The time of force has arrived
“This war must prevent a war in the Middle East. We anticipate only victory,
which not only the US but all other countries are interested in.” With this statement
President George W. Bush announced the beginning of the military operations in
Iraq in March.
The events that have unfolded since then have shown however that this war
not only will not prevent widespread confrontation in the Middle East but in many
respects might become an incentive for a clash of civilizations. And although
nobody doubts a US victory, the countries that started the war are the most interested
in it. Strange as it may sound, the diplomatic fuss made in the corridors and
auditoriums of the international organizations was not needed not by the US and
its ally Great Britain themselves, but by all the others. For since it was first
pronounced that “whoever is not with us is against us”, it has become more clear
that the US has decided, evidently unilaterally, to put in order not just the
Middle East, but the world as a whole.
This action by no means corresponds to the existing rules of international
law and is sure not to meet the interests of even traditionally pro-American states.
When in the Fall of 2001 the US waged a war against Afghanistan, everybody tried
to understand the move and few noticed then that the “international community’s
war against terror” had shrunk to the “US antiterrorist operation”. The US was
forgiven this diplomatic “sin”, it was morally judged and permitted to straighten
out the situation in Afghanistan.
Judging from the reasons declared, the war against Iraq should be considered
a logical continuation of the fight against terrorism. However, the preventive
strike against the Saddam Hussein regime, which could have made use of its never-discovered
chemical weapons, bothers many people today. The “Iraqi crisis” has become the
embodiment of a crisis in international relations, the consequences of which can
have an effect on everyone. The impending new world order and the expected cardinal
changes in the post-Yalta standards of interrelations is being discussed everywhere,
including the states of the South Caucasus region. As always, the positions adopted
by the official circles in our region vis-?-vis the US actions are analyzed first
of all. It is noteworthy that experts and analysts from Azerbaijan and Georgia
are casting doubt on the expediency of the official support for the US, and in
Armenian analytical circles there is a conviction that Armenia, because of its
traditionally salient pro-Russian orientation, has lost an opportunity to integrate
into a global political process.
All these issues were discussed during the War in Iraq - 2003 on-line conference
organized by the Region Research Center of the Association of Investigative Journalists
of Armenia with the participation of experts from the three South Caucasian states.
Below are excerpts from the conference.
Alexander Rusetsky
The South Caucasian Security Institute (Georgia)
“Why don’t we support the military action in Iraq? Because it promotes the
creation of cloned political regimes, devaluating democratic values. Saddam Hussein
is becoming a hero, and later on for many coreligionists he will be a complete
saint. Because the atomic bombardment of pro-Fascist Japan and the bombing of
Hussein’s Iraq are the same. Because it creates the possibility for global lawlessness
and chaos. Because it contributes to the reproduction of suicide terrorists who
will threaten each of us. Because our rulers rest upon Bush’s shoulders, will
repeat their mistakes and will thaw frozen conflicts, and so on.”
Ambassador David Hovhanissyan
Professor at Yerevan State University (Armenia)
“The US is setting a task of creating a model for the world and the system
of international relations that will be completely identical to the real balance
of power. The new model must reflect the unipolarity of the world system; it must
provide real opportunities for the realization of leadership from the world center.
US foreign policy after September 11th came into contradiction with domestic policy,
and, as always in such cases, had to be radically transformed. The declared target
- international terrorism - doesn’t have a precise contour and thus is unfit as
a target. It is an “encircling system” which doesn’t feel the need for an institutionalized
center. Therefore, it is hard to fight against it, and the victory over terrorism
will never be tangible or final. Even if the mythical Osama Bin Laden is caught,
the fight will not be over. But the need of the American society to punish those
guilty for September 11th must be concretely satisfied. For this end, the rogue
states are best suited: first Afghanistan, then Iraq. At the same time, the role
of the United States as the world leader, from the point of view of cultural and
civilizational leadership, in economic terms and in many other aspects (except
for the military-political), is not unquestionable.”
Nugzar Gogorishvili
Conflict resolution specialist (Georgia)
What are we worrying about? About conducting military operations to achieve
an objective in general, or about the anti-Iraq coalition’s specific military
actions against the Saddam Hussein regime? In both cases the entire world has
been anticipating such developments for almost a year. Why then didn’t the international
community act just as decisively as today, when it was still possible to reach
a solution without resorting to a military confrontation? Why did the present-day
opponents of the war in Iraq keep silent in 2001? After all, in Afghanistan too
people were being killed. Or were they different - terrorists, who killed people
outside their own territory -- but Saddam Hussein, even if he kills people, does
it at home?
The removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime should be in the interests of the entire
democratic world community. Why then hasn’t the international community, with
such structures as the UN, the Council of Europe, OC and so on and so forth, used
all its capabilities to bring Saddam Hussein before the Hague tribunal? There
were plenty of reasons to. If no one intervenes in the internal affairs of other
states (even when a genocide, with the use of chemical weapon, is being committed
against their own citizens), then in less than ten years, Saddam Hussein twice
unleashed aggressive wars against neighboring states. The first was carried out
against Iran and lasted for eight years; the second - the war against Kuwait --
was possible to stop after eight months, owing to the intervention of that very
international coalition (outside forces).
Suren Baghdassaryan
Orientalist (Armenia)
The US military operation can lead to a cardinal reshaping of the borders in
the Middle East. Washington has not yet decided what to do with Iraq after the
war is over. Long before the operation itself, the course of establishing a united
and democratic Iraq was pursued. The Americans have repeatedly stated that they
are interested in preserving the integrity of Iraq. However, according to experts,
after overthrowing Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship it will hardly be possible to
preserve Iraq’s unity. The point is that there is practically no force in Iraq
interested in keeping the united state. The interests of the Sunnis, the Shias
and the Kurds are at times diametrically opposed - nothing binds them, and the
sole force able to preserve the unity of Iraq is a Saddam-type tough dictatorship.
The Kurds dream about an independent Kurdistan, the Shias are oriented toward
Iran, and the Sunnis, whose dictatorship will soon fall under the American strikes,
will simply be unable to control the country.
In order to avoid a civil war that could destabilize the world’s main oil-producing
region, the Americans, according to experts, may nevertheless agree on the partition
of Iraq. Then the Kurds will get de-facto independence, the Shia-populated regions
will pass into the possession of Iran, and the territories populated by the Sunnis
and the Christians will go to Israel. The uncertainty of the US position, in all
appearances, is also related to the fact that the Americans have not so far succeeded
in agreeing upon the future of Iraq with the big regional players - Turkey and
Iran -- who also insist on meeting their own interests. Ankara is first of all
concerned about the future Kurdish autonomous region in Northern Iraq. Kurdish
leaders have stated on many occasions that after the overthrow of the Saddam regime
they intend to pursue independence from Baghdad. And Iran, even though considered
to be one of the main opponents of the US in the region, on the threshold of the
military campaign against Iraq, managed to establish close cooperation with Washington
at the level of special services. It will be extremely difficult for the Americans
to act in Southern Iraq, populated by militant Shias, without Teheran’s support.
According to experts, the US will have to take Iran’s point of view into account
while deciding the future of Iraq.
Rauf Radjabov
Conflict resolution specialist (Azerbaijan)
Well, as regards the Shias and Southern Iraq and its subsequent handing over to
Iran, as well as Northern Iraq and the Kurds, who will “likely” create an independent
state, I can note the following: 1. Iraq, as it has been, will remain territorially
integral. 2. Iran, like North Korea (and Iraq in the past), is a part of the “axis
of evil”, and the US and its coalition partner Great Britain have not reversed
that. 3. In this geopolitical situation, Turkey acts correctly and in check (10
million Kurds live in Turkey itself). If one looks at the map of this region,
one sees that the “Kurdish” problem infringes on the interests of Iraq, Iran,
Turkey, Syria, and partly the South Caucasus. Don’t forget the desire of some
states to play this card. That is why it is profitable for both Europe and the
states of the region that Turkey be a guarantor (naturally, under international
supervision and with a Council of Europe and NATO resolution) of the stability
in Northern Iraq. 4. As far as Iran is concerned, this state will try to solve
problems with its neighbors not with the help of military ships and planes but
through negotiations.
It is remarkable that Iraq, Iran, Syria and North Korea are Russia’s allies.
Samuel Huntington’s concept of the clash of civilizations has often been recollected
lately. If we follow this concept, it turns out that Azerbaijan belongs in the
Islamic civilization, and Armenia and Georgia in the Orthodox civilization. Here
too we are on opposite sides. The consequences of the war in Iraq are already
becoming apparent in our area - Russia, for the first time since 1985, has conducted
command staff maneuvers in the Northern Caucasus and in the Far East.
Laura Baghdasaryan
The text of the conference is available in full at: http://www.hetq.am/ru/r-forum.html
