Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

DATE=3/6/03

TYPE=INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

TITLE=JONATHAN EYAL

NUMBER=3-576

BYLINE=REBECCA WARD

DATELINE=WASHINGTON

CONTENT=

/// EDITORS: THIS INTERVIEW IS AVAILABLE IN DALET UNDER SOD/ENGLISH NEWS NOW INTERVIEWS IN THE FOLDER FOR TODAY OR YESTERDAY ///

OPEN: Britain says it is trying to work out a compromise to gain U-N Security Council approval of a new resolution that would lay the groundwork for the use of military force against Iraq. So far, France, Russia and China have said they will oppose any U-N resolution calling for war against Iraq.

Jonathan Eyal (pron: Isle) is the Director of Studies at the Royal United Services Institute for Defense Studies in London. He tells News Now's Rebecca Ward the compromise will offer a few more days to the weapons inspectors -- giving a short window of opportunity to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

MR. EYAL: The purpose of this compromise is not the belief in London that actually the Iraqi dictator is suddenly going to discover how to cooperate with the international community, but much more in order to attract to the U.N. resolution, to the resolution that is put forward by the U.S. and Britain, the ordinary member of the Security Council, especially countries from Latin America and the Third World who are still uncomfortable with just moving to war. So, the problem for the British Prime Minister is how to get an extension of the inspectors' mandate but just for a few days, just enough in order to get support in the Security Council, but not too much so as not to draw out the inspections even further.

MS. WARD: Now, when you say a few days, are you talking a week or two weeks?

MR. EYAL: No. I think that the hint in London has been of a few days. We really are talking of a few days. Let us not forget that the British Prime Minister is very finely balanced, trying to persuade the American administration that it's still worth waiting a few days but, at the same time, trying to persuade the other members of the Security Council, and indeed his critics in Europe and in Britain, that the final last chance has been given to Saddam, that every opportunity has been tried in order to avoid a war.

The problem for the British is that if they accept an open-ended extension of the mandate for the inspectors, it is more or less like accepting the French position. And the French position seems to be that it is never the moment of reckoning with Saddam Hussein.

MS. WARD: I had an analyst tell me the other day that the differences between Britain and the United States and France and Germany is simply a difference of perception. So, if Hans Blix is a little bit ambiguous about whether or not Iraq is cooperating, France, which has veto power, could still prevent the resolution from going through even if they're given a few more days.

MR. EYAL: Absolutely. But the game is not to persuade either the Russians or the Chinese or, indeed, the French. The view from London is that these countries are a lost cause. For a variety of their own internal political reasons, these countries will hold out. The hope in London is that the resolution put forward by the Americans will obtain nine simple votes, with no veto -- namely, the absolute minimum in the Security Council -- and that France, as the leader of the anti-American pack in the U.N., will simply be isolated.

The calculation in London will be that if that happens, the French will not dare to actually impose a veto and will merely abstain, so that the resolution will pass. The real game, funny enough, has very little to do with Blix or with Iraq, and it is much more to do with maneuvering the French into a position where they have to come clean; either they abstain, in which case the resolution passes and they have egg on their face, or they veto, in which case they appear to be those blocking the Security Council.

MS. WARD: Some weeks ago there was speculation that France would eventually come on board, because they don't want to be left out.

MR. EYAL: There is still a speculation in London that at the end of the day the French will come on board with the operation in Iraq, like they have done, indeed, in the first Gulf War a decade ago. My personal feeling is that this is unlikely, if only because President Chirac of France has now staked his entire political credibility on an opposition to the U.S. plans and he has gone simply too far.

The French position has divided deeply Europe, has infuriated countries such as Italy, Spain or Britain and some countries in Eastern Europe, and has, in a way, boxed President Chirac in. If he is to give up now, then it would appear that the entire French policy up to now was a game. So, my feeling is that the French will go right until the end. The only question that remains is whether they will be prepared to actually exercise their right of veto. The problem for the French is that once they exercise the right of veto, this is it. Their whole influence over the U.N. and, indeed, over the operations in Iraq will be gone out of the window.

CLOSE: Jonathan Eyal (pron: Isle) is the Director of Studies at the Royal United Services Institute for Defense Studies in London.

VNN/DAB

NEB/