The Hindu : Hard evidence against Iraq sought

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Mar 13, 2002

International

International

Hard evidence against Iraq sought

By Hasan Suroor

LONDON, MARCH 12. For all the sound and fury emanating from Washington and dutifully echoed in Downing Street, the political and public opinion in Britain remains unconvinced that enough justification has been offered for an attack on Iraq.

The U.S. Vice-President, Dick Cheney's remarks after meeting the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, here on Monday were widely seen as broad generalisations which failed to point to a specific threat from Baghdad. "There is a lot of evidence he (Mr. Saddam Hussein) is continuing to develop weapons of mass destruction,'' he said arguing that Washington was concerned about a "potential marriage'' between Baghdad and terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda.

Observers dismissed this as "familiar rhetoric''. "This does not yet amount to a case against Iraq,'' a commentator in The Times said pointing out that neither Mr. Cheney nor Mr. Blair was able to answer the "most pressing'' question: "Why a terrorist attack by al-Qaeda should justify the U.S. in attacking Iraq or other hostile states that might have weapons of mass destruction.''

It was noted that the much-talked-about "additional evidence'' that Mr. Cheney was expected to bring with him was not mentioned at all either by him or Mr. Blair. Critics said that if there was fresh evidence against Iraq it should be made public so that the world could judge for itself. A strategic affairs expert warned that even the Arab leaders who disliked Mr. Saddam Hussein would not like to be seen backing an attack on Baghdad unless they were convinced that it was justified. "It would be effectively seen as an invasion of a Muslim neighbour and strengthen the fundamentalists in the region,'' she said.

In a scathing editorial, The Guardian said that mere "tough talk'' would not do. The U.S. President, Mr. Bush, it said, had "crucially...failed to show why yet another American war should be supported in the first place.'' It warned that any attempt to conquer' Iraq could quickly escalate into a regional conflict "sucking in'' Israel and resulting in heavy civilian casualties. The view was supported by other commentators who questioned the assumption' that Mr. Saddam Hussein would "sit back" and allow his country to be run over. They said he was likely to resort to tactics that would stir up anti-U.S. sentiment and win him international sympathy, particularly in Europe where there is already strong opposition to American foreign policy aims.

As speculation grew, one emerging view was that despite the tough talk America was not likely to rush into anything — and the tone adopted by Mr. Bush in his speech on Monday to mark the six months of the September 11 attacks suggested that Washington was keen to play down the charge of "unilateralism" hurled at by its European allies. Mr. Cheney's statement that America would consult its allies before taking a decision was seen as part of Washington's bid to be seen to be more sensitive to world opinion, even if in the end it chose to go it alone. It was also pointed out that America was still struggling to come up with a `credible' plan to make sure that a military intervention in Iraq did not boomerang.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

International

Stories in this Section

Withdraw troops on border: UNHCR chief

E.U. meet on reforms in energy sector

Hard evidence against Iraq sought

Pak., China sign MoU on defence

Chirac angry over Jospin charges

26 killed in Israeli incursion

Australia asked to end detention of refugees

Counting begins in Zimbabwe

China awaits U.S. explanation on 'n-hit list'