By most calculations the Iraqi ruler has stolen a march on the Western powers policing the Kurdish area north of the 36th parallel by his intervention in a virtual civil war between the two major Kurdish factions. He is able to explain it as a means of countering Iranian interference in his country's internal affairs. His spokesmen can point - convincingly - to the questionable legal basis on which any counter intervention by the Western powers would be possible, however much they justify it by reference to United Nations resolutions.
The UN Security Council's Resolution 688, adopted on April 5th, 1991, was intended to prevent a further humanitarian catastrophe being inflicted on yet another Iraqi minority by a regime fighting for its very survival. International politics dictated that the principle of intervention was limited by the available legal norms and the respect for state sovereignty that has characterised most key decisions reached by the United Nations. Thus, according to the prevailing dominant interpretation, the resolution did not set up an area that was off limits to Iraqi troops, since it was clearly part of that state's territory; and it deliberately excluded the use of military force as a means of enforcing its provisions.
This was a piece of diplomatic ambiguity well matched to the region's complexity, depending at the time on a delicate balance between big power politics, disgust at human rights abuses and caution about the dangers of setting precedents for the infringements of state sovereignty. In the intervening period, as international pressure has eased, Resolution 688 has become less of a justification for the use of force against the Iraqi government and has allowed Saddam Hussein to play games with his international antagonists, notably with the United States.
The use of Iraqi troops against forces of one of the Kurdish factions north of the 36th parallel, which has made an alliance with Iran, and now their reported withdrawal after street executions in Abril, poses several difficult dilemmas for the international community. They come during a US presidential election campaign in which Mr Clinton's determination to contain Iraq has become an issue, and for that very reason cloud diplomatic perceptions. They come, too, just after a prolonged negotiation which has agreed terms on which Iraq can swap oil sales for sorely needed food for its beleaguered population, particularly the four million children who have been the main ones to suffer from the severe containment policy.
Despite the reported and credible human rights enormities, this is not a time for adventurist military actions with a dubious legal basis in retaliation for Saddam Hussein's intervention in the Kurdish civil war, as appeared at the time of writing to be under way last night by US air forces against Iraqi targets. It would be better to test the diplomatic way through these issues, by using the oil for food deal to explore a more engaged relationship with Iraq - and Iran - linking a positive response to behaviour complying with international norms.