By Francesca Davis
United States military action against Iraq could trigger a world war, Russian President Boris Yeltsin warned on February 4. In a meeting with first deputy prime minister Anatoly Chubais, Yeltsin commented, "Clinton's actions could lead to a world war. He is acting too brazenly there. One must be more careful with such weapons and not make threats to lob over planes and bombs."
The Russians are right to be concerned about the situation in the Gulf. Just as in the Gulf War, the attack being planned by Washington is intended to assert the US "right" to protect its economic and political interests in the Arab world regardless of the needs and rights of its inhabitants.
And if the US can use force or the threat of force to get its way in Iraq, why should it not later consider doing the same in Georgia, Azerbaijan or Turkmenistan?
The demand that UN inspectors seeking "weapons of mass destruction" be given access to eight presidential palaces is merely a pretext. Saddam Hussein has undermined the pretext by inviting a delegation of US members of Congress and representatives of countries on the UN Security Council or UN Special Commission to inspect the eight sites.
Over the last week the Russian government has initiated negotiations aimed at resolving the crisis and urged the US not to launch a military strike.
Yeltsin's warning demonstrates that the end of the Cold War has not brought a new era of peace and harmony. Despite no longer having the pretext of a "communist menace", the US intends to enforce its will militarily wherever it can get away with it. If they don't exist, new villains can always be invented to justify intervention.
Recognising this, the Arab governments that in 1991 endorsed war as a means of driving Iraqi forces from Kuwait are now refusing active support for the US despite Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's arm-twisting tour of the region.
Other US allies in 1991 have also indicated opposition to the US war plans. The French government has said publicly that it will not participate in an attack on Iraq.
China has expressed its opposition to a military strike in words that indicate concerns similar to those expressed by Yeltsin. Foreign Minister Qian Qichen told the media that he had informed Albright by telephone of China's position.
"China is extremely and defiantly opposed to the use of military force", Qian said, "because its use will result in a tremendous amount of human casualties and create more turmoil in the region and could even cause new conflicts."
The Russian and Chinese vetoes make it unlikely that US President Clinton will be able to win Security Council endorsement for attacks on Iraq. In fact, Washington is claiming that past Security Council resolutions are sufficient "authorisation" for whatever it decides to do now.
So far only Britain and Australia are openly backing the US, and only Britain has sent aircraft to the Gulf.
The issue for Saddam Hussein seems to be the lifting of the economic blockade that has wrought untold misery on the Iraqi people since 1991.
Iraq claims that the UN Special Commission, in charge of destroying Baghdad's weapons of mass destruction, has deliberately procrastinated under pressure from the US. Until the commission has finished, the US refuses to allow the sanctions to be lifted.
According to a report from Washington by Hugo Gurdon in the London Telegraph, a three-day intense air war is planned to start once the Winter Olympics in Japan are over on February 22. Presumably the US government doesn't want any distraction from the CNN coverage of its show of military strength.