Or Ukraine and the first results of the Iraq crisis
By Yevhen
MARCHUK, People's Deputy of Ukraine
The past year was marked by deepening international problems The financial
crisis reached world scope, hitting both Russia and Brazil. India and Pakistan
with their series of nuclear tests forced their way into the nuclear club
Saber-rattling is still heard in the former Yugoslavia and Persian Gulf.
The breakdown of the rules of the game on the international arena is becoming
obvious. The bombardment of Iraq despite opposition from three of the five
permanent members of the Security Council became an almost natural summation
of the outgoing year. Most importantly, it is a serious stage in the destruction
of the postwar world order.
Such a reconsideration of the world order has a certain objective logic.
Only those mechanisms based on the real laws of mechanics are viable. Disputes
can be settled only within the framework of a world order that takes into
consideration the real weight of the players. And this weight is gradually
changing.
THE PLAYERS
The United States did not only win every war of worldwide scope in the
twentieth century. From the two World Wars it emerged substantially strengthened
and more influential in the world. This also happened after the end of
the Cold War. What we see today is not only the consolidation of the results
of America's winning the Cold War but in a sense the summation of all three
US victories. The United States is now getting used to its role as the
world's undisputed leader. Unfortunately, this role has outstripped its
role as leader of the democratic world courageously fighting the evil empire.
When the great evil empire fell, it has to immediately turn to smaller
ones. Here we see the tradition of American politicians to affirm themselves
with sword (or more precisely, with Tomahawk) in hand.
The United States is attempting to create a new order, by eliminating
any institutions which could place obstacles to such "effective" order
on a world scale. G-7 is gradually supplanting the UN Security Council.
NATO is pushing aside the OSCE, because the US is trying to give the alliance
an absolutely different character. State Secretary Made line Albright's
message to the recent conference of NATO foreign ministers was quite symptomatic,
containing the idea of preemptive nuclear strikes, acts outside NATO's
area of responsibility, and the use of force without UN Security Council
authorization.
Great Britain is not merely a bridge between the European Union and
the US nor just an old reliable American ally. Recently London has found
itself involved in an increasing number of events affecting Old World interests,
and the Iraq crisis is no exception. One can cite several other developments
that made headlines worldwide: regulating the Kosovo problem, the Anglo-French
defense treaty, Pinochet trial, and even last year's Nobel Peace Prize
awarded for actions to regulate the conflict in Northern Ireland.
Russia obtained an enormous legacy from the former Soviet Union, but
the Federation's current capabilities cannot be remotely compared to those
of the USSR, and they continue to decline. Russia reacts nervously to any
attempt to ignore it in games on the international arena, the more so that
for several centuries European countries (obviously much more than other
adversaries) dealt heavy blows to Russia's prestige, and each time it took
the empire much effort to recover and become even stronger. But every Narva
defeat would be followed by a Poltava victory, something we Ukrainians
remember all too well. Its UN Security Council veto is of critical importance
to Russia now that its international prestige has been seriously undermined
by economic problems. This is virtually its only in weapon allowing Moscow
to protect its allies like Belgrade or Baghdad.
China has indisputably outgrown its role as a regional leader. Its economic
presence is noticeable the world over, on the markets of both developing
and most developed nations. Some analysts believe that it was only China's
refusal to devalue the yuan which saved the Japanese economy from total
catastrophe. The US President's visit to China, especially his participation
in the ceremony in Beijing's Tian'an Men Square, showed that for Washington
(as well as for many other leading countries) cooperation with China is
of such critical importance, that Washington is prepared to close its eyes
to serious differences on a number of political issues. China showed a
sharply negative reaction to the Iraq air strike without UN Security Council
sanction.
France has played in a number of political games where its interests
did not exactly tally with those of the United States. Paris has always
adhered to its own position and showed little affection for Washington's
desire for hegemony. The French opposed the Iraq strikes.
Any attempt to connect the leading countries' attitude toward the bombing
of Iraq and their attitude toward the UN Security Council would be an oversimplification.
There are also other political and economic motives. Still, the reactions
by Germany and Japan are quite significant. Both are openly dissatisfied
with how the Security Council permanent members are determined according
to the member's nuclear status. They approved the use of force without
Security Council authorization. But perhaps this was mere coincidence?
MOTIVES
Oil is said to be the lifeblood of geopolitics. This is undoubtedly
true of the game being played in the Middle East. Iraq was able to become
of vital interest to certain permanent Security Council members. France,
for example, controls 15-16% of exchanges under the Oil for Food Program
(In 1995 the UN voted to allow Iraq to export unlimited quantities of oil
to purchase food and medicine - Ed.). Arab interests are also taken
into account, and Russian and Chinese participation in the program is increasing.
China does not extract oil on any sizable scale, is interested in Iraq's
output, and is wary of oil cost increase which an attack on that country
could provoke. Russia expects Iraq to repay its debt of $6-7 billion worth
of armaments for its half-defeated army. Big Russian companies like Lukoil
have an interest in developing Iraq's promising oil fields.
The United States and Great Britain are on the other side of the barricade.
Starting in the early 1990s, Iraq has been constantly present in US foreign
policy, so everything spoken and written about this country and Saddam
Hussein reminds one of Cato's aphorism, "Carthage must be destroyed." Most
international analysts link the latest attack on Iraq to the beginning
of impeachment proceedings in the US. They believe that Bill Clinton's
attempt to strengthen his position by means of a quick peacemaking mission
to the Middle East was a failure and that the only alternative remaining
was a blitzkrieg in Iraq.
The British position, apart from obvious political interests and allied
commitments, is attributed to London's resolve to prevent any further fall
of oil prices. The cost of UK oil extraction is such that its profitability
is questionable even now. A blow to Iraq could stop the steady world oil
price decline.
Unlike Great Britain, Saudi Arabia is interested in oil costs being
on a downward curve, so its leadership, despite their traditional loyalty
to the US, unexpectedly condemned the bombing. This was another proof that
oil dictates politics and that such politics depends not only on political
affiliations but also on the market situation. In other words, no one can
expect unquestioning loyalty from countries rich in oil.
It should be noted that the attack on Iraq, lightning though it was,
had been planned long in advance with all the economic pros and cons carefully
weighed. The port of Umm Qasr oil terminals near Basra were destroyed,
further complicating oil export by the southern sea route and its being
smuggling out of Iraq through Iran. However, this is not likely to damage
the interests of the countries involved in the Oil for Food Program. As
previously oil can be pumped through pipelines to Turkish Mediterranean
ports, which will benefit Turkey as a US ally, although Istanbul greeted
the air strikes without enthusiasm.
The diplomatic preparations were also quite thorough. Iraq never received
the kind of support it had counted on even in the Arab world. In other
words, the US operation was a tactical success, although it failed to postpone
the impeachment proceedings. But strategically Operation Desert Fox can
be questioned in many respects.
RESULTS
The results of the US air strikes are still open to question. The bombing
made Iraq an even more attractive business partner. Oil remains its greatest
asset. The country has been seriously demilitarized, which means that any
further military intrusion is becoming less justifiable. The Security Council
sanction is likely to be lifted soon due to growing opposition within the
international community.
Iraq offers quite a range of opportunities for construction firms and
is badly in need of consumer goods, medications, etc.
At the start of the operation discovery of new "effective" means to
solve international problems was discussed - by bombing "wrong" regimes.
I think that the US air attacks on Iraq will convince Washington that such
actions hold little promise. Although neither the United States nor Great
Britain was formally isolated internationally because of their actions
in Iraq, the support they did receive was basically formal. It is interesting
that President Clinton ended his December 16, 1998 message on the attack
with "And may God bless America," while the Vatican described the US operation
as an act of aggression. If responses to the strikes when they began were
mixed, their end was welcomed by all.
There were heavy clouds over Iraq, followed by a thunderstorm, and now
beginning another operation will be anything but easy. The predictions
turned out to be unfounded. Nothing happened to Hussein or his regime.
Today he needs only enough military potential to deal with the opposition,
and the Iraqi dictator has it. Otherwise he seems content with the political
dividends. And possibly with the economic ones, knowing that putting off
the cancellation of sanctions will become still more difficult.
Much has been written recently that the attack on Iraq without the Kremlin's
knowledge and consent signifies the twilight of Moscow's might. Less has
been said about Moscow getting a tactical but nonetheless powerful trump.
Now the Kremlin can pressure the IMF by threatening to withdraw from anti-Iraqi
sanctions if the fund does not provide what Russia needs. And there is
nothing anyone will be able to do about it. Formally, the US and UK were
the first to ignore the Security Council's status. The Russians will block
any comprehensive UN sanctions with its Security Council veto. And the
West will gain nothing by acting unilaterally, because (a) the West is
not likely to be unanimous on any such moves and (b) real Russian-Western
cooperation is limited these days, Western assistance is insignificant,
trade is paralyzed after the August crisis, and no understanding has been
reached with creditors.
As for China, France, and the Arab states, Russia's withdrawal from
the sanctions against Iraq would be an excellent example to immediately
follow lest they lose their own positions in Iraq.
MORAL
The powerful world's position is more or less clear, and Iraq's destiny
will be subject to long and complicated bargaining. Still, what has happened
has created a precedent which in one way or another affects the interests
of countries uninvolved in the conflict. This precedent will prove very
important. It seems possible that by relying on military force one can
ignore the opinion of most permanent Security Council members! In other
words, a green light has been given to reallocating spheres of influence
using force across the world, illegal as this is in terms of international
law.
Is there any incentive for second echelon countries to join the disarmament
movement? Definitely not. If you want to be respected you must not disarm;
you must arm yourself well or join a powerful defense alliance. There is
another way, less expensive but more gruesome: supporting terrorism, that
is, to be prepared to repay instantly any diktat by force. Such
logic does not make our world a safer place to live in. How is one to regard
all this campaigning against "international terrorism," knowing that there
is "state terrorism" which, although hushed up, is practiced on a far larger
scale, costing human lives, and commited with impunity?
I want to emphasize the danger of not only using force, but also of
any actions bypassing the existing system of political and legal containment
and counterbalance, sidestepping the UN Security Council and norms of international
law. Some may take a dim view of vetoes being cast by Russia, France, or
China, but this is a perfectly democratic norm. If the United States and
its allies stand for democracy and domestic political pluralism they must
take a similar stand in the international arena. It would be wrong to consider
international institutions like the Security Council as an obsolete computer
unable to cope with the problems of the year 2000. It is just that a more
effective vehicle to tackle the existing and hypothetical problems has
not yet been developed. The modern world is built on competition, and the
eternal conflict of interests. It is difficult to please everybody, so
deals have to be made.
The act also has de facto incapacitated the very mechanism of
international multilateral guarantees. Who can be sure now that the world's
remaining superpower will not use force again contrary to the existing
accords? There are no longer any restraining legal factors. Military factors?
This would be a prologue to World War III. What real guarantees can Ukraine
have under the circumstances? Suppose any new NATO member suddenly remembers
about its "national interests" and claims part of Ukraine's territory?
Who can guarantee that the United States will not come out in support of
such claims the way Poland wholeheartedly supported the US attack on Iraq?
Another alarming fact is the scope of restrictions imposed on Iraqi
sovereignty and lack of adequate response by the United Nations. I think
that today's powerful integrationist trends have started questioning the
notion of sovereignty prematurely. We should not forget neutral countries,
which are not members of powerful military-political and economic-regional
alliances. Could neighboring states or world leaders try to impose their
will on them? What happens if, for example, the world's high and mighty
present Ukraine with an ultimatum demanding closure of the Chornobyl station
in 2000 without offering any aid? In other words, contrary to Ukraine's
interests and actual capabilities? Would not Ukraine then find itself in
a position similar to that of Iraq or Yugoslavia? Ukraine gave up the world's
third largest nuclear arsenal and got practically nothing in return. It
would seem that in general international structures should keep their interference
within reasonable limits.
Major emphasis is still on how well the international community understands
the vital economic interests of "all those other countries." It took Moses
less time to guide the Hebrews to the Promised Land than it does the industrialized
countries with their economic imperatives to get Black Africa out of the
economic wilderness. In fact, other countries are included in that number,
as evidenced by the world financial crisis. After all, Moses did lead his
people out of the wilderness, so what possible conclusions can Ukraine
arrive at, considering the situation?
Modern Western European researchers admit that even Marx in his teaching
about the development of capitalism in Europe practiced a differentiated
approach: Prussia and France went their own way, different from that of
Great Britain, although all showed similar results. "How could one expect
countries and regions with varying economic conditions, traditions, degrees
of susceptibility to modernization to show identical results when adhering
to the same scheme?" asks Serge Halimi in Le Monde Diplomatique
(October 1998).
The United States has exported the Anglo-Saxon economic model all over
the globe. Bill Clinton assures one and all that where there is trade there
can be no war. The IMF, on the other hand, admits that the spread of capitalism
as economic engineering securing other nations' culture and politics almost
always leads to confrontation. Which of these statements is true?
The Ukrainian leadership may well find itself in an extremely unpleasant
situation. On the one hand, in accordance with the investor's right to
protection against disorder (submitted by the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development in line with the Multilateral Investment Treaty),
this government will be responsible for whatever happens to an investor,
including civilian officials' conduct, protest actions, boycotts, anything
that might hurt his business. On the other hand, it will be held answerable
by the people for infringements on civil liberties.
Finally, what is to prevent Ukraine from being held hostage in the struggle
of powerful countries for regional influence? What about the new hotbeds
of Russian-US tensions in the Caucasus and Central Asia? Back in August
1997 the Russian President protested against the Caucasus being proclaimed
an area of US national interests: "The Americans are beginning to penetrate
this area and are not ashamed to say out loud that it is an area of their
national interest." Boris Yeltsin stressed that settling the situation
in the Caucasus must correspond to Russian national security interests.
In the summer of 1998, President of the US Eurasian Foundation Mason pointed
out that certain US experts are discussing the need to dispatch troops
to the Caspian area to secure oil extraction. So where are the limits to
such interventionism? How can this limit be set by a country striving to
achieve a global hegemony, Mr. Mason wonders. Indeed, and what about Ukraine's
economic interests, how are they considered in both cases, in view of the
fact that both the areas mentioned happen to be this country's major energy
suppliers?
Thus, Ukraine must not remain silent upon hearing such Cato-like slogans
from the great powers or throw itself in the arms of its Eastern or Western
neighbors, as proposed by certain Ukrainian lawmakers. Ukraine must state
its stand loud and clear, lest it find itself in Carthage's place.








