Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

DATE=FEBRUARY 17, 2003

TYPE=INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

TITLE=WILLIAM HOPKINSON

NUMBER=3-544

BYLINE=PAT BODNAR

DATELINE=WASHINGTON

INTERNET=

/// Editors: This interview is available in Dalet under SOD/English News Now Interviews in the folder for today or yesterday ///

HOST: A different argument in favor of war against Iraq besides the threat of weapons of mass destruction has been emerging over the past few months. The argument is that removing Saddam Hussein from power could help bring a wholesale change for the better in the political, economic and social environment of the Middle East. VOA's Pat Bodnar put that scenario to William Hopkinson, who is a visiting Fellow at the Center for International Studies at Cambridge University in Britain, and a former British Defense Department Official.

Mister Hopkinson says that as attractive as the vision of a democratized Middle East region is, it would require a great deal of political and economic investment.

MR. HOPKINSON: I think, though, those in Washington who would certainly seek changing the whole Middle East, first by removing this particularly unpleasant regime and setting up something as a beacon, the shining city on a hill as it were, with democracy and liberal trading regimes and so on, I think that is very attractive. But I think it is unlikely to be successful without a very, very long period of investment and effort of different sorts. There are two major problems. One is, in a sense, the whole culture of Islam, which hasn't gone through the Reformation, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, as Western thought has done.

Secondly, the reaction against colonialism and being told what to do by other nations still runs very strongly in that region. So, even if the, as it were, philosophical and cultural background were different, a revolution imported by the United States might well get very strong counter-reaction.

Neither of those is an insuperable problem, but one is talking about a real generational change. This is not in and out. It's in and, as it were, colonizing for a longish period. And I am not certain that people have faced that yet.

MS. BODNAR: What about the alliances that might be made, the change in regimes that might occur? I'm thinking in particular of Iran, as a neighbor to Iraq and a long-time foe, and also Syria, as a concern from the U.S. and Britain as a terrorist haven.

MR. HOPKINSON: Take Iran. Iran has a very long history as a regional power. I mean, it likes to think of itself as a successor of the ancient Persian empire. Even if one discounts that, one has actually had a regime change there. I don't mean from the Shah to the revolution but, from the revolution, there are now strong currents there who want to bring Iran along and be a proper and normal member of the modern world. There is a struggle going on within Iranian civil society. I'm not certain that outside interference in the next-door neighbor would actually help that process.

As you probably know, there is quite a division across the Atlantic on this. Whereas, on the one hand, Washington describes Iran as part of the axis of evil, on the whole, Europeans, including the Brits on this, say, well, there are undesirable features in the Iranian regime but there are also a lot of hopeful signs, and what we need to do is to get the hopeful bodies to move along and come out on top.

So, I'm sure Iranians of all sorts would be very happy to see Saddam Hussein removed; they would be less happy if civil war broke out next door, if there were tensions that broke into violence between the Shia majority in the south of Iraq or the Kurds in the north and a new Sunni regime based in Baghdad. So, there are a whole lot of things there.

Syria, again, I suspect the European, and, indeed, the British view, is rather different. The present President of Syria worked in London for a long time. His wife was, I think, born in London -- certainly educated here and brought up. There are certainly very unpleasant aspects of the regime, but one doesn't see it as a wicked regime that must be removed. It needs to be reformed. But moving from where we are to a better regime certainly, I don't think, requires the wholesale displacement of the Iraqi system.

MS. BODNAR: If we look to the issue of terrorism and the war on terrorism, which seems to be global right now, could an American-led victory in Iraq curb terrorism by other organizations, like Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad, in the region?

MR. HOPKINSON: I think it would be more likely to foster it, at least in the short term. If an American-led invasion led to a change of regime, which, following a sort of domino theory, led to general reform throughout the Middle East, that would be fine. And, in due course, one might drain the swamp of terrorism. On the other hand, what it could do, particularly if the Palestine-Israeli conflict were still going on and had not been addressed by the United States, would produce -- more would be martyrs, more would be terrorists, who would be striking out against those who were presented as the enemies of Islam, the supporters of Israel, the new colonialism, the new Crusaders.

Host: William Hopkinson is a visiting Fellow at the Center for International Studies at Cambridge University in Britain, and a former British Defense Department Official. He spoke with VOA's Pat Bodnar.

VNN/PB/RCS