Not as lonely as he looks

By Michael Elliott

Those Bushes--they love serial schmoozing. Twelve years ago, after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the family's first President used to boast about the number of world leaders he'd managed to telephone in an afternoon. Now his son has caught the bug. Six days before he was due to give a speech at the United Nations, President Bush spoke about Iraq to his opposite numbers in France, China and Russia. The next day Bush was host to British Prime Minister Tony Blair at Camp David before preparing to meet Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien on Sept. 9.

The diplomatic chatter marks a new stage in the Iraq story. Some of Bush's conversations last week can't have been easy, and not just because the President doesn't have the delicately modulated tones of the men in striped pants. (As a South Korean official once said, "George Bush speaks with an iron tongue.") If you do nothing but read the headlines, it would seem that everyone from Nelson Mandela to German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder is implacably opposed to a war with Iraq. Both in the Arab world and in Europe, it is feared that unseating Saddam will inflame Muslim opinion, already incensed by American support for Israel in its struggle with the Palestinians. Next, it's said that the U.S. has no clear sense of how a post-Saddam Iraq might be governed or how its territorial integrity can be maintained. Perhaps above all, outside the U.S. it's widely thought that unless an attack on Iraq is endorsed by the U.N., it will encourage nations to overthrow regimes just because they don't like them. Even in Britain, Washington's most reliable ally, a poll found 71% opposing military action against Iraq unless it is endorsed by the U.N.

Bush, effectively, has committed himself to engaging those arguments. He has done so not because he absolutely has to--most observers think the awesome American armed forces, on their own, could overthrow Saddam--but because seeking allies makes sense. For America to act alone against Iraq, without U.N. sanction, would risk a backlash against American interests around the world. "There's no doubt," says a European diplomat, "that it would be better to do it in company." Thus Bush's speechwriters, before his U.N. appearance, were considering a heavy internationalist tone. ("He'll be Mr. Multilateral," says an aide.) The President is expected to remind the assembled leaders of their solemn duty to see that Iraq is forced to comply with U.N. resolutions passed in the aftermath of the Gulf War in 1991; Iraq, say the British, is presently in breach of 23 out of 27 obligations. But there will be a subtext. Bush's bottom line, says a senior Administration official, will be "if [the U.N] doesn't do something, we will." Diplomacy, where what is said in public is merely a useful guide to private conviction, has a curious logic. In essence, Washington believes it is more likely to get a multilateral solution on Iraq if it appears ready to take action unilaterally.

From the standpoint of Washington's hard-liners--those who insist that you can't get rid of the threat from Saddam's weapons of mass destruction without getting rid of Saddam--just going to the U.N. has risks. Diplomatic negotiations, with their shuffled compromises and ambiguous texts, are not the favorite terrain of the moral-clarity crowd, who need no fresh justification to get rid of Saddam. A White House aide says sharply, "We haven't said anything about a new [Security Council] resolution." But in practice, both American and foreign diplomats are working on the assumption that now that debate has shifted to the U.N., a new resolution will indeed be drafted. Whatever its precise words, its purpose will be to require that Iraq grant unfettered access to weapons inspectors or be declared in breach of its post-Gulf War obligations and face the military consequences. The trick will be to make such a resolution so tough that the American Administration does not think Saddam can wriggle out of its terms, while not making the whole exercise appear a cynical sham.

Though it won't be easy, crafting such language is what U.N. diplomats do for their free parking and East Side apartments. And, in fact, the U.S. has more supporters than may appear to be the case. The British, of course, are staunch. Partly, Blair's support for Bush reflects the traditional British default position--back Washington whenever possible. "America," said Blair last week, speaking of the dangers of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, "shouldn't be left to face these issues alone." But instinctive support for Washington isn't the whole story. Blair is one of the few modern European politicians comfortable thinking of the world in moral terms. There's a strain of Victorian rectitude in him that explains why he's convinced of Saddam's venality. The soon-to-be-published British dossier on Saddam's behavior, say two sources who have read it, will stress the Iraqi leader's brutality--his use of torture, the fact that he killed perhaps 100,000 Kurds (some of them with chemical weapons) to maintain his rule.

Of the other permanent members of the Security Council, the French know those arguments just as well as the British but won't stress them. For Paris, the key thing is not to oppose American military action in Iraq for the fun of it--in fact, relations between the French and American governments have been quietly improving--but to ensure that any war has a U.N. seal of approval. A carefully crafted Security Council resolution should do the trick, as it should for the Chinese--similarly opposed to the unilateral display of American armed force--and the Russians. "Russia isn't going to mess up its relationship with the U.S. because of Iraq," says a Foreign Ministry source in Moscow. To be sure, Russian support for the U.S. will come at a price. Major Russian oil companies like Lukoil have interests in Iraq but, with an eye to the long term, have chosen not to develop them until the political situation is settled. A hint from the U.S. that it would welcome Russian commercial involvement in a post-Saddam Iraq would go down well. The U.S. has told Moscow, says a senior Administration official, that it has a lot more chance of getting the debts it is owed by Baghdad paid back with an "Iraq that is part of the international community." Translation: Shut up, and we'll look after you.

But if the diplomatic environment at the U.N. looks encouraging for Washington, in the Muslim world it does not. Last week Amr Moussa, secretary-general of the Arab League, said an American war would "open the gates of hell" in the Middle East. Why the hyperbole? First, because Arab governments wonder if the U.S. will stay the course if casualties mount or stick around to help govern Iraq after a war. Second, because Iraq--cobbled together from three provinces of the Ottoman Empire after World War I--is a fragile state that could easily break up amid yet more violence. But above all, because Arab governments are convinced that America is so loathed on "the street" that a war might see instability cartwheel throughout the region, shaking pro-U.S. governments in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. "Public opinion will react extremely negatively if any Arab country is bombed," says an Arab diplomat. "The bombing and the refugees will be on TV from Day One."

As usual in diplomacy, however, all is not as it seems. In Jordan, King Abdullah has said that a war would be Saddam's responsibility--a sign, say some analysts, that if fighting starts, he would stay neutral. Qatar, ostensibly opposed to war (and where the U.S. is building a new military base), may similarly be hedging its bets. In Washington, officials are convinced--or say they are convinced--that there's no reason to worry. "The Arabs," says a senior Administration official, "are not going to fall into line until we do something."

That's comforting--or it would be if "something" was likely to be done soon. But here's one more thing about diplomacy: it's slow. The Security Council may not start thinking about Iraq until October. On the reasonable assumption that Saddam won't roll over, it may be months before Iraq is declared in breach of its obligations, hence opening the way for war. "The timeline," says a senior British official, "is significantly longer than most people think." President Bush is not normally thought of as a patient man. But his dad was (it was nearly six months from the invasion of Kuwait to the start of the Gulf War). Who knows? Maybe patience will turn out to be a Bush family trait too. --With reporting by Massimo Calabresi, James Carney, John F. Dickerson/Washington, and J.F.O. McAllister/London, Scott MacLeod/Cairo, Paul Quinn-Judge and Yuri Zarakhovich/Moscow

With reporting by Massimo Calabresi, James Carney, John F. Dickerson/Washington, and J.F.O. McAllister/London, Scott MacLeod/Cairo, Paul Quinn-Judge and Yuri Zarakhovich/Moscow