies lay their hands on Iraq. That's when the real looting begins."

Back to Columns