25 February 2003
"Why Saddam Will Never Disarm," by William Shawcross
(Reprinted from The Observer) (900)
Permission has been granted to post on IIP Web sites, reprint, in
English and in translation, and distribute copies of William Shawcross
text by our Public Diplomacy offices and in the local press outside
the United States. Please note that the rights granted are
non-exclusive, that the author retains all copyright in the material,
and that no changes in the text are to be made without the express
written permission from author's agent ("Green & Heaton Ltd"). In any
reproduction of the article, or excerpts from it, carry the following
copyright notice:
"Copyright 2003 William Shawcross; first published in The Observer.
All rights reserved."
(begin byliner)
Why Saddam Will Never Disarm
By William Shawcross
-- William Shawcross says the Iraqi leader is prepared to go to any
lengths to hold on to his deadly weapons
Hans Blix, the United Nations' chief weapons inspector, has demanded
that Iraq destroy all its al-Samoud missiles that have been found to
exceed the UN's permitted range of 150 kilometres. Saddam may
acquiesce for tactical reasons - above all because such 'concessions'
would convince many people that the inspections are 'working' and that
an armed attack is not only unnecessary but grotesque.
But the reality to remember is that Saddam will never voluntarily give
up his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as resolution 1441 and 16
other resolutions demand. They are integral to his sense of his
regime. His record shows that he considers no cost too high to retain
his biological, chemical and whatever exists of his nuclear
capability.
In 1991, the surrender agreement ending the war in Kuwait specifically
guaranteed that Iraq would surrender its weapons of mass destruction
within 15 days. Till then sanctions, imposed after his invasion of
Kuwait, would remain. His refusal to do so has meant that the UN oil
embargo has stayed for 12 years, costing Iraq more than $180 billion
and its ordinary people great suffering. It is wrong to blame the
West, or the UN, for the starvation and deaths of Iraqi children -
Saddam is to blame and he considers it a small part of the price to
pay for his proscribed weapons.
Saddam's obsession with his WMD has deep roots at home as well as
abroad. First, he sees the threat of such weapons as a means of
internal control over the 60 per cent of Iraqis who are Shia. The use
of chemical weapons against the Kurds in 1998 taught the Shia the
dangers of revolt. In 1999 a Shia revolt in the town of Najaf was
crushed by Saddam's security forces accompanied by troops in white
uniforms wearing gas masks. People were terrified that Saddam was
about to gas them - with the weapons that Saddam denies having and for
which the UN is still vainly searching. The Shia have been mostly
cowed since.
WMD also helps to keep the regular armed forces in line, according to
Amatzia Baram, of the Saban Centre at the Brookings Institution in
Washington. They are controlled by the Special Security Organisation,
which is loyal to Saddam. This serves as a counterweight to the
regular army, whose officers Saddam does not trust. The army knows his
ultimate power lies elsewhere.
Abroad, the benefits seem even more obvious. Saddam believes that
Iraq's victory over Iran in 1998 was largely to do with Iraq's massive
use of chemical weapons. He also believes that that was one of the
principal reasons the Allies did not march on Baghdad in 1991.
Watching the stand-off with North Korea he may have concluded that
only nuclear weapons provide an unassailable deterrent.
His third incentive is his desire to become the unquestioned leader of
the Arab world. His failure to seize Kuwait's oil resources in 1991
convinced him that nuclear weapons were essential. With nuclear
weapons he would feel able to confront Israel in a spectacular way.
So WMD are tied into his sense of survival and his sense of destiny.
He is brilliantly cunning at dividing his enemies. But he also makes
spectacular misjudgments. He did not believe the allies would use
force to throw him out of Kuwait. But he saw his own survival as a
victory over his enemies. Equally victorious has been his campaign to
keep his WMD for the 12 years.
The worldwide opposition to the US/UK use of force may have convinced
him that tactics can get him off the hook again. This week, he could
surrender the al-Samoud missiles so that Blix can report a 'great
success' and thus split Saddam's enemies further. But he will never
disarm voluntarily as resolution 1441 demands.
The inspectors may find some banned materials, by luck, perseverance
and good intelligence - and because Saddam has made cunning tactical
concessions. They will never find the bulk of the illegal weapons. But
that is not their job. That is to monitor his voluntary disarmament.
He is not doing that and he never will. He is in clear breach of
resolution 1441 and he always will be. The decision the world faces
is: will we let him get away with it again? George Bush and Tony Blair
say No. They are right.
(William Shawcross is author of 'Deliver Us From Evil: Warlords,
Peacekeepers and a World of Endless Conflict'. He is on the board of
the International Crisis Group.)
(end byliner)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
