Iraq situation: briefing by Centre for Policy Studies

Meeting report

FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
12 October 2004
IRAQ SITUATION: CENTRE FOR POLICY STUDIES BRIEFING

Chairperson: Mr D Sithole (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Centre for Policy Studies briefing

SUMMARY
Mr C Landsberg, Director of the Centre for Policy Studies, briefly outlined Unites States foreign policy before and after 11 September 2001. He predicted that the 'War on Terror' would dominate American foreign policy for the next fifty years. South Africa had an important role to play in consolidating multilateral relations, particularly Pan African influences on global peace and security affairs and Iraq. Due to its unique achievements as a nascent democracy that emerged from a lengthy and violent civil liberation struggle, South Africa was in a unique and respected position to promote a post-election Interim Government of National Unity for Iraq. Mr Landsberg warned that South Africa should not commit to the objectives of any singular world power or to any singular institutional interests in Iraq. The Allawi interim government in Iraq had identified South Africa as the African state with whom it wanted to establish diplomatic relations. South Africa should be warned not to launch any large personnel projects in Iraq, as it ran the risk of getting 'sucked into conflict'.

MINUTES
The Chairperson said that the Committee had decided to have an 'external' briefing on the situation in Iraq, rather than hear a Department presentation, because suggestions might be more impartial.

Mr Landsberg stated that the 11 September 2001 attacks had fundamentally altered America's global and domestic political agendas. As the Cold War had governed US strategy from 1945-90, so the 'War on Terror' would govern its strategy for the next fifty years. America was likely to push hard to fulfill its objective of a democratic election in Iraq for January 2005. If the elections were achieved, huge question marks would hang over its legitimacy.

Since 11 September 2001, the USA has fuelled strong anti-Arabic, anti-Islamic sentiments worldwide. Some governments had exploited the 'War on Terror' to their own advantage. Israel was a prime example, and many African governments had used this War on Terror as a basis for eliminating political opposition.

Mr Landsberg described American politics as "democratic at home and undemocratic abroad". The USA was in persistent violation of the multilaterally binding Kyoto Protocol, had ignored the rule of law of the United Nations Security Council by declaring war on Iraq, and had forged unilateral diplomatic ties with African states, disregarding multilateral institutions like the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) and the G8 Project. This is in stark political contrast to other major world powers such as France, Canada, Germany and Britain.

Mr Landsberg reckoned that in the forthcoming American presidential term, foreign policy objectives would not change in substance but only in the style of delivery. A John Kerry administration would seek to re-establish the world image of America using multilateral diplomacy and support for the laws of world governing bodies such as the United Nations (UN). A George Bush administration would not cease the practice of securing its aims by unilateral processes wherever possible. Bush would 'go it alone' if need be.

He said that international goodwill toward the USA had virtually disappeared since September 11 2000 (9/11). The Bush administration had assumed 'carte blanche' to take whatever reactive measures it considered necessary. Oil and energy interests were also at the heart of America's declaration of war on Iraq.

The USA's traditional allies, France and Germany, had distanced themselves politically, as had China and Russia. The false link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda (the false premise for conducting war on Iraq), Weapons of Mass Destruction, and a flagrant disregard for international law had tarnished the country's public image. The USA would be forced to attend to this poor image in future

Before 9/11, the USA had four priorities for Africa: prosperity; security; democratisation and coalition building. Since 9/11, the focus on Africa has centered on the War on Terror. The United States had claimed that there were terrorist cells operating in over 60 countries, including South Africa. It had strongly advocated human rights issues in developing countries to spread a culture of fear and intolerance to terrorism.

However since 9/11, that the USA still targetted Nigeria and South Africa as pivotal African states with which to entrench stable diplomatic relations. Four other African states had been singled out for diplomatic relationships because of their potential terror threats: Egypt; Algeria; Ethiopia and Kenya. Diversifying its access points to oil and energy, America was likely to focus on African oil in Nigeria, Gabon and Angola. Mr Landsberg was worried that African states might receive foreign aid from Britain and America on condition that they guaranteed domestic anti-terror policies.

South Africa should be warned of about a 'Euro-American power struggle'. France's strong anti-war stance was not motivated solely by moral convictions, but by a desire to reconfigure the balance of global power. France saw herself as 'the only African non-African state in the world'. She wanted to strengthen her diplomatic relations with African states which were largely neutral regarding current world affairs.

The Allawi government in Iraq has said it was keen to establish diplomatic relations with South Africa. Throughout and before the current war in Iraq, South Africa had followed a sound foreign policy and maintained a strong commitment to multilateral bargaining. From the outset, it had supported a resolution on Iraq approved by the United Nations Security Council. President Mbeki had on several occasions sent a special envoy to Iraq, headed by Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Aziz Pahad, to encourage Saddam Hussein to comply with UN weapons inspectors.

South Africa has consistently voiced its foreign politics through African multilateral institutions: the African Union, NEPAD and the SADC. It should continue to work through these mechanisms. Mr Landsberg advised that South Africa engage with other world bodies such as the Arab League, the Organisation of Islamic Conferences and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) to discover a working solution in the Middle East. Turkey should be consulted as it had adopted a unique Middle East outlook.

The suggestion for a post-election Government of National Unity (GNU) for Iraq was a strong one. To prevent a full-scale civil war in Iraq, Iraq should have an inclusive political voice. A post-election GNU should invite governmental participation from the Sunnis, the Shiites, the Kurds and the various 'liberation struggle'/'terrorist' groups.

Mr Landsberg noted that South Africa was the finest world example of a sustainable democracy emerging from a violent civil liberation struggle. If a GNU was administered in Iraq, South Africa would be in a position of strong international influence in an advisory and a benchmarking capacity. South Africa should insist on a UN-administered election in Iraq.

Discussion
Mr L Labuschagne (DA) asked whether John Kerry would push for elections in Iraq if he became the next American President. The one disadvantage of multilateral bargaining was that it was time-consuming and potentially counter-productive.

Mr Landsberg thought Kerry would continue with the proposed elections, but conduct them through the UN. The critical trump card of multilateral decision-making was legitimacy. Without legitimacy, political decisions and actions were unstable. Continental representation in multilateral bargaining strengthened outcomes.

Mr L Joubert (IFP) asked whether the claim by President George Bush that he had thirty nations supporting his war on Iraq was legitimate. Were oil interests a primary factor determining the US-led war in Iraq?

Mr Landsberg recalled the legality of the war had always been at stake, for which America could not provide evidence. Mr Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, had recently declared the war illegal. Having failed to consult the 'executive body' of world affairs, the UN Security Council, no amount of subsequent support of the war could make it legal. Oil interests were one of several factors determining the Iraq situation.

Ms L Jacobus (ANC) asked if the UN had rules or punishments it could administer to member nations who broke its laws.

Mr Landsberg responded that the problem with the Security Council was that "those with the will lack the power, and those with the power lack the will". There was little the UN could do to discipline superpowers such as the USA.

Mr K Bapela asked if Mr Landsberg knew clearly what active Iraqi political factions could be sought out for a proposed GNU. Mr Landsberg said he knew of several terrorist factions (there were doubtless more he had not heard of) and ethnic leaderships in Iraq.

Professor B Turok felt the GNU was a positive idea. He asked if the future approach of the United States to terrorist environments would be militaristic or diplomatic.

Mr Landsberg responded that it was imperative that the US allow for a 'politicisation' of terrorist groups operating in Iraq. Currently the USA was stereotyping national terror threats according to their Islamic population. A principal challenge to the USA was to regain the trust of the world, lost since 9/11. They would also have to look further than militaristic answers to foreign policy objectives, such as at multilateral bargaining.

Mr W Seremane (ANC) asked if People Against Gangsterism and Drugs (PAGAD) was silently active in South Africa. Also, could the UN Security Council be restructured to accommodate a political solution to Iraq?

Mr Landsberg felt that no current restructuring would have any effect for at least six years. One advantage of the Bush Administration was that it demanded the world's attention to improve international relations. He hoped that the outdated criterion of military strength for seating members on the UN Security Council would be replaced by better, more conscientious criteria.

The Chairperson asked how the Iraq situation affected the Middle East. Mr Landsberg said that the Arab League was currently divided on how to react to the situation in Iraq. It was fearful of incurring the negative eye of the West. He perceived that if Bush won the election, he would demand a 'domino democratisation' of the Middle East region. Yasser Arrafat had been discredited by the West but was hugely respected in the Middle East and Africa. At the moment, there was no political bridge linking the aims of the West with those of the Middle East.

The meeting was adjourned.