Between the lines: Time to clarify stand on Iraq

By FRAN O'SULLIVAN

George Bush must sometimes wonder why he bothered to seek United Nations legitimacy to deal to Iraq in the first place.

The Bush Administration has been preparing for war on Iraq for more than 12 months. Forces have been amassed on Iraq's border in an overwhelming display of potential force. But neither Saddam nor the United Nations has yet blinked.

An exile offer has been made to Saddam. Baghdad may yet disarm, although on its leader's past performance this is unlikely.

This week the UN must decide where it stands on Iraq. So, too, will New Zealand as it becomes increasingly unlikely that war will be averted.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard has few doubts where this is all leading: Saddam has repeatedly defied UN resolutions to disarm. Opinion polls are running against Howard. But he is determined to make the case to the Australian people that weapons of mass destruction must be stopped from falling into the hands of rogue states. He will join Bush in Washington tomorrow to talk tactics on the broader front, including North Korea.

Howard's stand is instructive: "Part of the eternal Australian challenge is that we are a Western country in the Asia-Pacific region with strong links with Europe and North America" he told the Sydney Sun-Herald at the weekend.

"If the UN doesn't stand up to Iraq, they'll have no hope of standing up to North Korea. No hope."

Contrast this with the New Zealand position.

After hearing what United States Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations Security Council on Thursday, Prime Minister Helen Clark said it now looked very likely there would be "catastrophic consequences with or without UN Security Council approval".

Clark told NZPA that America had produced what looked like "pretty good evidence of a pattern of deception to ensure the [United Nations weapons] inspectors couldn't find out where anything is".

"It is the consequences of that the Security Council is going to debate," she added.

Clark again resorted to giving running odds on the prospect for invasion.

Countries have the right to ask for something more from their leaders: If Clark believes Powell has produced the goods, does she also believe the council should move swiftly to declare Iraq in breach of resolution 1441?

If so, why not come out and give some support to Howard and Bush?

These are the questions which are repeatedly raised behind scenes by the Howard and Bush Administrations with whom the Government is endeavouring to craft a three-way closer economic partnership.

Clark and her key Cabinet ministers have been privately briefed by a range of visiting top US military and intelligence players in recent times.

Little has been said publicly about the content of these discussions. Trade Negotiations Minister Jim Sutton was quickly slapped down by Clark for calling the talks US "arm-twisting".

But the Government's actions are telling: A frigate has been committed to the Gulf to support interdiction efforts with al Qaeda (it will not be turned home when war breaks out). Medical support will be offered to a UN- authorised invasion.

To gauge the Government's stance, it is important to look at its support base.

Many of the Clark Cabinet were peaceniks during the Lange Government of the 1980s which closed the door to US nuclear-powered warships.

The Labour Party has no truck with Bush's doctrine of pre-emption self-defence - unless first approved by the UN.

But New Zealand's independent stance has its own consequences.

When President Ronald Reagan ordered US Marines, Army Rangers and special forces to invade Grenada in 1983, citing a takeover of the tiny Caribbean island by "a brutal group of leftist thugs", New Zealand's Defence Minister at the time, David Thompson (a well-groomed Tory of a certain age), roundly condemned the US invasion.

Hours later Thompson was forced into an embarrassing backdown. Prime Minister Sir Robert Muldoon - who had put New Zealand gloriously into hock to US financial institutions - had no qualms over Reagan's failure to get UN approval. Muldoon knew instinctively just who buttered New Zealand's bread.

The Government has, in fact, had some years to form a policy on Iraq.

The National Security Adviser in the Clinton Administration, Samuel "Sandy" Berger, was at the centre of US policy towards Iraq, including four instances when military force was deployed against the regime.

At a hearing of the Senate armed services committee, Berger urged the Bush Administration to exhaust diplomatic efforts before taking any military action against Baghdad.

"Yes, there are a string of broken resolutions," Berger said, citing more than a dozen UN resolutions on disarmament Saddam Hussein has broken since the end of the Gulf War. "But we are in an entirely new circumstance here - contemplating a military invasion of Iraq. And the world expects us to test the non-military options before we move to the military one. We also owe that to the men and women who will be risking their lives if we decide to do so."

Berger was somewhat disingenuous: The Clinton Administration's own bombing raids on Iraq were unfortunately perceived as a Wag the Dog response to shift focus from the Lewinsky affair.

In his private capacity, Berger has given briefings to New Zealand business players which indicated the US Administration was very close to effecting "regime change" in Iraq before Clinton's loss of political legitimacy made that step impossible. New Zealand's Foreign Affairs officials would have been apprised of that.

For New Zealand, the consequences of war are two-fold.

The old truism that "when the US sneezes the world catches cold" inevitably applies. If the US rams home its advantage quickly, the New Zealand economy is sufficiently flexible to withstand a period of volatility without long-term damage.

The Asian Crisis washed through without bringing about the global collapse of 1929 proportions that many initially predicted.

If war drags on, or if a wave of global terrorism ensues, there will inevitably be reduced confidence at both business and consumer levels. Lower share prices and interest rates, a weakening US dollar against major currencies and higher oil prices will have an impact.

Most New Zealand economists have factored a short, sharp war into their calculations, along with a continued recovery for the US economy. But this is transitory stuff.

The most important consequence for New Zealand will be that arising from the political choice the nation makes. We are a minnow, but we also have a voice at the UN and have previously sat on the Security Council.

It is impossible to completely detach New Zealand from the US military plans. The armed forces do train together and intelligence is shared through the Echelon network with its surveillance of global communications.

Since September 11, the Government has run a smoke-and-mirrors foreign policy. But with war imminent, the Prime Minister should take the opportunity to spell out where New Zealand stands.

* Former WTO Director-General Mike Moore, the US Embassy's deputy chief of mission, Phil Wall, and Foreign Affairs deputy-secretary Richard Grant will share their insights into the impact of "Business in the new world disorder" at an economic intelligence briefing on Thursday. Executives wishing to attend should contact the Employers & Manufacturers Association (Northern) on (09) 367-0971.

The Herald is media partner for this briefing.

Herald feature: Iraq