Sam Guthrie’s first piece for Webdiary is in Howard at end of credibility line on Iraq. He has a masters degree in Political Science and International Relations.
The victory of the Zapatero Socialist Workers Party (PSOE) over the Aznar Government in the recent Spanish elections has induced wide spread speculation that a �wind of change� is sweeping through the so called Coalition States.
Commentators have suggested that the devastating defeat of the Spani sh Popular Party (PP) indicates a similar fate may await the Bush, Blair and Howard Governments as their populations condemn the war in Iraq. Such speculation comes amid reports that Spain�s new Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero is intending to withdraw all of the 1300 Spanish troops that have so far played a peace keeping role with the Coalition in Iraq.
Out of either a sincere fear for the consequences of this or to score domestic political points through instilling such fear, Governments in the Coalition have claimed that a Spanish withdrawal from Iraq would bring needless destruction to the occupied country and send a message to terrorist organisations that bombings are effective tools to bring about change in Western policies.
Such claims are simplistic and misleading, as they frame the debate in a �black and white�, either/or analysis similar to the belligerent �you�re either with us or against us� rhetoric of the Bush Doctrine which took us to Iraq in the first place.
The current interpretations of the PSOE and Spain�s options have been framed as follows: EITHER 1) remain with the Coalition in Iraq and continue to fight the war on terror, OR 2) withdraw entirely from the war against terror and hand the terrorists a victory.
Ironically such narrow analysis is mirrored in its impracticality by the equally black and white analysis coming from left wing commentators. Their analysis is that as the war in Iraq was illegal and opposed by vast proportions of the public, we should immediately withdrawal. That is EITHER 1) we withdraw from Iraq as we were wrong to go there in the first place OR 2) we stay and remain in violation of International Law, Moral Law and the demands of the public which ultimately will result in a Spanish style defeat for all Governments involved.
By framing this debate in such basic either/or terms, both sides are failing to understand the fluidity of international politics and succeeding only in crippling our policy options in the cess pit of �fit for sound bite� black and white analysis. Whilst this may benefit their short term political aspirations it will not aid the suffering citizens of Iraq, nor will make the world safe from the fascism of fundamentalist terror. As banal as the allusion is, de Bono is right. We need to �think outside the square�.
The major danger we face in fighting the war on terrorism is to allow our forces to be divided. As Foreign Minister Downer expressed during a fleeting moment of �spin-free� clarity in last night�s Lateline interview:
�What they’re doing with the Iraq issue is trying to divide western countries, both internally and between those countries, in order to weaken our resolve to fight terrorism…�
That is an accurate assessment and describes a tactic that has been used by �terrorist� organisations in Afghanistan, Algeria, South Africa and Vietnam, indeed through out history. (Obviously the label �terrorist� is debatable in some of these examples. I chose it only as a reproduction of the description adopted by those involved in the fight against such forces.)
Historically terrorist organisations take the view that, unable to compete with their enemy in brute strength, they must attack using strategic means. As Sun Tzu said: �What is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy�s strategy. The next best is to disrupt his alliances.�
This is exactly the strategy al-Qaeda has taken, using the invasion of Iraq to sap the once strong support of the United States. Opportunistic as always they have run to the moral defense of Iraq, a dictatorship they loathed on religious grounds, and used it as a rallying point against the US throughout the Middle East and indeed Europe.
Their cause has been aided by the determination of the Bush Administration to alienate and divide its allies through sheer arrogance and unforgivable policy narrowness. The tunnel vision of the �with us or against us� mantra that ran through the 2002 US National Security Strategy (NSS) and the accompanying rhetoric displayed a black and white view of the world comparable to the authoritarian ideologies at the heart of the fundamentalists themselves.
It had the effect of dismantling the multilateral alliances that had been built in the face of 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan, and may have limited the exchange of strategic ideas, operational assistance, and limitless intelligence between Europe and the US.
Not only did such tunnel vision cause the splintering of alliances and alienation of friends, it profoundly limited the strategic options of the United States. By formulating policy with the �black and white� interpretation of the world as displayed in the NSS the US limited its options in a war that, by its very nature, must be fought with high levels of fluidity and adaptability.
We must remember that whilst the mindset of the fundamentalists is equally as narrow as that of Neo-Conservative America, their strategy is not. Terrorists are a fluid, non-linear fighting force who adapt themselves to their surroundings. Unlike them we, as allies of the US, have allowed our strategy in the war on terror to become as equally limited as the rhetoric of our mindset. Thus our options have been reduced profoundly.
This black and white analysis has continued in the wake of Spain�s change of Government. Since Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero�s rather candid assessment of the Iraq war, (he claimed it “divided more than it united”, that “the occupation has been managed badly”, and that “you can’t organise a war with lies,”) tunnel vision commentators asserted that the Spanish withdrawal of troops from Iraq would inspire other coalition states to do the same nad mean a profound victory for the terrorists both inside Iraq and those responsible for the train bombings in Madrid.
A White House official said Mr. Bush wanted to make it “clear to all around the world that nations cannot make a separate peace with terrorists”.
David Gergen, former communications adviser to several U.S. presidents, said the Spanish Prime Minister�s words were �a terrible message to send, it’s very divisive,” and that “this weakens U.S. policy in trying to bring unity to the West as we try and fight terrorism”.
Such sentiments were echoed by our own Foreign Minister:
“[I also said] we very much hoped that they wouldn’t withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq, that it was enormously important that the international community sent a strong message to Al Qaeda �that we will not weaken in the face of terrorism… It’ll be interpreted in some parts of the world as a great victory for the terrorists who committed the atrocity of March 11.”
And the Polish Prime Minister:
“Revising our positions on Iraq after terrorist attacks would be to admit that terrorists are stronger and that they are right.”
And the Dutch Prime Minister:
“We cannot leave a country like Iraq on its own�Because of terror you can’t just say: now we say no to them.”
As I have indicated, the other side of the debate is no better and even provides some credence to the panic displayed by Coalition commentators who fear the developments in Spain will lead to a turn of the political tide and universal acceptance that the war was indeed illegal and strategically ill-advised. Even if this view point is correct, to formulate policy on such matters of principle � �we were right you were wrong� � is childish and irrelevant.
Groups like the UK based ‘Stop the War Coalition’ claim that:
�Any war will simply add to the numbers of innocent dead, cause untold suffering, political and economic instability on a global scale, increase racism and result in attacks on civil liberties.”
Similarly Bob Brown of the Australians Greens stated in a Media Release that:
�While no nation can subjugate its policies to terrorism it was a double mistake for Australians to be sent to Iraq… The government) should bring our military personnel home first.�
The fact is we are in Iraq NOW, we have invaded and now we occupy. And because of this we have responsibilities both to the people of Iraq and our own strategic goals for global security. To dismiss these responsibilities and desert the country purely on claims that we shouldn�t have gone there in the first place, is naive.
If we pack our bags and go home, not only will we be in breach of The Fourth Geneva Convention, which clearly states our responsibility as occupiers, we will leave the country in the clutches of an almost certain civil war from which will grow further terror attacks against innocent citizens both in Iraq and elsewhere.
To seek to desert Iraq because we should not have gone there in the first place is equally as black and white and strategically blinkered as the position that claims we must remain in the coalition of the willing despite the �winds of change� blowing out of Spain.
What should we do? Let’s return to the change in Spain and reassess the comments of Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. In addition to leveling refreshing criticism at Bush and Blair for the invasion of Iraq the new Spanish Prime Minister said the following:
�I want to create an alliance against violence and all kinds of terrorism.�
�The Socialist Party is going to keep relationships with all the governments of the world, including the United States, even though we don’t agree on some issues.�
Neither of these statements are acknowledged by commentators whose black and white interpretation of Spain�s options lead them to believe the Socialist Government is on the verge of withdrawing completely from the war against terrorism and turning its back on the alliances fighting this war. Nor do they pay heed to the following notable statement, repeated more than once since the election:
�If the U.N. doesn’t take control of Iraq, I think Spanish troops are going to come back, and the date is June 30… I don’t think the administration in Iraq is the best.”
Here we see the Prime Minister acknowledging the ineffective nature of the US led invasion and occupation of Iraq. He is moving his Government away from the either/or of the former Aznar Popular Party and drawing closer to the alleged �old Europe� of France and Germany, who through out the entire debate have subverted black and white analysis by demanding the consideration of �other options� in dealing with Iraq. What these other options are is made obvious by the above statement. Spain will withdraw IF the United Nations doesn�t take control.
The UN is the answer to the black and white tunnel vision displayed since the US walked away from the institution in 2002. It symbolises the triumph of multiple perspectives and the consideration of many points of view. It also allows for the creation of strategy to win the war on terror in Iraq and the rest of the world without the susceptibility of that strategy running aground on the either/or, �our way or the high way�, blinkers of Neo Conservative America.
Previously both Germany and France claimed that Iraq was not a front in the war against terror, that the dispute with Saddam Hussein was immaterial to the battle against al-Qaeda. Correct or not at the time, it is undeniable that Iraq is NOW a terrorist hive and possibly the most active front in this war. This means all countries dedicated to fighting against terrorism, all members of the UN Security Council who signed Resolutions 1378 and 1373 and all signatories of the General Assembly 56/1 resolution in the wake of the September 11 attacks, have an obligation to combat terrorism in Iraq. This will only take place under a multi-lateral UN mandate.
The Zapatero PSOE Government�s position is analogous with this. Whilst blinkered media and political commentators have dwelt on their threats to withdraw Spanish forces from Iraq, they continue to ignore Zapatero�s repeated calls for the UN to return to the country to play an administrative and peace keeping role as the Iraqi Interim Government clambers to its feet.
Supporters of the occupation of Iraq state three reasons why it is necessary for the Coalition to remain: 1) Due to our responsibilities as occupiers under the Geneva convention; 2) Due to our commitment to fight terror and not submit to it; 3) Due to the need to stabilise the region now at risk by a potential civil war inside Iraq. These factors would all be addressed and satisfied by a UN administrative force replacing the American led coalition. A UN administrative force however would have the additional benefit of shifting the perception of the international force from that of occupier to stabiliser.
It is universally acknowledged that the battle in Iraq and indeed against terrorism generally is also a battle for �hearts and minds�. With the US as the occupying force al Qaeda has infinite propaganda with which to create divisions amongst, not only the Iraqi people and the Interim Government, but, as we have seen, amongst the Western allies themselves. Under a multilateral UN administration this occu pying force takes on the form of a peace keeping outfit thus sidelining the perception of the occupation as mere US imperialism.
Whilst it can be argued that the presence of the UN will not sooth the Islamists, it is not the Islamists whose hearts and minds we are wishing to win, but those of the Iraqi people themselves. The terrorists are responsible for the killings of many Iraqis including the bombings early this month in Karbala and Baghdad which targeted Shia Muslims. Working alongside the Iraqi people, indeed dying alongside them as allies and peace keepers, not occupiers, will pave the way for a cooperation with the citizens of Iraq currently rendered impossible due to the Coalition�s inability to sideline the terrorist�s anti-American rhetoric.
Already the Interim Government is almost unanimous in its call for the reentry of the UN into Iraq. Even Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who held reservations after the UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi reported that elections were not possible in Iraq before June, has now voiced his support for the multilateral organisation to play a large role in supporting the new Iraqi constitution and ultimate goal of self Governance.
All such developments are possible if we shake off the shackles of a policy that, through its failure to make the world a safer place since 9/11, has already proved past its use by date.
Similarly, those who have opposed the strategies of the war on terror stop trying to justify the total withdrawal from Iraq – they are failing to address themselves to the state of the world NOW.
The �winds of change� blowing out of Spain could sound the death knell of blinkered policy analysis which has compromised our ability to fight with the fluidity and adaptability necessary to win any war against terrorism.
The Zapatero Socialist Workers Party is initiating a reassessment which does indeed symbolise a change in the global order. If we look closely we see that like Zapatero there are a number of multilateralists waiting in the wings to take there place on centre stage: Kerry in the US, Latham in Australia and the desperate search already occurring within the UK�s New Labour to find a replacement for Blair.
The black and white policy makers understand this and over the next few weeks they may become more influenced by a new Spanish Prime Minister plucked from political obscurity. We will see movement where there was none before. Bush towards the UN, Blair towards the EU.
The tables of perception have been turned, and those who have fixed their colours to the mast of tunnel vision will be blown away by the resurgence of UN multilateralism: the only Coalition with diversity of opinion enough to keep us safe, and win this war.