The Transnational
Foundation for Peace and Future Research mission is peace: learning to handle
conflicts with ever less violence against other
human beings, other cultures and Nature.
August 30, 2002
By Jan Oberg, TFF* director
and Christian Harleman, TFF Board member
http://www.transnational.org/pressinf/2002/pf157_IraqEU.html
Ignoring conflict-resolution's rules of thumb
Any professional conflict-resolution expert will
tell you that it is better to keep some channels
open for communication with the adversary than to
close them. She or he would also argue that the
more we know about the other side - and about
ourselves - the greater the chance that we will
eventually make a compromise or otherwise solve
the problem.
CAN A SOLUTION TO THE U.S.
DESIRE FOR WAR BE FOUND?
The EU - doesn't seem able to be able get its act
together and decide on much more than criticising
Iraq for one set of reasons and the U.S. for
another. The United Nations, who ought to be the
mediator, has been systematically marginalised by
the U.S. and has little legitimacy in the eyes of
the Iraqis. So, we are heading for war because,
in reality, a U.S. war on Iraq is the only plan
in town, and it is as mad as it is bad.
It's sad but true; the world community (if there
is one) desperately needs go-betweens, mitigators
and mediators but no country or organisation is
able or willing to play that role. This speaks
volumes about the political and moral immaturity
of the post-Cold War world order.
IN BAGHDAD the U.S. has
some contacts at the Embassy of Poland while
Russia and China have huge embassies. Norway has
a functioning embassy headed by an experienced
charge d'affaires. When it comes to the EU, the
present chair, Denmark, does not even have
representation. Sweden has a not-too-high ranking
diplomat from its embassy in Amman going to
Baghdad a few days per month. The only EU member
with serious representation in Baghdad, although
not a full embassy, is France, which also runs a
comprehensive cultural centre there.
This state of diplomatic affairs is a scandal in
itself. It guarantees that major Western
governments know virtually nothing about the
reality on the ground and remain unable to
communicate face-to-face with Iraqis from higher
political levels. Add to this the fact that there
are very few Western journalists permanently
present in Iraq but, presumably, intelligence
agents from virtually all major Western nations,
and you have a perfect diplomatic blackout, a
recipe for later political disaster.
As in the case of Belgrade in the early 1990s,
the presence, reduction or withdrawal of
embassies is used as a diplomatic tool. But to do
so is as childish as it is self-defeating.
Without being present, without competent
diplomatic staff on the ground, no government
will be able to formulate an intelligent,
comprehensive policy vis-à-vis an adversary.
During the Cold War, the U.S. and the Soviet
Union dispatched their most competent ambassadors
to each other's capitals.
ARE THERE SECRET CHANNELS?
Could it be that there are many secret channels
open - that western envoys are meeting with Iraqi
high-level people without the rest of us knowing
about it? As is natural in these situations, that
could be the case. But, first, is this really the
way we citizens would like fundamentally
important international matters to be dealt with?
Secondly, it is hardly possible to see this sort
of secret diplomacy leading anywhere in this
case. It should be obvious to any observer that
it is the Iraqi side that has raised the best
questions and come up with the most productive
proposals during the last few months. Every
single one has been turned down with extremely
bellicose, non-intellectual responses from
Washington, which presently seems to be in an
autistic mood vis-à-vis its friends in Europe.
The only reason the Bush regime would have to be
simultaneously engaged in secret diplomatic
efforts aimed at finding a political rather than
military solution would be to save face if it
wanted to back down from its planned war.
A war against Iraq remains the most threatening
scenario in international affairs at this moment.
After more than a decade of so-called new
conflict management and preventive diplomacy, why
do most people seem to accept that the basic
rules of thumb of professional
conflict-resolution are systematically violated
and that no mediators exist?
THE SANCTIONS
The sanctions will never be lifted, they will
crumble?
Let's try to be a little empathic and see things
from the other side. The Iraqi leaders and people
have drawn the conclusion that no matter what
they have done or will do, there will never be a
UN Security Council resolution stating that it is
now known for sure that no fissile materials, not
a gram of chemicals or any piece of technology
which could, sooner or later, provide Iraq with
weapons of mass destruction exist.
The reason is simple: no other country has opened
itself up to so much foreign inspection of
potential weapons capability. Not even the
manifest nuclear weapons countries, including
Israel, would ever accept to be inspected by
anyone just because they had invaded somebody
else (which they all have). Inspection, by the
way, is clearly not the main problem for the
Iraqis; they want a timetable so they know by
which date what they see as a gross injustice and
a socio-economic hell will be over. They want to
be respected as a political player, as human
beings, and treated with respect by the West.
To put it crudely, it is not enough to call -
like many solidarity and peace groups do - for a
lifting of the sanctions. It just won't happen in
the foreseeable future. The U.S. would simply
veto it in the UN Security Council. What is
needed is crumbling or sanctions-busting -
governments practise a kind of civil disobedience
against what are de facto American sanctions.
These sanctions, consequently, violate a series
of human rights in Iraq and prevent normal (oil)
business and other relations with many countries.
OIL
The US war on Iraq is not only against Iraq
Iraq sits on the second-largest group of known
oil deposits in the world. The Iraqis naturally
want to control them and they know that they will
be a powerful country in the world community at
some point in the future. They are willing to
sell to anyone; some 70% of all oil leaving Iraq
today ends up in the United States! So, why
should countries in the EU, Japan, China and
Russia not simply start trading with the country,
bust the sanctions, earn the money they want and
see the situation slowly move back to
"business as usual"?
ALLIES, AND
THE EU.?
Iraq is looking for partners, but where is the
European Union?
So, their best Iraqi strategy is to build trust
with their neighbours, and - much to the dismay
of the U.S. - it has gone surprisingly well. The
former major foes, Iran and Iraq, are coming
closer. Not one Arab government supports a war
against Iraq, and the U.S. is increasingly at
odds with its former close allies such as Saudi
Arabia and Egypt. Relations between Kuwait and
Iraq are slowly improving. Kuwait is also not
supporting the U.S. war.
A high-level Iraqi diplomat told us: "We
have done anything we could to dialogue with the
European Union, but it seems impossible. Chris
Patten in particular, it seems, won't touch
us." Vice-premier Tariq Aziz ended a
two-hour conversation with TFF's team by saying:
"Now you have asked me many questions.
Before you leave I would like to ask you just one
question: what has happened to Sweden? We knew it
as a mediator, a country with a wide
international commitment. I knew Olof Palme and
Jan Eliasson personally when they worked hard to
mediate when we were at war with Iran. Where is
Sweden's voice today when we really need someone
to talk with in the West."
The answer may well be connected with the
fact that Sweden is an EU member state, that the
EU has no policy on Iraq, and that its criticism
of the United States and of Iraq won't make up
for that fact. In reality, the EU is without a
common foreign and security policy. We have
witnessed this throughout the 1990s in the former
Yugoslavia, then in Afghanistan and now
vis-à-vis Iraq. The Iraqi crisis should be seen
as a worthy enough subject to finally show that
the EU has a common policy on something and that
it is different from that of the United States.
WHAT COULD THE EU DO?
What could the EU do?
First, (1) the EU should, as soon as possible
formulate a progressive and firm foreign and
security policy vis-à-vis Iraq. It's time to do
something new after 12 years of sanctions without
any other result than partly destroying Iraqi
civil society and welfare and ending up in a
political and moral cul-de-sac.
Its member states should then (2) recognise the
importance of collecting facts and be present on
the ground through visits to Iraq by media and
independent researchers in virtually all fields.
It's time to (re-) develop professional ties and
dialogues on many levels between Iraq and EU
countries. So, making funds available for people
to travel there and then return, raising the
level of knowledge about the situation, is an
essential ingredient in developing such a policy.
It goes without saying that (3) governments
should encourage their business communities to
develop trade with and invest in Iraq. With a
population of 25 million often in need of the
most basic things, the market and other business
potentials are huge. Trips there by business
delegations should be supported, the first
opportunity being the Trade Fair in Baghdad in
November.
These first steps are not too politically
sensitive, could be implemented quickly, and
could easily be advocated and promoted by the EU.
While these contacts develop, the EU countries
should (4) prepare to re-establish their
embassies as soon as possible in Baghdad, staff
them with their best, most independent and
creative diplomats.
It goes without saying that the EU must make a
(5) list of its own tough demands on Iraq and
tell the Iraqis that when they have complied
before a particular date, the countries of the EU
will begin to ignore the de facto US-operated UN
sanctions and open normal, full diplomatic,
economic and cultural ties with Iraq.
Then (6) the EU should establish a
mediation/contact group, perhaps in liaison with
Russia, China and others who want to participate
in the work to prevent war and find viable
negotiated solutions. The group should also send
many different delegations to Iraq and invite
Iraqis to go abroad. It is natural that, sooner
or later, this group would (7) arrange a regional
conference with a comprehensive framework. It
would be modelled upon the OSCE process for
Europe that started in the 1970s. It would seek
to link the Iraqi problem to that of the Middle
East in general, including the Israel-Palestine
conflict, and it would invite all relevant
countries in the region to participate.
Out of this could grow various forums for debate
and, later, concrete negotiations about all
issues pertaining to EU-Iraqi relations.
Another important measure would be to (8) give
priority to develop a new security regime for the
whole region. To be effective, it should aim for
much lower levels of armament, alternative
military security, nonviolent defence,
reconciliation, democratisation and peace
education. All EU countries should stop
arms export to the entire Middle East and
emphasise that, according to a UNSC resolution,
the entire Middle East, including Israel, shall
be a nuclear-weapons free zone.
Finally, (10) the EU should inform the United
States about everything it does but not be
deterred if or when the Bush regime disagrees.
It's not enough to have different views if a
willingness to pursue different policies on the
ground does not exist.
The political ethos of this is simple: the EU
should declare that its goal is not to destroy
Iraq, nor to topple its present leadership or
keep people suffering, but to open an opportunity
for open-ended dialogue and possible
co-operation, in short carrots rather than
sticks. Huge development assistance and economic
co-operation to compensate for, at least
somewhat, the huge losses Iraq has suffered
should be mentioned as a possibility.
It is high time to get a violence-preventive
strategy in place and begin to develop a
long-term peace process between Iraq and the
world. The European Union ought to be a major
player. The responsibility to move in a new
constructive direction lies with Denmark, the
present chair of the EU, and with Sweden, the
former EU chair and a country seen by many abroad
as an advocate of humanity, welfare and peace.
*TFF - The Transnational Foundation for Peace and
Future Research mission is peace: learning to
handle conflicts with ever less violence against
other human beings, other cultures and
Nature.©2002
|