COLUMN Middle Ground

Author: Fahim Ahmed

Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech last week to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) may have succeeded in convincing some domestic critics of the Bush administration's war against Iraq, but proved unsuccessful in winning over key allies across the globe.
Powell's case was flawed because he failed to recognize that the burden of proof to demonstrate that Iraq is harboring weapons of mass destruction is on the United States, rather than on Iraq to prove the contrary.
It is for this exact reason that key allies such as France, Germany and Russia have favored the completion of the weapons inspection process administered by the U.N. over a premature escalation of the conflict through U.S.-led military action.
Powell produced several pieces of audio-visual evidence to the UNSC in an effort to support the United States' claim that Saddam Hussein's regime has not been fully cooperative with the U.N. weapons inspection team.
However, Powell failed to address the fact that neither the inspectors nor the United States have yet been able to present any conclusive evidence on Iraq's alleged development of weapons of mass destruction.
The lack of a 'smoking gun' continues to weaken the case for war against Iraq, and until such key evidence emerges, global support for military action in Iraq may remain unachievable.
Evidently, the Bush administration has adopted an end-game strategy concerning the Iraq issue.
It has continued in its efforts to achieve a multilateral consensus as demonstrated in its recent presentation to the UNSC and in its openness to a second U.N. resolution on Iraq.
The United States has made it unmistakably clear that it will indeed go ahead with military action if convinced that Iraq has failed to disarm, even if the United States is unable to rally the support of the United Nations.
Therefore, even though the United States prefers multilateral support, it does not deem that a lack thereof would deter its ultimate course of action.
The U.S. stance on Iraq is perhaps best captured by Powell's recent speech in which he declared: 'Multilateralism is not an excuse for inaction' (CNN.com, Jan. 26, 2003).
The United States' position risks alienating its key allies, such as the UNSC and NATO, in the Western world as well as its remaining allies in the Arab and Muslim world where anti-U.S. sentiments have been on the rise given American war-rattling.
France, one of the most vocal critics of the United States' aggressive stance, is a permanent member of the UNSC and appears poised to exercise its veto power in the event of a U.N. resolution to authorize military action.
Russia, another permanent member, has joined France in a declaration for the continuation of the weapons inspection process.
Germany, currently the President of the UNSC, has vociferously opposed military action and holds that the conflict must be resolved through diplomatic efforts.
Belgium, a NATO ally, has joined France and Germany in a veto against sending defensive military equipment to Turkey due to fears that such action may undermine diplomatic efforts.
The United States has been largely dismissive of this opposition.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared in a recent statement that France and Germany had been 'a problem' and that they represent 'Old Europe' (CNN.com, Jan. 22, 2003).
This arrogance in the U.S. attitude will inhibit the Bush administration's hopes to achieve multilateral support.
The Bush administration's posturing on Iraq risks losing key western allies, undermining the United Nations, and perpetuating anti-U.S. sentiments in the Muslim world, all at the pretext of an unsubstantiated and unverified threat to strategic interest.