Europe must caution the US to hasten slowly to war. Eamonn Ryan, aformer Irish ambassador to the Middle East, says we must ask the difficultquestions
What is motivating America in its drive towards war on Iraq? The claim that it is the current (as distinct from the potential future) size or character of Iraq's military arsenal is not persuasive. Saddam Hussein says he no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction. In the face of very intrusive UN inspection, it would seem contrary to any sane assessment of his interests for him to lie about the matter.
The sustained failure of American and British efforts to produce convincing evidence of the continued existence of such weaponry, combined with the very extensive disarmament achieved by the pre-1998 inspectors, reinforces the view that he may well be telling the truth on this point.
America's motives are necessarily related to what she perceives as her primary regional interests. These are easy enough to identify: enhancement of the longer-term security of Israel and continued access, in optimum conditions, to the two-thirds of the world's proven oil reserves which lie in the Persian Gulf area.
The current hawkish thinking of the Bush administration probably goes something like this:
"Iraq, in its current sanctions-crippled state, presents no immediate danger to our interests. But the sanctions regime is fraying under the combined pressures of widespread humanitarian concern, frustration of potential trading partners, and the passage of time. It is not sustainable longer-term, and a sanctions-free Iraq could quickly regain its position as the leading Arab power in the Gulf - populous, educated, wealthy, heavily-armed and ambitious.
"In spite of its secular tradition, such an Iraq would be a major rallying-point for the forces of Arab nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism in the Gulf. In particular, the effect on the corrupt and increasingly vulnerable feudal autocracy of Saudi Arabia, the lynchpin of the global oil market, could be dramatic.
"And the encirclement of Israel, at present more than balanced by the Jewish state's overwhelming military superiority, conventional and non-conventional, would be much more menacing.
"Why permit these risks to develop further? A seizure of Iraq will present some dangers but will be militarily and politically easier now than later. It will give us effective military control over the entire Gulf oilfield. We will be positioned not only to ensure the installation of an acceptable government in Baghdad but also to influence Saudi Arabia and to deal quickly with any crisis there.
"We would have an unequalled opportunity to remake the feudal and extremist politics of the whole region, in the interest of a stable and beneficial relationship with the West. After that, perhaps, would be a good time to take a fresh look at the Palestinian problem."
What should Europeans say to those who think like this? Something, perhaps, along the following lines:
"In Iraq under sanctions, starvation is averted only because of a huge rationing system operated by the government. In anticipation of war, additional rations are being distributed to the population. Nonetheless, an invasion is likely to cause massive economic and administrative disruption for some considerable time. Have you plans to ensure continued distribution of the necessities of life?
"You may be lucky: Iraqi resistance may collapse quickly and completely. On the other hand, a substantial, highly-motivated core resistance may be deployed in large cities, leaving you with the the choice of indiscriminate bombardment or starvation of the civilian population, on the one hand, or, on the other, street fighting with heavy casualties on both sides.
"Given that in the wars you have been involved in since Vietnam your own casualty numbers have been close to zero, how will you face such a choice?
"Your own experience has shown that nation-building, that is, moulding one or more ethnic groups into functioning and representative political structures, is an extraordinarily difficult affair, especially for foreigners.
"Your efforts in Bosnia and Afghanistan have not, to put it mildly, been very successful. Following a US invasion, Iraq's three ethnic groups can't simply be left to find their own way to equilibrium. How long are you prepared to stay to pull the place together (let alone remake the region)?
"That last question is worth pondering for another reason. After an invasion, there will be two occupying armies in the Arab world: yours and Israel's. Many Arabs may find it difficult to make a qualitative distinction between them. The fanatics won't even try. Is this really the best way to fight terrorism?
"That is not to say that many of your interests in the region do not coincide with ours. They do: our economies are also dependent on oil supplies from the Gulf; the threat of terrorist attack by Islamic fundamentalists weighs on Europe as well as on America.
"We in Europe, too, are committed to the security of Israel within internationally recognised borders. None of us can be indifferent to the dangers which would be posed by a resurgent Iraq under the present regime. Also, the emergence of a democratic, prosperous and progressive Arab world is a noble goal, and one which is in all of our interests.
"But is waging war in Iraq at this time likely to advance our mutual interests in the short and longer term? Or should you (indeed we) not be considering less risky, and more effective, alternative means of facilitating change in the region?
"For a start, is it not time to apply the same determination you are according to dealing with Iraq to finding a way out of the ever-deteriorating Palestinian tragedy? That is, after all, one problem which America is uniquely positioned to help resolve.
"In parallel with such an effort, mightn't the present moment be a good one to offer Iraq, as an alternative to immediate war, a package on the following lines: first, the lifting of the economic sanctions; second, new and strict limitations on conventional arms, in addition to the existing total ban on weapons of mass destruction;and third, policing of these restrictions by a permanent UN inspection mechanism, coupled with a formal procedure for Security Council measures, including military action, in the event of serious breach?
"Such a two-pronged approach would increase stability in the Middle East, enhance America's standing there, and do much to reduce the terrorist threat (not least in Israel). An invasion of Iraq at this time would risk doing precisely the opposite, as well as spilling a great deal of blood. That is why it encounters so much opposition, at home and abroad."
Eamonn Ryan is a retired Irish diplomat, who has served as ambassador to Israel and Egypt. The views expressed in this article are purely personal.