All Saddam has to do is tell the truth

By DAVID DICKENS*

Why would the United States go to war with Iraq? The question puzzles thoughtful commentators. Put bluntly, it was September 11 that galvanised the Bush Administration into action. The US said it would react and eliminate terrorists and states with weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat.

Why Iraq? Iraq is a sponsor of terrorism, especially of terrorism against Israel. Iraq also has links with al Qaeda. Both Iraq and al Qaeda want to get rid of Israel and the American military presence in the region.

It is this motive that brings together Iraqi and al Qaeda operatives in places such as Mogadishu, where they trained Somali fighters to shoot down Blackhawk helicopters and kill American and United Nations soldiers.

Iraq's links with terrorist organisations alone would have brought it into focus in post-September 11 Washington. But it was evidence that Iraq has maintained and is developing weapons of mass destruction that put it in the spotlight.

Particularly worrying was the revelation of intelligence by Britain that Iraqi officials had tried to buy the things needed to make nuclear weapons. Iraq's actions violate its obligations to the international community expressed in a raft of Security Council resolutions.

A sketch of Iraq's strategic intentions shows why American officials take this threat so seriously. Iraq sees itself as the natural leader of a pan-Arab Middle East. Saddam Hussein, during Iraq's war with Iran, thought of himself as the leader of a nationalist Arab response to Islamist expansionism.

Having lost Iraq's conventional military capacity in the Gulf War, Saddam is now trying to acquire the next best alternative - weapons of mass destruction.

The one issue that can galvanise Middle East politics is Israel. The destruction of Israel is one of Baghdad's enduring goals. That is why Saddam supports terrorism against Israel (where rivals Syria and Iran undermine Iraq's quest for leadership of the anti-Israeli Arab response).

To assume leadership of the Middle East Saddam needs to head off rivals, force moderate Arab states such as Egypt, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia into line, and eliminate the ability of outside powers - especially the US and Britain - to curb his intentions.

That is why the issue of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction is serious and is a matter of life and death for regional states. Iraq's neighbours each have good reason to see Iraq's weapons programmes curtailed and Saddam deposed.

One measure of Iraq's lack of regional support is its failure to garner any pledges of military help from fellow Arab states even as it faces invasion.

The international community has given Iraq a choice. The burden is on Saddam. He has to show that Iraq is free of weapons of mass destruction. It is not up to the UN inspectors to find evidence of a smoking gun.

According to Bush Administration officials, Saddam has failed to meet UN Security Council resolutions that call on him to give a complete inventory of Iraq's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Instead, Iraq came out with a long laundry list of its own that offered a rehash of what had been been found.

The Bush Administration says it has the evidence to show that Iraq is lying. An assessment released by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, compiled by British intelligence agencies, comes to a similar conclusion.

An independent study by the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies, using information available in the public domain, also found that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

The UN faces one of the toughest tests in its history. For 12 years the Security Council has said that Iraq must fully disclose its own inventory of weapons of mass destruction, destroy the inventory and allow the UN to verify this on the ground with its own inspectors. There is ample evidence that Iraq has consistently evaded its obligations.

To avoid war, all Iraq has to do is to meet its obligations and be honest and open. Time is running out. The head of the UN inspection team has to deliver his report to the Security Council on January 27.

If Iraq has not co-operated, the UN will have to decide whether it will act or let Saddam get away from meeting his obligations once again. Twelve years of diplomacy have failed to achieve disarmament.

The American position on this is straightforward. Iraq has to meet its obligations to the international community. If Iraq does not comply, the US will say to the UN that there is now no option but to use force. All other options have been exhausted after 12 years of trying.

If Iraq is allowed to get away with not meeting its international obligations, the UN's reputation will be damaged and Washington will pursue its own national interests.

This is why the US is threatening war with Iraq - it considers all other reasonable options to war have been tried and exhausted.

All Iraq has to do to avoid war is tell the truth within the next two weeks.

* David Dickens is the former director of Victoria University's centre for strategic studies.

Herald feature: Iraq