-
Analysts warn against going it alone
Experts say Bush must consider British backing, Arab response
By George S. Hishmeh
Special to The Daily Star
-
WASHINGTON: A former assistant secretary of
state believes a key problem facing President George W. Bush’s
administration as it ponders the much-anticipated war on Iraq and the
country’s subsequent “rehabilitation” is the reaction of Iraq’s
Arab and non-Arab neighbors.
But a senior research analyst says the chances of the administration going
it alone may depend entirely on the fortunes of British Prime Minister
Tony Blair, who is facing serious opposition to his policies at home.
The two views are from the authors, among others, of two recent and highly
acclaimed studies on projected US policy toward Iraq undertaken separately
by the Council on Foreign Relations in New York and the James A. Baker III
Institute for Public Policy, Texas, on the one hand, and the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace in Washington, on the other.
Edward P. Djerejian, a former assistant secretary of state for Near East
policy, told The Daily Star that if the Bush administration goes it alone
in Iraq, this will “obviously affect the cooperation of certain
countries … especially the neighboring countries” on a post-war Iraq.
“That is the key thing,” he stressed, but would not hazard a guess
about the chances of any cooperation.
Asked whether American failure to address the Arab-Israeli question in the
meantime was a contributing factor, Djerejian, who also served as
ambassador to Syria and Israel, emphasized: “I put the Arab-Israeli
conflict on the front burner. I think it (was) a critical error of
strategy to relegate the Arab-Israeli conflict to a secondary status. We
can do all these (issues) at the same time.”
Djerejian, founding director of the James A. Baker III Institute for
Public Diplomacy at Rice University in Houston, and former Ambassador
Frank G. Wisner were co-chairs of the recent joint study for an
“intellectual road map” the Bush administration can adopt in a
post-war Iraq after its overthrow of President Saddam Hussein, titled
Guiding Principles for US Post-Conflict Policy on Iraq.
The second study, Democratic Mirage in the Middle East, was a policy brief
issued by the Carnegie Democracy and Rule of Law Project of the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace. Its four authors included Marina
Ottaway, a senior associate at Carnegie.
The panel Djerejian and Wisner chaired had recommended to the Bush
administration that it should consider the appointment of a “coordinator
for Iraq” to oversee and articulate a three-phased strategy in the areas
of security, economics and governance. At one point, the panel reported
that Iraq’s oil revenues would not be enough to provide for the many
tasks required to stabilize and rebuild Iraq. It also stressed the need
for a “vigorous” public diplomacy campaign in the Middle East and the
Muslim world to deflate criticism in the region and “deny terrorists and
extremists the ability to use military action to their own political
advantage.”
The panel cautioned the administration “to resist the temptation to
establish a provisional government in advance of hostilities or to impose
a post-conflict government dominated by exiled Iraqi opposition
leaders.”
Where Iraqi oil is concerned, the panel insisted that Iraqis should
maintain control of their own oil sector and “a level playing field
should be established for all international oil companies” an issue
that has concerned some US oil firms.
The Carnegie report was critical of current official and unofficial
thinking on Iraq, especially the feeling that once Saddam Hussein is
toppled, the US can rapidly democratize the country and unleash “a
democratic tsunami” in the Middle East. “This is a dangerous
fantasy,” it underlined.
Ambassador Djerejian set out the parameters of his group’s thinking:
“What the report states might become problematic if the US goes it
alone, if you will, or with a coalition comprising a certain number of
states is whether or not the surrounding or neighboring states of Iraq
will play a role in the rehabilitation of Iraq. I just don’t know what
political decisions would be made by Arab
leaders, and Iranians, and the Turks in this instance.”
In a separate interview with The Daily Star, Carnegie’s Ottaway said the
“only” thing that could really cause the Bush administration to
reconsider its war plans for Iraq is if the British prime minister
“steps back.”
She added: “I don’t think the Bush administration cares about anyone
else (but) the support of Great Britain. Britain is the only credible
country the only country that can provide Bush with some sort of
political cover.”
Otherwise, the price for the Bush administration for this one-track
approach, she said, is that the United States will have to bear all the
cost.
“The (1991) Gulf War was paid largely by Japan and Saudi Arabia. If the
US goes it alone this time, it is going to end up paying the bill even
the reconstruction bill,” which is expected to range between $25 billion
and $100 billion. Moreover, “there is going to be growing hostility
toward the United States everywhere.”
Most importantly, Ottaway continued, “it is going to worsen the problem
of international terrorism.”
Ottaway believes the Bush administration is trying to weaken both the
United Nations and the European Union: “Really, the Bush administration
is bent on weakening international institutions and I don’t think the
world can afford to have weaker international institutions. Dividing
Europe may help the short-term interests of the United States, and I think
this is a very dangerous thing to do. Weakening the UN is a very dangerous
thing to do … (it is) the only international organization we have.”
Both Djerejian and Ottaway were mindful of the role of public diplomacy in
the next few weeks, especially that the Carnegie official thought war was
imminent even if the United Nations did not sanction it. The ambassador,
however, stressed that “if it’s at all possible, it will be highly
important to maintain the UN consensus on the next steps toward Iraq.”
Nevertheless, he felt, the decision to “proactively” cooperate is one
the Iraqi leader has to make.
“Public diplomacy is very important at this stage,” Djerejian
continued, “but even more important are the effective consultations with
our allies and UN members to really build a consensus approach on this and
I hope that will be what we are able to achieve.”
Reporting on a recent trip to Egypt and Algeria, Ottaway said she found
the mood there was “very anti-American, very, very nasty.” She added:
“The US is in a bad situation. Even if the (Bush administration) did not
go to war, the anger (in the Arab world) would not decrease. If Bush backs
out of the war at any moment, I don’t think he would get any support in
the Arab world as a result.”
Ottaway, who is the author of more than 10 books on comparative politics,
including the forthcoming Democracy Challenged: The Rise of
Semi-Authoritarianism, explained that the Bush administration’s policy
on Iraq is being made by officials “who are real ideologues who don’t
know anything about the area.”
She said these neoconservatives “are regionalists who don’t understand
the region and the implications of what they are doing … that’s the
only way I can explain it to myself.”
George S. Hishmeh is a Washington-based
Arab-American journalist (hishmehg@aol.com)