What a Difference 7 Years Makes in Gulf

From the world’s farthest corners, Argentina and Australia are in. But Arab powers and former partners Egypt and Syria are out. And front-line states Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have a foot in each camp.

Seven years after the Persian Gulf War, the United States this week put finishing touches on a new coalition supporting the use of military force against Iraq if Baghdad continues to block United Nations inspectors from seeking out weapons of mass destruction.

But the new coalition differs dramatically from the stunning assemblage of more than three dozen nations that launched Operation Desert Storm.

This one is modest, at best. Its primary value is symbolic. Its combined military might is but a fraction of the original. And evaluating its clout is very much a case of looking at a glass that is either half full or half empty.

“We may disagree in the end with some of our friends,” National Security Advisor Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger conceded in a National Press Club speech last week. “Sustaining our policy will require constant vigilance. It will, from time to time, cause tension with our friends and allies.”

*

The Clinton administration had hoped 20 nations would participate--just over half the 38 countries in the original coalition. So far, about 15 have signed on or are considering it. But with the exception of Britain, offers of troops, materiel or access to bases are largely tokens.

New Zealand, the most recent addition, is offering only two surveillance aircraft and 20 special forces commandos. Oman will allow five refueling planes at its bases. And the Czech Republic has offered land-mine experts, an unlikely need for airstrikes.

Contributions contrast sharply with original roles in 1990-91. Argentina provided two naval vessels for Desert Storm; this time it offers 100 medical personnel. Germany sent five minesweepers, a support ship and an ammunition ship in 1990; today it will allow use of air bases in Germany for supply and logistics.

Those who look at the glass as half full contend that the most extensive military strike since the Gulf War would require only limited assistance. Time is also a factor.

“President Bush had six months to build a coalition,” U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson said in an interview. “Regrettably, we’ve only had two months, and so far we’ve done pretty well for our brief yet intensive efforts.”

*

The critical difference between being in and out is explained in part by the issue at stake.

“The first time it was easier to rally support because the problem was a clear act of aggression and occupation of another country, although even that took enormous work by President Bush to get people in line,” said Judy Yaphe, an Iraq specialist at National Defense University. “The first coalition was an architectural miracle. This time the problem--flouting U.N. resolutions--falls in the gray world of diplomacy.”

The administration also argues that virtually all countries approached by the United States are frustrated or angered by Baghdad’s obstinacy. All want Iraq to comply with disarmament efforts, U.S. officials contend.

“I do not want violence to be used,” declared Swedish Foreign Minister Lena Hjelm-Wallen. “But in dealing with someone who is speaking another language, how long should one let the person carry on? I definitely have some patience left, but that patience also runs out.”

Yet the differences between 1990 and 1998 are deep. Last time, countries contributed from as far afield as Afghanistan (300 ground troops), Bangladesh (2,000 troops), Honduras (150 troops), Niger (500 troops), Pakistan (8,000 troops), Senegal (500 troops) and South Korea (five military transports and a medical team). Not one of these nations today offers even significant diplomatic support for an airstrike, much less aid.

The five permanent members of the Security Council were fairly united in response to Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait. Today they are divided over the appropriate response to Iraq’s failure to disarm.

Russia has publicly and repeatedly rebuked the United States. President Boris N. Yeltsin even warned that a strike could spark “a world war,” and right-wing members of Russia’s parliament last week flew to Iraq in a show of support for the Iraqi people.

*

Seven years ago, the Soviet Union dispatched a guided missile destroyer.

China is also opposed. “If force is used, it will inevitably cause serious consequences and significant casualties of innocent people and will not contribute to a solution of the question over weapons inspectors,” Foreign Minister Qian Qichen said last week after meeting Richardson. In 1990, China offered public support.

France will grudgingly remain silent should Washington and London decide to strike, although it remains uneasy about the use of force and is not contributing any military assistance. Paris last time sent five frigates and nine other ships as well as almost 10,000 troops, 40 warplanes and dozens of tanks, helicopters and armored vehicles.

As a result, more than 95% of the troops, warplanes and warships for the prospective mission--Operation Desert Thunder--come from the United States and Britain.

And even Britain has qualms. Its officials would like an additional U.N. resolution declaring Iraq in “material breach” of the cease-fire terms before launching airstrikes with the United States.

The most stark difference today is in the Arab world.

In 1990, Egypt committed 40,000 troops, including two armored divisions and 300 tanks. This time, President Hosni Mubarak is campaigning against a military mission. In an interview published Monday, he called the threat of strikes “dangerous” for the entire region. “This is not 1991. . . . You will not find one [Arab] leader who will say publicly, ‘We support the airstrikes,’ ” he told the Financial Times. “I cannot stand against the whole weight of popular opinion.”

In 1990, Syria’s shift toward the West was reflected in its dispatch of 20,000 tank-reinforced troops to Saudi Arabia and the deployment of another 50,000 along its border with Iraq. Today, Damascus opposes force. The distinctly different international climate in 1998 is even spilling over into areas never involved in Iraq.

*

South Africa, which the administration has characterized as a model for relations with developing countries, had tough words for Washington. President Nelson Mandela last week effectively supported Baghdad’s charge that too many Americans are on the weapons inspection team.

“I am concerned that the number of Americans in this delegation are out of proportion to the rest of the members of the United Nations,” Mandela said. “And this might confirm the perception, not mine, but the perception which is there that America is trying to be a policeman of the world.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

World’s View on Iraq

Where the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council stand:

RUSSIA

President Boris N. Yeltsin warns against military strikes, attempts to broker solution.

*

UNITED STATES

President Clinton rejected Iraq’s latest bid to avert a threatened attack, saying any diplomatic solution must allow unfettered access to weapons sites.

*

FRANCE

Will do all it can to resolve crisis by means other than force.

*

CHINA

Strongly opposes an attack on Iraq.

*

BRITAIN

Prime Minister Tony Blair warns that Britain is prepared to use military strikes as soon as they are deemed necessary.

*

Pledging Assistance Now

Argentina

Australia

Britain

Canada

Czech Republic

Germany

PHungary

Kuwait

Netherlands

Oman

Portugal

Poland

United States

*

Pledged Assistance in 1990-91

Afghanistan

Argentina

Australia

Austria

Bahrain

Bangladesh

Belgium

Britain

Canada

Czechoslovakia

Denmark

Egypt

France

Germany

Greece

Italy

Japan

Kuwait

Morocco

Netherlands

New Zealand

Niger

Norway

Oman

Pakistan

Poland

Qatar

Romania

Saudi Arabia

Senegal

Singapore

South Korea

Soviet Union

Spain

Syria

United Arab Emirates

Turkey

United States