Insensitive bravado

THE VACUOUS BALLYHOO triggered by Washington to justify its latest airstrikes against Baghdad cannot fool the larger international community. With the exception, of course, of those who remain fixated on a time-warp about the perceived malevolence and mass-destructive designs of Iraq's President, Mr. Saddam Hussein. The new U.S. President, Mr. George Bush, has manifestly shown himself to be short on creative diplomacy at this moment by opting for sterile militarism, indeed ridiculous adventurism, as his first major foreign policy exercise. He has exposed himself to the inexorable criticism that he is perhaps more inclined than might be wise to complete the unfinished anti-Hussein agenda of his father. As the President who savoured the final magical moments of a gradual `victory' in the Cold War, the senior Mr. Bush virtually institutionalised a modern-day Manichaean perception in America's foreign policy. Mr. Hussein is seen by the U.S. as the world's quintessential evil genius nurtured by the primordial uncertainties of the evolving post-Cold War era. Not relevant, though, to a harsh judgment about the latest U.S. action under the younger Mr. Bush is the incompleteness of the ongoing international debate over the degree of Mr. Hussein's continued acceptability to the Iraqis themselves. There is also no credible shred of updated evidence now to indicate that Mr. Hussein's regime might have already ceased to pose a challenge to Washington's diplomatic ingenuity as it seeks to disarm him. Yet, the mood of the new Bushites as the President authorised last week's airstrike smacks of a diplomacy of utter disdain. Disregarded is not only Mr. Hussein but also the `legacy' of the just-retired American President, Mr. Bill Clinton, who in the end seemed to consider giving diplomacy a chance in dealing with the Iraqi dictator.

Mr. Bush has argued that the air raid was determined entirely by the compulsions of the U.S.-led multilateral ``coalition'', such as it exists, to safeguard its warplanes engaged in the ongoing enforcement of a ``no-fly zone'' just south of Baghdad. Aside from the debatable legality of the two ``no-fly zones'' over Iraq with no time-and-space constraints thereof, Mr. Bush's singular defence is that nothing sinister should be read into what he views as a ``routine mission''. He may have only a marginal point in his favour. The civilian casualties were not of horrific proportions in the new assault on Iraqi ``military'' targets, with initial reports indicating that at least one person was slain while several others were wounded critically or otherwise. However, Mr. Bush seems to have tossed Iraq straight on to the international centre-stage without having completed a ``review'' of this issue. The U.S. Secretary of State, Mr. Colin Powell, said only a few days ago that the ``review'' was still under way in respect of Iraq's suspected development of weapons of mass destruction and the related U.N. sanctions on Baghdad.

An important aspect of the `Powell doctrine' pertains to the notion of smart or streamlined sanctions so that the prolonged embargo will not harm the Iraqi people. Mr. Bush's knee-jerk policy defining the new airstrike flies in the face of the very idea of smart sanctions with its intrinsic emphasis on humanitarian ethos. This can only denote that an adventurist policy in regard to Iraq is in tune with the present Bush administration's cavalier spirit as reflected by its `sci-fi' pursuit of a missile defence system. Unfashionable it may be for any new President, but Mr. Bush need not regard as dangerously infectious Mr. Clinton's more evolved and nuanced foreign policy instincts. Towards the end of his presidency, Mr. Clinton explored a working dialogue with Iran on specific issues and seemed to cast his diplomatic net wider to deal with problems in West Asia including the Iraq imbroglio.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Next     : Driving with circumspection