Nations Large and Small Carefully Watch Unfolding Crisis

In the faded luxury of a former hotel that is now the Chinese Embassy here, diplomats are increasingly obsessed with the Iraq crisis. For Beijing, the outcome may well determine how much access the world’s largest population gets to Iraqi oil riches, so vast that some experts say the world’s last barrel may come from Baghdad.

At the starkly furnished mission of Myanmar, envoys are watching closely too. New U.N. sanctions on Baghdad could generate fresh support for cracking down on outlaw nations--and renew international interest in America’s unilateral sanctions against Myanmar’s military regime.

Inside France’s white marble embassy, emissaries are tracking every U.S. action. For Paris, the outcome may determine whether it is emerging as a world leader strong enough to pursue its own national interests even if that sometimes means defying its long-standing American ally.

For virtually every major player and many little ones too, the crisis in Iraq is not just about Iraq. Indeed, what happens this time around to the regime of President Saddam Hussein may be one of the smaller consequences for a world in transition.

“Iraq has become an interesting portrait of the post-Cold War world--both its new flash-points and the solutions to them,” said Richard Haass, director of the Brookings Institution foreign policy program and White House director of Mideast policy during the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

*

The broadest issue at stake is the concept of the “new world order.” The international response to Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait did more to define that phrase than any other event.

But the central message of Operation Desert Storm--that aggression was unacceptable, that the international rule of law would prevail--is now on the line, said Brent Scowcroft, national security advisor in the Bush administration.

“The long-term issue is the whole viability of the world community being able to stop wanton aggressors and thus constitute a deterrent for future aggression,” he said.

Iraq’s latest challenge to the most effective disarmament program in history is a pivotal test case, analysts say, and the world’s reaction will be critical to the idea of global principles and cooperation.

Although the United Nations is a democracy writ large, its clout has been undermined by the persistent squabbling in its corridors over when and how to respond to Iraq.

“The viability of the U.N. depends on the degree of consensus,” said Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security advisor during the Carter administration. “We saw it dramatically during the Korean War and again in the war against Iraq, but we don’t have it today. So the future of the world body is really out on a limb.”

The diplomatic tools and tactics of the post-Cold War world, most notably sanctions, are another big issue in the Iraq confrontation.

In a world reluctant to use weapons or risk troops, economic embargoes are one of the few punitive alternatives. But an increasing number of governments favor using carrots as well as sticks; in addition to imposing restrictions, they offer the prospect of commercial or diplomatic engagement as incentives to change behavior.

“There is a groundswell of opposition abroad and even in this country” to the use of sanctions, said Geoffrey Kemp, senior fellow at the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom in Washington and a Reagan administration National Security Council staff director.

That challenge raises grave questions about how, or even whether, the international community will deal with rogue states.

“Everyone seems to recognize that Hussein’s isolation and bullying represent the old world and that Iraq is one of the few remaining totalitarian states,” Kemp said. “Yet some states are already planning for eventual engagement. That sends signals to countries like North Korea that counter global trends.”

*

Another global sub-theme is energy. Iraq has proven oil reserves that are second only to Saudi Arabia’s. The “new world order” emphasis on commerce and trade, rather than military muscle and territorial size, has increased the world’s thirst for oil to fuel development and industry.

For instance, Kenya, one of the five Security Council members to abstain from even a weak compromise resolution against Iraq last month, was prepared to defy American pressure because Baghdad promised preferential treatment with discounted oil in the future, U.S. sources said. The October vote was on a resolution criticizing Iraq for failing to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors.

“What happens in Iraq affects the global energy flow, which in turn affects the abilities of countries to grow and to meet the demands of a world where governments are increasingly accountable,” a senior Clinton administration official said.

“Kenya was not alone,” the official added. “Those are the priorities today in both developed and developing countries.”

*

More than ever, the confrontation with Iraq raises this question about the balance of global power: Is the United States the leader or one of several pivotal players?

The Gulf War, coming amid sweeping changes in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Africa and Latin America, called out for leadership. But the world has seen greater distribution of power since then.

As a result, many countries both inside and outside the Gulf War coalition today view forceful American diplomacy as strong-arming.

“What we’re seeing is some resistance to U.S. leadership, both because of a degree of annoyance about a world dominated by American preferences and because one of the general trends today is to defuse power, not hoard it,” Haass said.

The role that Washington plays in the days ahead--as consensus-builder or as a hard-charging leader--could well have an impact on crises years down the road and far from Iraq.