Saddam Hussein is, as we all know, a brutal dictator. His regime is one of the most oppressive in the world. Worse, nothing
seems to change it.
In the past two years, Saddam has survived military defeat, creation of Kurdish safe havens, destruction of the worst of his war machine by
the United Nations, sanctions and "no-fly zones" - and he is still as prepared to push his luck diplomatically and militarily as he ever was. There
can be no doubt that his behaviour in the run-up to last week's raid on his country by American warplanes was designed to provoke a showdown.
Bui none of this provides an adequate rationale for the raids on Iraq. However frustrated the rest of the world might be with Saddam, a
demonstration of American airpower (backed rather half-heartedly by Britain and France) is not the way either to undermine his power or to get him to
change.
Indeed, the raids were precisely what Saddam needed to renew
his credibility among his subjects as a defender of the Arab nation against the
imperialist west. They were not full-scale war (which would be somewhat
difficult for the allied governments to sell back home) but they were big
enough to give fright (and kill civilians). Nothing could have suited Saddam
better.
More important, the raids have only the weakest of
justifications in international law. The "no-fly zones" in northern
and southern Iraq that they were designed to enforce have not been backed by
the UN: they were imposed by the US, Britain and France without any reference
to the UN. Yet they seem to carry far more weight than many UN resolutions -
particularly those on Israel.
In short, the raids have strengthened Saddam and reinforced
the impression throughout the Third World that the west operates an imperialist
policy based on double standards and flouting the law when it suits it. As
such, they sum up perfectly George Bush's approach to foreign policy since he
entered public life. Is it too much to hope that Bill Clinton really will turn
out to be a new broom?
… BUT WE SHOULD NOT
KOW-TOW TO CLINTON
Bill Clinton’s inauguration was just the sort of feel-good
event that everyone expected it to be. But he does not have much time to get
things right. His victory has raised expectations across the board in America,
particularly among those who have been hit by recession in the past couple of
years. If he does not get the economy working again, and fast, his honeymoon
will be short and the disillusionment deep.
Of course, no one knows whether he will succeed or not - a
fact that makes much of the British Labour Party's argument about what Mr
Clinton can teach it little more than hot air. Within six months, Mr Clinton
could be completely discredited, completely vindicated or, more likely,
something in between.
Nevertheless, there are good reasons for working on the
assumption that Mr Clinton will not work miracles. Most important, the US
economy is in a dire state and there are few indications that "Clintonomics"
has any real answer to the economic challenges posed by the Japanese sphere of
influence, to the decay of the inner cities or to the burgeoning budget
deficit. His policies on health and welfare are unimaginative and conservative.
But the problems do not stop with domestic policy. Mr
Clinton has given only the vaguest of signs that he wants to change the basis
of American foreign policy away from the shabby realpolitik inherited from
the cold war years and before. Most worrying, he has given good reason for the
world to suspect that he will be even easier on Israel than his predecessor.
It will be a little while before we can judge Mr Clinton
fairly on his record. But signs of his direction will be clear within three or
four months. The European left can hope for the best, but it must also keep an
open mind and avoid the temptation to kow-tow to Washington's new boss.
