Turkish Non-Delight
Things didn't go well on the Kurdish-northern Iraq frontlines this week where the US had hoped a $15 billion bribe would allow it to place up to 62,000 US troops on Turkish soil. Only a couple of weeks earlier, NATO -- of which Turkey is a strategic Middle East partner -- threatened to self-destruct when France balked at authorizing a massive build-up of NATO hardware and personnel in Turkey in advance of the US-Iraq war. After some maneuvering to save face, France was side-lined and NATO made a pledge of support to Turkey -- short of hardware and personnel.
When the US decided to take the pay-for-play short-cut, it appeared a deal -- which started out with a heftier $30 billion price tag -- was sealed at the start of the week. But following one delay after another, as of Saturday, March 1, no additional US troops are on Turkish soil and the Parliament there has voted against the idea. Negotiations continue. In the meantime many of the troops are already in the area with no place to go. And as the US can hardly position them inside Iraq before the starting bell, this represents a serious set-back despite US military spokesmen saying they are prepared for all contingencies. Well, all contingences except peace, that is.
Although the US is $15 billion more in pocket as a result of Turkey's parliamentary vote, the consequences for the NATO ally remain dire. If there are losses of American lives in northern Iraq which are blamed on Turkey's refusal to host the troops, the US public will be unlikely to want to finance any clean-up or fallout. Will NATO step in instead with more soothing words? Words, alas, do not repair an economy ravaged by warring neighbours and a potential Kurdish-led civil war only recently calmed down. In a word, the situation for Turkey, regardless of outcome, is grim.
Responsible Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction
One wonders: which weapons of mass destruction are the US and UK planning to use to attack Iraq with? Look for the reintroduction of the term "surgical strike" as soon as the bombs start dropping. Although it is so politically damaging that it's unthinkable they might actually be used, neither US President George W Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld nor, sadly, British Prime Minister Tony Blair was willing to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in the attack. Blair said Saturday there were "no plans" to use them.
If the al-Samoud missle is considered a weapon of mass destruction, with a capability as configured by the Iraqis to travel about 150 km (a little further on a good day and without a major payload), then what's a Cruise missle considered to be? A firecracker plus? Come to think of it, an armed force of more than 200,000 people with the most sophisticated weapons money can buy lined up on the border of a country with an average annual income of $2,500 sounds like a fairly daunting "weapon".
As the destruction of the al-Samouds began this weekend under the watchful eye of the UN's inspectors, there was a real sigh of relief felt around the world. Inspection Chief Dr Hans Blix has not yet found any evidence of existing WMD other than these missles which may be capable of being transformed into weapons of mass destruction. Their production has been well documented even with the exit of the inspectors four years ago.
The perspective on the degree of their dangerousness hinges on technical reports as to the flying range they actually have. That has allowed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to declare he hasn't got any "unprescribed weapons". Now, grudgingly, as tests have shown they can be punted past the goal line, he's finally agreed to destroy them. And with their destruction goes Iraq's capability to deliver chemical and biological agents much beyond its own borders. This fact alone ought to be enough to turn down the threat of war. But in Washington and London, where so much political capital is at stake, there were no signs of even the slightest grudging cheer for these missles being bulldozed in plain view.
So if war is really going to take place, who is going to be pulling the trigger on weapons of mass destruction? Clearly not the Iraqis, pre-emptively. Meanwhile the US-UK war forces have been assembling all manner of weapons in the region. The UK's newspaper The Independent reported in its Sunday edition that
"The US is preparing to use the toxic riot-control agents CS gas and pepper spray in Iraq in contravention of the Chemical Weapons Convention, provoking the first split in the Anglo-US alliance. 'Calmative' gases, similar to the one that killed 120 hostages in the Moscow theatre siege last year, could also be employed.
"The convention bans the use of these toxic agents in battle, not least because they risk causing an escalation to full chemical warfare. This applies even though they can be used in civil disturbances at home: both CS gas and pepper spray are available for use by UK police forces. The US Marine Corps confirmed last week that both had already been shipped to the Gulf."
Perhaps not weapons of mass destruction -- although the families of the 120 victims of the October, 2002 Moscow theatre hostage crisis might not agree -- these chemicals are banned for warfare. 148 nation states, including the US and the UK, are signatories of the convention; each signed in 1993 and ratified the treaty in their legislative bodies in 1997. Every major power in the world has signed and ratified the pact including Australia, Russia, France, Germany, China. Canada ratified the agreement in 1995. (Israel is one of the few countries which has signed but not yet ratified the treaty.) But perhaps the spin that will be heard after these banned weapons are used on Iraqi troops and civilians, is that the victims of these calming gases experienced not death but indefinite slumber.
Blair's Rebels
Meanwhile at mid-week British Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labour Party starkly showed their leader its disapproval when a vote in the UK House of Commons regarding the impending war in Iraq sparked a passionate seven hour debate and led 199 members of Parliament -- including 30% of his own caucus -- to vote against the government. Of the two main opposition parties, the left leaning Liberal Democrats voted mainly against the government and the larger 163-seat Conservative party voted with the government. In addition to the 121 Labour MPs, a total of 13 Conservatives, 52 Liberal Democrats and a dozen from smaller partys voted against Blair. Had the Conservatives voted against the government as they do on nearly every other issue presented to the House (Labour holds an impressive 410 of the 659 seats), Blair's ability to govern would have been threatened.
As it is, the British Prime Minister remains on very shaky ground pursuing a war policy which is clearly unpopular in the House of Commons and across Britain. The debate itself was fascinating to watch (thanks to webcasting it was available live worldwide). About 40 very articulate and impassioned speakers weighed in. The debate was kicked off with a plea from Foreign Minister Jack Straw urging a Yes vote and pledging another vote would occur later; that this vote was not an authorization to go to war. In a footnote, however, he said if actions move swiftly the House may not again be asked for its opinion or authorization. This was the most visible rebellion of a government party in UK history.
If a war does begin, Blair may be looking for a new job in his Easter basket.
-- 30 --