Though consensus appears to have emerged in Washington to soften the embargo against Iraq, President George W. Bush has yet to cement his new administration's policy towards Saddam Hussein, analysts say.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell, just back from his first visit to the Middle East, appeared receptive to the argument put forward by regional allies that tough trade sanctions were hurting the people of Iraq, rather than Saddam's regime.
Powell spoke of the need to "relieve the burden on the Iraqi people" by lifting restrictions on trade in civilian goods while strengthening sanctions aimed at curbing Saddam's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.
His comments fell in line with views expressed by France, Russia and China, whose efforts to persuade the United Nations to ease sanctions on Iraq now appear likely to pay off. But while easing of sanctions has apparently been agreed, Washington has still to hammer out an overall policy towards Iraq, experts say.
"It is clear that a change in sanctions will be part of the policy, but it is not clear what President Bush intends to do about no-fly zones, military force and support for the Iraqi opposition," said Meghan O'Sullivan of the Brookings Institution.
O'Sullivan is among those who believe that the US public and others in the Bush administration including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld may view the easing of sanctions as weakness in the face of a defiant Saddam.
"The problem for Powell is that American people will see his proposals on changed sanctions as going easy on Saddam," she said.
Rumsfeld, his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, and a number of top Republicans in Congress are supporters of supplying arms to the Iraqi opposition, a stand opposed by Powell, according to the New York Times.
Another Washington analyst, Phyllis Bennis, hears a number of competing voices inside the Bush administration, including the "hawks" who were behind Bush's decision to launch a recent punitive air strike near Baghdad and the pragmatists for whom keeping the Gulf oil flowing is the top priority.
Said Bennis, of Washington's Institute for Policy Studies: "There are competing domestic pressures. We have an oil-focused administration; their goal is to prioritize a Middle East policy away from Israel-Palestine and more towards Gulf oil states and a strong anti-sanctions component with free traders like Dick Cheney.
"On the other hand, there are hawks like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld who are much more military-driven." She said an important step for the United States had been to recognize the failure of sanctions. "The notion of recognizing that sanctions have failed is an important development," she said. "Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children have been dying through the sanctions."
However, O'Sullivan and others credited the sanctions with preventing Saddam from pursuing his goal of military reconstruction.
James Phillips, a Middle East specialist at the conservative Heritage Foundation said that sanctions could be considered a success and said that in return for any relaxation, there should be tighter restrictions on military power and more cooperation in stopping oil smuggling. — (AFP, Washington)
by Jean-Michel Stoullig
© Agence France Presse 2001
© 2001 Mena Report (www.menareport.com)
