US embassy cable - 03COLOMBO463

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 COLOMBO 000463 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR INR/R/MR, I/RW, I/REC; PA 
SA/INS (FOR JWALLER); SA/PAB SA/RA (FOR SCENSNY) 
SA/PD LJIRWIN, WREINCKENS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: KPAO, OPRC, KMDR, OIIP, CE, External Relations 
SUBJECT:  MEDIA PLAY:  IRAQ 
 
 
1. On 3/20 the ISLAND (opposition daily, islandwide 
circulation) said "there is no doubt which way the war will 
go," but predicted that it will not only "bring about 
radical changes in the politics of ... the Middle East but 
... will also turn the new political order ... topsy 
turvy," as the "the democratic idealism that gradually came 
to the forefront in US foreign policy [is] ... replaced 
with sheer militarism and disregard for international law 
and the UN."  The ISLAND concludes:  "the world can only 
hope that what is happening is an aberration." 
 
2. Block quotes: 
 
It's all over but the shouting.  George Bush and Tony Blair 
are marching to war but there are no delirious cries of 
patriotic fervour from their countrymen, no ringing 
assurances of support from their allies, no support from 
nations that have had good relations with the two warring 
nations and certainly very strong opposition being 
expressed in the Islamic world. 
 
Paradoxically, Saddam Hussein whom the American President 
wants to drive out of power is by no means a person liked 
and loved by even a very few, save his own cohorts.  The 
reign of terror during which he has held the Iraqi people 
in bondage, the unwanted wars he had brought upon the 
country - the over ten years of war with Iran and the 
invasion of Kuwait - have left the country in shambles and 
its people in untold misery.  They have been suffering 
under UN imposed sanctions for over a decade.  But a war is 
being opposed by the great majority of nations and 
naturally by the Iraqis.  They most probably want Saddam 
Hussein out but not a war.  This war could make Saddam 
Hussein, truly a Satyr, into a Martyr. 
 
There is no doubt which way the war will go.  The Daily 
Telegraph report from the Kuwait - Iraq border (see page 8) 
said the stark choices for the Iraqi soldiers in the 
battlefield are to: run, surrender or die fighting.  The 
last chance for diplomacy is over.  The United States, 
Britain and Spain on Monday announced that they were 
withdrawing a draft resolution submitted to the UN Security 
Council which authorised the automatic use of force and 
which was likely to be rejected by the UN. Later, President 
Bush in an address to the nation called upon President 
Saddam Hussein to leave his country within 48 hours or face 
war that will start `at a time of our choosing' 
 
This war is not only bound to bring about radical changes 
in the politics of Iraq and that of the Middle East but it 
will also turn the new political order that was taking 
shape after the Cold War, topsy turvy. 
 
For over a century, western European nations and the United 
States have been working as allies and in close political 
and economic collaboration having fought two World Wars and 
been united for half a century in the Cold War against the 
Soviet Union. 
 
Having triumphed in the Cold War, during the past decade 
they have been working very closely as allies, attempting 
to forge a new international order.  Whether, it was a 
multi-polar world that was being forged or a uni-polar 
world during the past decade, there was little doubt that 
co-operation and understanding between the Atlantic 
Alliance remained unshaken.  But with the advent of 
President Bush, there appears to have been much bulldozing 
in foreign policy and finally the issue of war on Iraq has 
rendered them apart. 
 
America's European allies, France and Germany, particularly 
France, have stood firmly against a war on Iraq without the 
sanction of the UN Security Council. President Chirac in a 
very strongly worded statement on Monday said that most of 
the recent debates in the UN have shown that the Security 
Council was not prepared to, under present circumstances, 
to approve a precipitate march to war and that there was no 
justification for unilateral decision to resort to war. 
President Chirac in oblique ways said that the US was 
ignoring international law and appealed to every one to 
ensure the respect of international legality. 
 
This kind of unilateral action was not possible at the time 
of the existence of the other superpower, the Soviet Union 
but even after its demise both President Bush's father and 
President Bill Clinton preferred multi-lateralism and 
sought to work through the UN.  The Bush (Snr) in his war 
with Saddam Hussein worked in accordance with UN Security 
Council resolutions and was able to bring together a 
coalition of nations including those of Arab hardline 
nations such as Syria led by the late President Assad. 
Today, if Bush (Jnr) goes to war he will have only two 
other leaders - British and Spanish Prime Ministers - with 
him and even then there is strong opposition to the war in 
those countries, three cabinet ministers resigning from 
Tony Blair's cabinet and a 139 Labour members voting for a 
motion against the war. 
 
Now that the war seems inevitable the question to be posed 
is:  After the War, what? 
 
What would concern the entire world is whether the 
democratic idealism that gradually came to the forefront in 
US foreign policy in the last few decades, despite 
emergence of Cold war presidents like Reagan, will be 
replaced with sheer militarism and disregard for 
international law and the UN. The world can only hope that 
what is happening is an aberration. 
 
Wills