TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/082790/0827011.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 9.8 KB | 210 lines

                "                                                              THE GULF, Page 30

COVER STORIES

Hanging Together -- or Separately


The global front against Iraq grows fragile as the U.S. forges
ahead of the pack

By LISA BEYER -- Reported by Cathy Booth/Ankara, John
Kohan/Moscow and William Mader/London


    As wondrous as it seemed at the time, the unanimity achieved
by the world community three weeks ago in condemning Iraq's
invasion of Kuwait was the easy part. The real test is hanging
together to defeat Saddam Hussein.

    In the first weeks of United Nations-sponsored sanctions,
there was heartening evidence of a determined international
effort to make the penalties stick. The exceptions proved the
rule: Sri Lanka continued to sell tea -- 1.1 million lbs. of
it each week -- to Iraq, arguing that its frail economy could
not afford to lose the export income. Bulgaria asked the U.N.
for an exemption, also pleading poverty. Most other nations
appeared ready to hold to the embargo, at least for a while:
even Switzerland broke a centuries-long tradition of neutrality
to join in the effort.

    On the military front, there was less cohesion. Initially,
the Bush Administration's dash to bolster Saudi Arabia's
defenses produced a groundswell of support. The British
contributed warplanes and ships to the effort, and an armada
comprising 71 ships from eight nations began to converge on the
Arabian Peninsula. But as the U.S. military buildup continued,
there was a palpable sense of hesitancy in many world capitals.
Asked whether non-American and non-British vessels would
actually fight against Iraq, a senior British diplomat replied,

simply fall apart."

    The single greatest source of concern was the U.S. move to
enforce a blockade of Iraq without a go-ahead from the U.N.
Security Council. Only Britain has publicly agreed with the
U.S. that the interdiction effort was legally justified. But
even if the U.S. had not forged ahead of the pack, differences
were bound to emerge within the grand coalition. The truth is
that each nation involved in the gulf crisis has a unique set
of interests, and some augur for more tenacity than others.

    BRITAIN. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher has never been one
to flinch from a challenge, and her country has a deep
historical interest in the Middle East. Thatcher has long
insisted that Saddam's pan-Arab assertiveness was a menace.
Moreover, she is always keen on reinforcing the "special
relationship" between London and Washington that was believed
to be on the wane with the advent of the Bush Administration.
Popular opinion strongly supports Thatcher's tough stand: a
recent Gallup poll showed that 83% of Britons approve of her
actions in sending forces to the gulf -- more than backed her
in the 1982 Falklands war.

    FRANCE. Although the government of President Francois
Mitterrand has dispatched six ships to the trouble zone, it has
assiduously distanced itself from the U.S. military effort.
Asked why no French troops are on the ground in Saudi Arabia,
Foreign Minister Roland Dumas declared, "Our help has not been
solicited." A more likely explanation is that France, as ever,
is averse to overt military cooperation with the U.S.

    France has been Iraq's second largest arms supplier behind
the Soviet Union. Until the embargo the country imported about
7% of its oil from Iraq, and until recently it paid for much
of it with weapons. French sensibilities, however, urge a
cautious approach. They are conditioned by a long-standing
intimacy with the Arab world, especially in northern Africa,
and by concern about the effects of Arab nationalism both on
French investments abroad and on communities at home. More than
1.5 million Arabs form a significant minority in France.

    WEST GERMANY. For the imminently reunifying nation, the gulf
conflagration poses a starker question than for the rest of
Europe: will it again function as a global military power?
According to most interpretations of the Federal Republic's
1949 constitution, West Germany cannot exercise military force
outside the area defined by the NATO alliance -- which does not
include the gulf. But last week five German minesweepers left
the North Sea for the eastern Mediterranean to relieve American
ships that have been sent to join the anti-Iraq squad. The
German ships are well placed to move quickly to the gulf.
Chancellor Helmut Kohl believes Germany owes the U.S. a debt
of gratitude for supporting its unification and would like to
give that order. But Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher
argues that parliament must change the constitution before
military action is taken.

    TURKEY. Some of the biggest risks in the confrontation were
being taken by the only NATO country that shares a border with
Iraq. Turkey has effectively closed the pipeline that crosses
Turkish soil, one of Iraq's two major oil pipelines, by
refusing to allow tankers to take on Iraqi crude, about half
of which normally gets to market via that route. On the other
hand, Ankara has refused to allow the U.S. to use the four
largest NATO bases in Turkey to stage operations in the gulf.
Nor will it contribute troops to the Saudis' defense. "We are
helping by keeping a large army on the Iraqi border with
Turkey," President Turgut Ozal told TIME last week.

    Joining the embargo has been costly to the Turks, whose
frontier with Iraq extends 200 miles. They stand to lose an
estimated $4 billion in revenues from the cutoff. The policy
could also be costly to Ozal, who drew strenuous criticism for
his actions. A poll last week showed that 72% of Turks continue
to oppose any kind of military involvement in the gulf crisis.
Unhappiness over the embargo may increase when it becomes
clearer that Ozal's action will not get the country any closer
to its wish of joining the European Community.

    CANADA. The U.S.'s neighbor quickly promised to send three
vessels to the gulf. But since then, the blockade controversy
has caused growing ambivalence. The government of Prime
Minister Brian Mulroney has come in for heavy opposition
criticism. Having long prided themselves on their support of
U.N. peacekeeping, many Canadians are bothered by Washington's
failure to wait for U.N. approval of the naval interdiction.

    SOVIET UNION. Moscow voted with the U.S. in the U.N.
Security Council -- a rare occurrence -- condemning Iraq's land
grab and supporting the sanctions. But as American soldiers
began pouring into Saudi Arabia, the Soviets began to feel
increasingly uneasy about their role in the anti-Saddam
alliance. Moscow is not eager to be seen as joining Washington
in a police action against a former close friend, nor can it
condone so dramatic a shift in the military balance in the
gulf. Still, the Soviets recognize that cooperating with the
West against Saddam is an excellent way to earn points that
could translate to desperately needed economic assistance later
on. Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze reiterated last week
that if the U.N. calls for a multinational force in the gulf,
Moscow would join the effort.

    JAPAN. The initial response to the crisis was stereotypical:
Tokyo began to spread money around. The government announced
that it was considering an unspecified package of economic aid
for Turkey and Jordan, which will be badly bruised by the
cutoff of Iraqi trade, and for Egypt to defray some of the
costs of keeping its force in Saudi Arabia. Other proposals
include offering technological assistance to build a
water-desalination plant in Saudi Arabia and the dispatch of
noncombat medical, communications and transportation personnel
to help in the Saudis' defense. Japan must scramble harder
than some countries to secure new energy supplies during the
embargo: 13% of Japan's oil imports formerly came from Iraq and
Kuwait.

    The crisis has also triggered a new debate in Japan over its
long-standing constitutional restrictions against overseas
military involvement. Late last week Tokyo apparently began to
consider sending minesweepers to the Middle East. Such a move
would be extremely controversial, not only within Japan but
also in the rest of Asia.

    SOUTH ASIA. The only non-Western, non-Arab countries to join
the anti-Saddam military effort are, not by coincidence, both
Muslim and highly dependent on U.S. aid. Pakistan receives an
average of $600 million a year from Washington, and Bangladesh
gets $135 million. Officially, both decided to send token
forces in response to a request from King Fahd to protect the
Islamic shrines of Mecca and Medina, but it was plain enough
that U.S. urgings had played a role. The decisions to deploy
were not well received in either country. In a front-page
article in the Frontier newspaper, Mushahid Hussain, a leading
Pakistani columnist, charged that the new government had
"compromised national sovereignty and weakened national
security."

    AUSTRALIA. In a rare display of solidarity, Labor Prime
Minister Bob Hawke and Conservative opposition leader John
Hewson stood together last week in Sydney harbor to bid
farewell to three Australian warships headed for the gulf
region. The general public was less enthusiastic. Various polls
showed 55% of Australians oppose the dispatch of the vessels;
many compared it to Australia's vain support for the U.S. in
Vietnam.

    Can such a diverse array of interests remain in concert? It
must. Without the fragile alliance, the U.S. would probably
still win a war against Iraq. But the prospects for a lasting
solution in the region depend on keeping the struggle between
a unified international community and a belligerent Arab state
from degenerating into a collision only between George Bush and
Saddam Hussein.