AFTER STALLING TO GET A GOOD deal, Turkey is ready to host over 60,000 American soldiers for the imminent American war against Iraq. This despite the fact that Islamists dominate Turkey’s government and parliament, and most Turks are opposed to the war. So much for morality, international justice, and even populism versus plain, cold-blooded national interests. Far from being in a position to alienate Washington, Turkey stands to reap a financial package in excess of $ 25 billion – not exactly peanuts. Thus, Turkey’s government has determined that the best thing is to negotiate “yes” Much the same sort of thing can be said for most other “Muslim” countries, especially those in the Gulf where American troops are stationed. They simply cannot afford to ignore “national interests”. The only question that remains is will America go to war under the umbrella of an UNSC resolution or will it go it alone?
Interestingly, America has not asked the UNSC to approve a new resolution sanctioning war on Iraq. Instead, it has now tabled a draft resolution claiming that Iraq has not heeded the “final” ultimatum laid down in Resolution 1441. This implies that Washington is afraid of triggering a veto by France, China or Russia on a direct war resolution. But if its new formulation is approved, America will get a peg on which to hoist a war with the help of Britain, a few European countries and most Muslim states in the Gulf.
In Pakistan, General Musharraf’s government is guarding its vote close to its chest. But the arguments against supporting America have all been trotted out. One view is that if India can get away with officially saying “no” to the US, so too can Pakistan. But the comparison is wrong. India is not in the UNSC therefore its “no” is of no immediate concern to the US. But in searching for some sort of greenlight for war, Pakistan’s vote could become critical.
Another theory is that any direct or indirect support for America’s preemption doctrine will rebound to Pakistan’s disadvantage because it is next on Washington’s “hit-list” of rogue countries that have to be “sorted out”, and Washington will be emboldened to apply the doctrine to Pakistan after it has finished with Iraq. But there is no evidence that this reflects American thinking of the near future. Indeed, the argument is inherently flawed because a denial of Pakistani support will likely strengthen rather than weaken the alleged American view that Islamabad needs to be sorted out.
A third perception is that we should not ally with America because America is unreliable and all alliances with it in the past have proved “troublesome” for Pakistan on one score or another. This is an argument for being independent and autonomous like France or China or Russia with which no one can disagree in theory. But unfortunately, in practise we are not even a patch on these countries, given the objective stranglehold of America on our economic and political life, much like Turkey and many of the other Muslim states. Thus this is easier said than done, especially if one is sitting on the outside and can afford the luxury of such party political or human and moral judgments.
Some recapitulation of events may help. Resolution 1441 was unanimously approved by the 15 UNSC members. But its provisions were so tough that they made the next resolution on war almost certain. In fact, even Syria, the only Muslim state in the Council at the time, voted “yes” because it did not want to reap the negative fallout of international political isolation – a decision it later tried to obfuscate. This suggests that dependent or weak nations do not want to be isolated at the UNSC to prevent any irrevocable damage to their national interests, especially in relation to other states that seek to isolate and undermine them, as, for example, India has been bent upon doing to Pakistan since 9/11.
Fortunately, however, it now seems that Resolution 1442 will not directly ask members to vote for or against war. This should let Pakistan off the hook because it won’t have to officially sanction war against Iraq. But there will be pressure on it not to vote “no” because that would seriously anger the US. America has to gather at least nine yes-votes out of 15 in the UNSC. If the three vetoing powers and Syria abstain, the count of nine yes-votes out of 11 will become crucial and Pakistan will come under American pressure.
The choice then will be between a “yes” that would please America and enable Islamabad to negotiate a good deal with it in its national interests like Turkey, or abstain and flog its decision as “political necessity” to America and “political expediency” to the home audience. This abstention route would have the advantage of not antagonising America by derailing its objective. But it would not have the advantage of reaping any reward for pleasing America. In the end, war will probably come to Iraq whichever way Pakistan votes.