inside the glass house

War games or American political bluff

NEW YORK-- The rising US military build-up in the Middle East conveys two messages to the world at large: the inevitability of a devastating war or a game of political bluff.

As the number of American troops keeps rising by the day -- reaching to over 150,000 at last count -- the US has very few options to pull out at this stage.

Perhaps the only pretext for a face-saving US military withdrawal would be for the Iraqi president and his family to go into political exile - either in Saudi Arabia, Libya or Algeria.

But as of last week, Saddam Hussein was still talking tough matching the rising war rhetoric coming out of the White House. He said he is ready to fight to the finish.

President George W. Bush told reporters in Washington that "time is running out" for the Iraqi president. "He had 11 years to disarm. I am sick and tired of Iraq's deception."

According to Time magazine, the Saudis are so desperate to prevent a war that they were secretly orchestrating a military coup inside Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein-- and thereby give the Americans a victory without firing a single shot.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan has already dismissed the need for an immediate military attack on Iraq.

"I don't think we are at that stage yet. We don't want to talk about war, nor is the Security Council talking about war," Annan told reporters in his first press conference of the new year.

But the question is: does the United Nations and the Security Council matter to the US-- particularly if the world body refuses to provide authorisation for a war?

Although the US has argued it has the right to go to war without UN authorisation, only the 15-member Security Council can legitimately determine the need for an attack on Baghdad.

However, according to Annan, the massive US military build-up was an important factor in re-starting the search for weapons of mass destruction.

He argues that American military pressure has been effective because without such pressure, Iraq may not have permitted UN arms inspectors to return to Baghdad after four years in exile.

Apart from death and destruction, a war in the Middle East could also trigger a major global economic crisis.

In a 61-page report, "The World Economic Situation and Prospects, 2003", released last week, the UN catalogued a long list of negative fallouts from a Middle East war, including human casualties, humanitarian crises, destruction of physical capital and overall disruption of the countries directly involved.

Since the anticipated vigorous recovery in the second half of last year did not occur, the world economy was projected to grow by only 2.8 percent in 2003, down from the forecast of 3.8 just six months ago.

"A new conflict would create destruction and havoc within the region to both human life and physical capital," says Ian Kinniburgh, director of the UN's development policy analysis division.

That destruction, he warned, would have "damaging effects" on the global economy, which underwent a sluggish and unstable recovery last year.

Annan said he was "extremely worried" about the possible humanitarian consequences in the event of a war. But nevertheless, the UN is preparing a contingency plan to provide assistance to refugees resulting from a war.

The costs of rebuilding a war-ravaged Iraq would be monumental. In rebuilding battle-scarred Afghanistan, the US was joined by Japan and the European Union.

But Chris Patten, external affairs commissioner for the European Union (EU), insists that European nations might be reluctant to help pay to rebuild Iraq if the US launches a military attack without Security Council authorisation.

"I would find it much more difficult to get the approval of member states and the European parliament if the military intervention that had occasioned the need for development aid did not have a UN mandate," he said.

Back to Columns