What next for Iraq?

David Knott
London
[email protected]

As the smoke clears after the recent air strikes on Iraq by the U.S. and U.K., it is difficult to see what will happen next.

Reliable information is difficult to come by: both the U.S. and U.K. governments are not renowned as straight-talkers, while verifiable news from Iraq is at best rare.

The U.S. and U.K. damaged their credibility as United Nations Security Council members by the attacks: only Washington and Westminster appear convinced the attacks were not politically expedient.

U.S. Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering told reporters on Dec. 22 that Iraq must credibly demonstrate its readiness to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors before they could return to Iraq.

Pickering said Iraq must cooperate fully with weapons inspectors and pass a comprehensive review of compliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions before a full removal of U.N. sanctions would be possible.

So expect debate over the meaning of the phrase "credibly demonstrate," given that President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Tony Blair-lawyers by training-have a highly personal approach to the meaning of words.

U.N. divisions

On Dec. 21, U.N. Security Council members began consultations on how to restart the U.N. program to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

U.N. diplomats told reporters that any conclusions would take weeks, and that first the 15-nation council-in which the U.S., U.K., France, China, and Russia have the power of veto-will be briefed on damage inflicted.

U.K. Defense Sec. George Robertson claimed that most of the air strikes had hit their targets. No details were made available of the results of an attack on the Basra refinery (OGJ, Dec. 28, 1998, p. 24).

France, China, and Russia condemned the air strikes. U.N. Sec. Gen. Kofi Annan said, "The council is divided, and I would hope that, in the weeks ahead, we will find a way of bringing everyone together."

Intriguingly, one prospect is expansion of the U.N. oil-for-aid program, which requires Iraq to sell up to $5.25 billion worth of oil every 6 months in order to buy food and medical supplies for Iraqi citizens.

Projects hope

Pickering said that Washington would maintain its hard line on Baghdad's demand for an end to sanctions but would consider expanding the aid deal if a U.N. humanitarian mission concludes that Iraqi civilians are in need.

Given that the suffering of the Iraqi people is one of the few unquestionable facts in this whole crisis, Pickering's statement give hope to foreign companies eager to invest in Iraqi oil projects (OGJ, Apr. 14, 1997, p. 19).

Because much of Iraq's producing operations are in a state of disrepair, and because of the low oil price, Iraq has not been able to meet the $5.25 billion target for sales.

Pickering said of the oil-for-aid program, "I think that there is a possibility of expanding it if the (U.N.) secretary general and his experts believe there is a need for expansion."

Iraqi production could only be hiked through work by foreign oil companies. If the U.S. is suggesting this, it would mark a sudden change in policy: to paraphrase Clinton, it depends what your definition of expansion is.