Not so fast on Iraq, Mr Bush

straitstimes.asia1.com.sg By Leon Hadar

WASHINGTON - While the buildup of American forces in the Persian Gulf may bolster reports of an attack on Iraq by the middle of next month, the Bush administration is finding that recent developments in Asia, Europe and South America are beginning to hamper its ambitions for war.

First, North Korea's decision to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and rising tensions with the United States over moves to revive its stalled nuclear programme have ignited an international crisis in North-east Asia.

President George W. Bush and his aides have refrained from describing the tensions between Washington and Pyongyang as a 'crisis' and have insisted it could be resolved through peaceful diplomatic efforts, involving US allies in North-east Asia, South Korea and Japan, as well as two of North Korea's partners, China and Russia.

In fact, under pressure from South Korea and Japan, the Bush administration agreed last week that it was ready to negotiate with North Korea regarding its nuclear weapons programme.

'President Bush has apparently decided to go to war against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and negotiate with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, although it's clear that the North Koreans have taken bolder steps than Iraq to challenge US nuclear non-proliferation policy,' notes Professor Ian Lustick, a foreign policy specialist at the University of Pennsylvania.

Indeed, North Korea has not only withdrawn from the NPT, but has also expelled all international weapons monitors from its territory. Most experts have concluded that Pyongyang has enough plutonium for one or two nuclear bombs and would be able to build them within a year.

Iraq, in contrast, has provided full access to United Nations weapons inspectors, and is probably not in a position to develop nuclear weapons any time soon. Chief UN inspector Hans Blix said last week that his weapons teams had not found any 'smoking gun' during their search for dangerous weapons.

'The message from the Bush administration is that the US doctrine of pre-emption doesn't apply to those governments that have already pre-empted us,' Prof Lustick says, referring to the new doctrine empowering Washington to launch attacks against hostile nations suspected of acquiring or developing mass-destruction weapons.

This new 'pre-emption' strategy could lose credibility if Washington does not apply it in a consistent manner - for example, by negotiating with North Korea, a country flagrantly flaunting its nuclear capability, while threatening to attack the seemingly less bellicose Iraq.

Bush officials respond to this criticism by arguing that it is necessary to invade Iraq, precisely to prevent it from arriving at North Korea's position, when its nuclear capacity has progressed to such a stage that deterrence becomes difficult, if not impossible.

The crisis in North-east Asia complicates the planned Iraq attack by raising major doubts about the coherence of the administration's strategy. The possibility that the crisis on the Korean peninsula could escalate into a full-blown war also poses obvious logistical problems.

While US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld has stressed that US troops could fight, if necessary, on two fronts, conventional wisdom in Washington does not accept this as a realistic option.

Mr Bush also faces other obstacles to ousting Mr Saddam. Over the past week, key US allies, including Britain, have urged the US to give UN weapons inspectors more time to complete their work, even if it means postponing the attack on Iraq for several months.

According to several news reports, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Mr Bush's most loyal international ally, has argued against setting a firm deadline for Mr Saddam to give up his weapons.

Senior Bush officials also told the New York Times last week that Turkey, a key US ally in the Middle East, seems reluctant to allow US the use of its territorial bases from which to attack Iraq.

The Turks are concerned that a US invasion of Iraq could have disastrous effects on its security and economic interests, especially if the collapse of the central government in Baghdad led to the creation of a separate Kurdish state in the north which ended up providing aid to Kurdish secessionist groups inside Turkey. The US military would like to use Turkey to open a northern front as a staging area for a land offensive against Iraq. But the newly-elected Islamist government in Ankara has resisted American pressure and is lobbying other Middle East governments to press Washington not to attack Iraq.

There are also indications that the political crisis in Venezuela, including a strike in its oil sector, may also be complicating Washington's plan to attack Iraq. The crisis, which shut down Venezuela's oil industry, the fifth largest in the world, is creating energy shortages and pushing international oil prices upwards, according to chief economist Fareed Mohamedi at the Petroleum Finance Company.

The North Korean crisis, pressure from US allies, Turkish reluctance, and the Venezuelan oil strike are grist to the mill of those in the Bush administration who want to slow the inexorable roll towards war. But the final decision still lies with Mr Bush, whose rhetoric on Iraq continues to be as tough as ever.