The USA'S Iraq Policy: The Ultimate
Beneficiary
by B.Raman
An objective assesment of the USA's Iraq policy
is rendered difficult partly by the absence of a contrary view in the US
and partly by the paucity of acceptable information, whether it be
regarding US allegations of non-compliance by Iraq of the UN resolutions
on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or regarding the internal situation
in Iraq.
Even in the worst days of the US-Iran
confrontation after the exit of the Shah of Iran, there were
independent-thinking scholars in the US who were reluctant to go along
with the official Satanisation of the regime in Iran and questioned the
wisdom of American policy. They stressed the wisdom of accepting the
realities of the situation and reaching a modus vivendi with the post-Shah
regime.
Initially, their views didn't prevail. Instead,
the US Administration spared no pains to bring about the downfall of the
regime. Its efforts, through its intelligence community, consisted partly
of support to the Saddam Hussein regime in its eight-year war against
Iran, partly of a well-orchestrated disinformation campaign to paint the
Islamic regime in the worst colours and partly of support to anti-regime
elements based abroad such as Bani Sadr operating from France and the
Mujahideen Khalq.
Today, the Saddam Hussein regime is being
condemned for its continued clandestine quest for weapons of mass
destruction. Iraq's appetite for these weapons was, in fact, whetted by
the West. France supplied the Osirak nuclear reactor which, however, was
destroyed by Israel before it could be completed. The UK, the US and other
Western countries clandestinely gave to Iraq chemical weapons or the
capability to produce them.
So long as the Saddam Hussein regime used these
capabilities to kill and maim Iranian nationals , the West watched with
proforma expressions of concern, while at the same time clandestinely
replenishing Iraqi stocks. Its attitude to Iraq's retaining these
capabilities changed after the Gulf war of 1991. In the USA's perception,
Iraq was not a rogue state so long as it kept killing Iranians, but it
became one as soon as it started resisting US pressure to destroy the
unused stocks.
An important issue in the latest confrontation
between Iraq and Richard Butler, the head of the UN weapons inspection
team, has not been adequately highlighted and analysed. It is with regard
to Butler's demand that Iraq give a complete account of the chemical
weapons which it had used in the war against Iran. Since the US and the UK
know how much chemical weapons they gave to Iraq for being used against
Iran, they want to verify how much of those stocks remained unutilised so
that they could ensure that these are destroyed.
One saw a similar situation in Afghanistan. The
CIA gave to Gulbuddin Heckmatyar, its blue-eyed mujahideen leader, and to
Osama alias Osman Bin Laden, who was then projected as the Scarlet
Pimpernal of the Afghan war, unlimited quantities of the Stinger missiles
for being used against Soviet aircraft and helicopters. They were
applauded so long as they kept killing the commies , but became rogues
when they refused to return to the CIA or destroy the unused stocks after
the commies withdrew.
It was in anger against their refusal that the
CIA created the Taliban and helped it to defeat Heckmatyar and others who
refused to co-operate with it in buying back the unused Stinger missiles.
The result: the most despicable extremist regime in Kabul which follows no
international law and treats women as men's chattels. This in an Islamic
society where women have always been treated with respect.
Today, President Bill Clinton and his wife
Hillary are eloquent in rightly condemning the abominable attitude of the
Taliban regime towards women. They should ask themselves and the CIA who
created and fed the Taliban and why.
In recent years, the views of those independent
scholars who were critical of the US policy towards Iran are gaining
increasing acceptance and the US Administration itself is veering round to
a more moderate view, particularly after the coming to power of President
Khatami.
Unfortunately, in the case of Iraq, one looks in
vain for independent-thinkers who are not prepared to accept uncritically
the over-Satanisation of the Saddam Hussein regime by the US
Administration. Is the Saddam Hussein regime more sinned against than
sinning? Nobody in the US poses this question. It is as if, totally
influenced by the anti-Saddam Hussein disinformation campaign of the US
intelligence community, the entire community of research scholars has
unwittingly let itself be co-opted by the Administration in its pursuit of
objectives of questionable wisdom.
What is the principal objective: bring about the
end of Saddam Hussein, if possible by impelling sections of the armed
forces to raise against him or, if necessary, by arming and sending into
Iraq a hotchpotch of self-proclaimed leaders, most of whom are known
neither in Iraq nor in the outside world outside the offices of the CIA
and the MI-6, the British external intelligence agency.
There is a third option: Encourage the separatist
elements amongst the Kurds and the Shias. Fortunately, there is a seeming
realisation that this would be unwise. An autonomous or independent Kurd
State would be the source of destabilisation in other countries such as
Turkey having a large Kurdish population and an autonomous or independent
Shia state would propel demands for a similar status for the Shias of
Pakistan and add to the influence of Iran in the region.
Would the US and the UK succeed in their now
publicly-proclaimed aim of bringing about the collapse of the Saddam
Hussein regime through dissatisfied elements in the armed forces by
inflicting unacceptable damage on the country or by helping the political
exiles or through a combination of both? Even if they succeed, would it
contribute to regional peace?
Nobody except an unthinking person would assert
that this would be so. The US, because of its unquestioned power and
resources , may succeed in bringing down the Saddam Hussein regime, but
that would not be the end of the Iraqi problem , but only the beginning of
another phase of it. By making Saddam Hussein, alive or dead, a martyr in
the eyes of the people it would end up by creating new Frankensteins in
the form of Islamic extremism in Iraq.
Today, Iraq and Syria are two countries in the
West Asian region which have remained remarkably free of religious
extremism. Whatever might be the sins of Saddam Hussein, he has given
Islam as practised in Iraq a modern visage, extended the benefits of
education to the poorest of the poor, kept the extremist clergy under
control and given the Iraqi women their rightful place in society. These
are assets not only of Iraq, but of the world as a whole. By destroying
Saddam Hussein, the US might end up by destroying one more forward-looking
Islamic society.
As it did in Afghanistan. If it had changed its
Afghan policy after the withdrawal of the Soviet troops in 1988-89 and
reached an accommodation with the Najibullah regime, Afghanistan might
have been a different place today and its women would have taken their
rightful place in the world today.
Instead, in its anger against Najibullah for
letting himself be used by the erstwhile USSR, it continued to
clandestinely help the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan and
the medievalist mujahideen elements in their campaign to bring down
Najibullah. They succeeded and brought him down in April, 1992. The
atrocious sequel is there for all to see.
The Iraq policy calls for a genuine introspection
by the American society, but, unfortunately, introspection has never been
a virtue in the US.
India and the Indian people have special reasons
to feel sad over what is happening to Iraq. How many of us remember that
Iraq is the only country to have recognised Kashmir as an integral part of
India. Not even the erstwhile USSR, despite its support to India against
Pakistan, had ever said in clear terms that Kashmir is an integral part of
India. How many of us remember that Saddam Hussein is the only Muslim
leader who had always stood by India, whether it be in its contentions
with the West or with Pakistan, despite his policy on Indo-Pakistan issues
being criticised by some sections of the clergy?
Saddam Hussein may fall, but the ultimate
beneficiary is going to be not the US or the UK or the democratic world.
It would, most probably, be trans-national Islamic extremism.
19-12-98
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd),
Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India and presently Director, Institute For
Topical Studies, Chennai.)
