Widening The Gulf

ON September 3, the Gulf region blew up once again. President Saddam Hussein's military push into northern Iraq in late August, in aid of a Kurdish faction, provided the US the grand excuse for raining down Tomahawks and conventional air-launched cruise missiles on targets in southern Iraq. Barring the players and the scene of the drama, the strike against Iraq had little in common with the sequence of events during the Gulf War. It was natural that the unilateral action ordered against Iraq by President Bill Clinton seized the attention of the international community.

Though US officials cite several UN resolutions in defence of the missile strike, an overwhelming majority of the UN member-states hold the US strike a blatant violation of international law and politically far too extreme a measure. However, many tongues, including that of India, were being held in order not to offend the US.

The average American has little or no idea of the actual issues at hand, notwithstanding the recent ABC poll in which 80 percent said they support President Clinton. They know nothing about the paradox that the Kurdish faction which benefits most from the American intervention—the one led by Jalal Talbani—is currently said to be supported by Iran, the world's leading "rogue" state, by Washington's own definition.

Clearly, the US reaction was completely illegal and far in excess of what Saddam's action might have warranted. Whatever his faults (the US dealt with him quite comfortably throughout the '70s and '80s—despite his well-chronicled brutality), there is nothing in the UN resolutions which prevents him from moving his forces within Iraq. To be sure, the US had told him not to move to the northern city of Irbil, where two Kurdish factions were locked in battle. But even those who might have expected the warning to lead to a violent corollary were surprised at the swiftness with which things translated into a brazen display of American military muscle. There is no diplomatic way to say it: the sole superpower of the post-Cold War era was kicking the enemy when it was down. On the grounds that Saddam had tried to quell a potential rebellion in his country.

The US must have bargained for some adverse reactions. But again, the intensity of some of these, especially those from Russia and China, would have surprised it. Speaking on behalf of President Boris Yeltsin, his chief of staff Anatoly Chubais said of the US missile attacks: "We believe that the repetition of these actions is impermissible. Secondly, we strongly believe it's necessary to consult with Russia when dealing with such issues."

 Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov, who was in Europe at the time of the attacks, was even more indignant, making it clear that the US was usurping the authority of the UN Security Council by taking unilateral action against Iraq. "No single country can take action that could disrupt the world order," he said. On September 6, the US and the UK abandoned attempts to move a resolution condemning Iraq for the attacks on Kurds following Russia's threat to veto it. A Chinese offi-cial at the UN said the US had been "isolated diplomatically" and that Clinton had "short-term domestic political gains" in mind. Even France, a close ally of the US, expressed reservations and refused to monitor the extended no-fly zone in southern Iraq. Said a French Foreign Ministry spokesman: "Don't ask whether we are happy or not. But I can tell you we were still trying to work out a peaceful resolution when the US informed us that the attack had begun. " France has been keen to restore its trade ties with Iraq though it has generally gone along with the US after the Gulf War. Only the UK, Germany, Japan and Israel backed the US action.

In seeking to rationalise its action, the US invoked various UN resolutions passed in the wake of the Gulf War. But procedurally, it was clearly in the wrong. It should have gone to the UN Security Council and asked for authorisation for the use of force against Iraq. It did not bother to do so. Says R.P. Anand, head of the international law department, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU): "There is nothing legal about the US action at all. There is no international law, even in the UN, which permits such unilateral action." 

Some voices of caution were audible in the US too. "It's necessary to stop Saddam anywhere, anytime, because if you don't, he will challenge you wherever he can," a leading expert of the National Defense University told New York Times, fleshing out the context that supposedly goaded Clinton. "But we're not on very firm ground this time because he is in his own country. He was invited in. It's going to be hard to convince our allies to come on board". Unnamed diplomats and experts of international law at the UN headquarters too were unanimous that the US strike was a violation.

After the Gulf War, the US, the UK and France had imposed no-fly zones in southern and northern Iraq. The idea was to cramp the Iraqi air force's space for manoeuvre so as to prevent it from attacking either its neighbours or the Shiite minority in southern

Iraq or the Kurds in northern Iraq. Says a diplomat at the world body: "The no-fly zones set up by the Gulf War allies are not covered by any resolution of the Security Council, no matter what the Americans say. There is little doubt that the demand for the removal of the no-fly zones—made by Saddam Hussein, who incidentally never violated those zones—is perfectly justifiable." 

Resolution 688, passed by the UN Security Council on April 5, 1991, under Article 2 (7) of the UN charter—is being quoted to justify the US strike. The resolution condemned the repression of Iraqi civilian populations, especially the Kurds, saying it threatened global peace and security. It demanded that Iraq immediately end this repression and start talks to ensure the "human and political rights of all Iraqi citizens are respected".

There is nothing in this resolution which allows the US to intervene unilaterally in Iraq. Says V.S. Mani, professor at JNU's international law department: "What the US is trying to say is that Resolution 688 indirectly authorised the setting up of these no-fly zones on humanitarian grounds. In reality it does no such thing—use of force has to be authorised under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which was never done." Concurs former foreign secretary Muchkund

Dubey: "You don't attack another country like this. Chapter VII says the Security Council can authorise the use of force in a situation of threat to peace and breach of peace. I don't think the US attacked Iraq in self-defence. If the Iraqi action amounted to threat to or breach of peace, it should have established it before the Security Council and got the necessary authorisation." Moreover, Article 2 (7) precludes any UN intervention in any country "in matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of a state. This clause also provides that this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII. But that has to be done by the Security Council.

The Americans also refer to Resolution 687, which had formally ended the Gulf War, to justify their strikes. Though passed under Chapter VII, this nine-part resolution set conditions for the restoration of peace and security in the region. It forced Iraq to unconditionally accept the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of all its chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles up to a 150 km range. Saddam's regime was also forced to disclose its nuclear capability and accept its destruction.

There is nothing in the UN resolutions which prevents Saddam from sending his ground forces to a part of his country, even areas covered by a no-fly zone. For, as Mani points out, even the no-fly zones can be challenged legally. The US line is that it was trying to protect the rights of the Kurds. Says Anand: "If on the basis of human rights, states start attacking each other for what they perceive to be rights violations, there will be anarchy. We in India have faced secessionist movements, in Kashmir and in the North-east. Does this mean anybody can attack us? Saddam has the right to put down a secessionist movement in his own country." Agrees Mani: "Who is the US to decide what constitutes abuse of such rights?"

 Even politically, the US move is questionable. It might benefit Clinton in the elections, but it is unlikely to help the US in the Gulf. Says Girijesh Pant, head of the Centre for West Asian and African Studies, JNU: "The US presence is resented by most regimes in the Gulf. These attacks are more likely to strengthen the growing Islamic forces in the area. Also, in this case, the US is actually threatening the democratic forces in the region by giving the fundamentalists an issue." Islamic resentment has already shown itself in attacks against US targets in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi regime, growing increasingly shaky, has neither said a word about the strike nor has it allowed its territory to be used to launch it.

The US interests in the Gulf are manifold. The region sits on about 50 per cent of the world's oil reserves. After the 1990-91 War, the US positioned itself as the sole guarantor of security in the region. On the day of the new strike, US Defence Secretary William Perry identified "vital interests" in the region as "protection of friendly nations, including Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, and protection of the flow of oil". Saddam's action, he insisted, constitutes a threat to that security and stability. But Turkey's 1994 incursion into Iraq, in "hot pursuit" of Kurd rebels from Turkey, had evoked no such reaction from the US.

The US has a policy of dual containment—directed at once against Iraq and Iran. Says Sreedhar, senior research associate at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses: "The US is attempting to isolate Iraq and prevent Iran's influence from spreading in the region. Iran has been actively articulating its point of view that extra-regional powers should keep out of the Gulf." Clearly, while the Europeans have split with the US over doing business with Iran, the strike has put strains on the western alliance. That is Saddam's achievement. The US would like to see him overthrown, but it has no alternative to the man who has ruled firm since 1979, surviving several coup bids.

In 1990 Rajiv Gandhi, then out of power, was visiting Teheran. He asked Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani who he thought would succeed Saddam. His answer: "Saddam Hussein will succeed Saddam Hussein". That was before the Gulf War. Americans can use some of this perspicacity. For, the latest episode might only have helped Saddam dig in his heels in Iraq, and get sympathy from around the world for the suffering inflicted on his people, already reeling under UN sanctions.

The Indian reaction to the US strike was initially muted. But under pressure from the Left Front, External Affairs Minister I.K. Gujral, told the Lok Sabha that the attack was "highly regrettable". He called on the US to refrain from further attacks and respect Iraq's territorial integrity. He expressed distress at the Security Council freezing the move to lift the embargo on sale of Iraqi oil. His statement came following an outcry in Parliament over the mild Indian reaction and a demand by the BJP that a resolution be passed on the issue. In 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait, Gujral—who was external affairs minister then also—went to Kuwait to bring out lakhs of Indians stranded there. Perhaps the criticism he drew then may explain the mild response. Besides, things are more complicated this time.

Because India is entangled in the CTBT row it didn't want to annoy the US with a more forthright statement earlier. That all changed under domestic political pressure.