| We can perceive some progress in the situation
with Iraq. While the issue of sending UN inspectors to the country
has almost been resolved, this should be brought to a logical
conclusion. The inspectors should be able to start work without
any preliminary conditions, be accorded wide proxies and be allowed
to work unimpeded.
However, this marks only the first step in the unentangling
of the most complicated knot of problems. Nobody trusts Saddam.
Therefore we should take practical steps: we need active measures,
instead of an exchanging ultimatums and repeatedly trying to persuade
Saddam. The new UN resolution, which must be adopted, should focus
on the second stage of action on behalf of the international community.
Evidently war and the death of civilians represent absolute
evil. While we must do as much as we can to avoid such a development,
we need to achieve the goal of providing security and ensuring
a change in the regime in Iraq.
The essence of the new UN resolution can in our view can be
summed up as follows: resolute preparation and implementation
of a wide ranging international military presence in the region
aimed at stabilising and overseeing the situation throughout the
long transitional period. International forces should certainly
be prepared for the possibility of military action.
We have to realize that a Soviet-type dictator like Saddam cannot
be influenced without tough, at least indirect, pressure. We can
only expect to see some change, once he realizes that the loss
of oil and power is a purely a technical issue.
A strategy based on resolute decision and readiness to act can
avert war in the direct and primitive sense discussed frequently.
The classic formula "Si vis pacem para bellum" unfortunately
works in this case.
Finally, it is extremely important to improve the political
description of the problem. As this should be done at the same
time as the dislocation of the international forces, a task that
will take two or three months, we still have some time here.
First, it is necessary to determine what will happen in Iraq
if Saddam is removed, in view of the conflicting interests of
different forces within Iraq and the complexity of relationships
between these forces. This is an extremely serious issue.
Second, we should constantly discuss the problem of Iraq to
find common language between such politicians as Schroeder, and
Russia and China, and the Arabic world.
If we talk to them about the formation of a coalition of international
forces and indirect pressure on Saddam, including the work of
inspectors and at least some change inside Iraq, instead of speaking
about a banal war, these discussions could be productive.
Let me make one final point. The problem of oil should be resolved.
We are already witnessing disputes about the distribution of this
oil: who will get what and what will happen on the market and
what will happen to prices. It is only after undertaking all these
steps that we can reach agreement within the anti-terror coalition,
and, most importantly, gain a clear understanding on the extent
of positive changes in Iraq, the steps that Saddam may take, his
readiness for such change and the fate of his regime. We need
to act.
See also:
International Anti-Terror Coalition | 