Iraq War aftermath: Ask the experts

Britain's former ambassador to the United Nations, Lord Hannay and Middle East security expert, Dr Mustafa Alani answered your questions.

Transcript

---

No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq by the group tasked with looking for them, according to a Bush administration source who has spoken to the BBC.

The source told the presenter of BBC television's Daily Politics show, Andrew Neil, this was the conclusion of the Iraq Survey Group's interim report, which the source said was due to be published next month.

British Foreign Secretary Foreign Secretary Jack Straw says the leak was just speculation.

In a speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, President Bush defended the war and urged all member states to help rebuild the country.

Would more UN involvement help to resolve the crisis in Iraq?

You put your questions to Lord David Hannay, former UK ambassador to the UN and to Middle East expert Dr Mustafa Alani, in an interactive forum.

---

Transcript

Frank Gardner:
Hello and welcome to this BBC News Interactive forum. I'm Frank Gardner. Today our discussion is on Iraq, post-Saddam Hussein, where Security issues still dominate the country. Since the overthrow of the former regime, Iraq has been hit by a series of bomb attacks, one of the most devastating was against the UN headquarters in Baghdad. Today, Akila al-Hashimi, a female member of Iraq's Governing Council, died after being shot in an ambush last weekend.

At the United Nations in New York, World leaders have been discussing the future of Iraq. Some countries - including France - have called for an immediate transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis, a move the US administration has ruled out. So what next for Iraq? We're taking your questions, and here to help answer them are Middle East security expert Dr Mustafa Alani, and Lord David Hannay, former British ambassador to the UN, joins us from Westminster.

Welcome. I'd like to start with an email, which I'd like to address to Lord Hannay, from Michael Harris, Cork, Ireland: Was the basis of the invasion for Iraq illegal?

Lord David Hannay:
No, I don't think it was illegal myself because I shared the view of the British and American governments that the existing Security Council resolutions, which called upon Saddam Hussein to get rid of his weapons of mass destruction and which he had systematically flouted for about 10 years, remained valid.

But I don't dispute that there is disagreement over that and that many people believe it was illegal. But I think it is quite an important point that the two principal countries involved did not think that they were stepping outside the UN system and the UN Charter. They believed that they were acting to enforce the resolutions of the Security Council.

Frank Gardner:
Well the rest of the world thought they were acting outside UN authority didn't they?

Lord David Hannay:
Yes indeed - but I do think it's a valid a point which people always seem to somehow miss - that the two countries concerned were not saying, we have the absolute right to take action under any circumstances that we happen to feel like on a fine Monday morning. They said there are some resolutions which have not been implemented and everybody agrees with that - there is no dispute about that - and we believe the time has come to enforce them. That was, I agree, not agreed by a lot of other people. But it is rather different from saying, for example, that country "X" is one that we wish to go to war with and we've got every right to do so and we're just going to do it.

Frank Gardner:
As we know, most of the resolutions that led up to war concerned weapons of mass destruction. Howard Wren, Australia asks: If no WMD or evidence thereof is found, will the justification for war be proven false?

Dr Mustafa Alani:
I believe so. The motivation and objective for the war was the weapons of mass destruction - the disarmament of Iraq from the capability and the programme of WMD.

There were two other objectives: one was to remove the dictatorship, which is a moral objective - nobody disagrees with that - the great majority of the Iraqi people wished to see the regime removed. Then there was the link with international terrorism. There is no proof on WMD so far after five months of active inspection of Iraq. There is no proof that Iraq was in a position of a WMD programme and there is no proof there was any link with international terrorism. The only objective is to remove the regime.

I am 100% with removing a dictatorship like Saddam Hussein but not at any cost and by any means. The war - the invasion of the country - they tried to dismantle the regime, they dismantled the state and we end up with a lawless state. So I certainly support the idea but now we have a problem - it is a great embarrassment the British and American governments are going to face if they are not going to find weapons of mass destruction.

Frank Gardner:
Let me put this next question to Lord Hannay. John Travis: Yes, Saddam is/was probably a bad guy, but wasn't the pretext for war false? Have the US and British governments lost credibility on the international scene?

Lord David Hannay:
Well I think they have lost credibility because of the failure to find any very clear evidence of weapons of mass destruction, though there is huge amounts of evidence that the man had programmes. But let me make this point: everyone believed in February and March of this year - from Dr Hans Blix across the whole spectrum - that Saddam was still concealing weapons of mass destruction. Read Dr Blix's reports if you don't believe it.

Now there was a difference, a clear difference, between what should have happened next. Dr Blix and many countries believed that the inspections should have carried on. But the reason that he wanted the inspections to carry on was not because he believed that Saddam didn't have them and he'd be able to show that but because he believed he did have them and he'd be able to find them.

So the big real question mark which I think nobody's yet been able to answer, was why on earth did Saddam Hussein go around pretending he had them, if he didn't?

Frank Gardner:
On this same point, there's an e-mail here from Hugh Jones, Canada: If Iraq truly had no WMD, then surely knowledge of that must have been known to western intelligence agencies, and likely ignored. Has that been the case?

I think I'm going to answer this one myself here. If you remember, when we went to war - when Britain and America went to war - when we saw all the pictures of the western troops getting ready to go to war, they had all this chemical protection kit, with the massive logistical exercise in inoculating troops and having all the protective equipment for fighting a battle in a chemical environment. I think it would have had to have a very cynical exercise to think that all of that was just a cover. I believe that they genuinely did think - both the British and American governments - that Saddam had these chemical weapons. They may well turn out to be wrong but I think they genuinely thought that.

Let's move on, this is from Kamarudin, Malaysia: Do you think the Bush Administration has created an international relations mess in Iraq? Is it time for the United Nations to take over completely?

Lord David Hannay:
Well I don't think it's time for it to take over completely because the UN cannot take over the task of providing security in a very, very insecure Iraq. I think that would be a tragic mistake if we believed that was so which would merely lead to the kind of fiascos that we had in Bosnia, or Rwanda or Somalia. The UN is not equipped to handle that.

But should the UN take over much more of what's happening in Iraq than it's doing at the moment, yes, I would say certainly it should. And it should above all become much more prominent in all the work trying to produce a democratic representative legitimate state of Iraq - like registering voters, holding elections, helping the governing council transform itself from an American appointed council into something more legitimate. In all that the UN has a major role to play and I think the sooner the United States recognises that and welcomes it, the better.

Frank Gardner:
I'd like to ask Dr Alani here because you've got a very good handle on how people think in the Arab world, particularly in Iraq your country of origin. Helen Lucas, Hong Kong (ex-UK): If the US were to withdraw, would the UN and its work be better accepted by the Iraqi people?

Dr Mustafa Alani:
I think as a Iraqi, I don't want the US to withdraw now - everything basically has collapsed - it is not Somalia, it is not Beirut. This is a completely different situation. They came to the country with a moral objective - to liberate the Iraqi people from a dictatorship. But what they discovered in the process, they only dismantled the regime, they dismantled the state - it's the chaos, the lack of security, the lack of services - the complete collapse of the state.

I am not really supporting that the United States will be helped to exit from the country and leave the country in this chaotic situation. The UN will not be able to control the situation at all. The UN is a peacekeeper not a peacemaker. The occupation force needs to make peace, stabilise the country and then possibly the UN will have a major role here after that. But in this situation, I think it is the responsibility of the United States to stabilise the country and establish security. So definitely I am against the idea that the US will run away from Iraq.

Frank Gardner:
George, UK writes in saying: We've heard comments from President Chirac about the return to Iraqi sovereignty. What is a reasonable timescale?

Dr Mustafa Alani:
I think Mr Chirac's call is unrealistic for the very simple reason - either he doesn't understand the reality on the ground in Iraq, the chaos, the lack of security - the people are calling the ruling council an illegitimate entity for many reasons - so the situation on the ground is very complicated and I think a realistic timetable must start after the Americans are able to stabilise the situation in security and political terms.

So I don't agree with Mr Chirac that there should be an immediate transfer of power. I think either this is a suggestion to embarrass the United States or there is a lack of understanding of the developments on the ground.

Frank Gardner:
Lord Hannay would you endorse that?

Lord David Hannay:
Indeed. I mean I don't really know what President Chirac thinks he's talking about when he talks about sovereignty, I'm always a bit leery when I hear people using the word sovereignty because it usually means they don't know what they're talking about. If you look at your television screen these days you will see an Iraqi delegation headed by the president of the governing council and the foreign minister of Iraq sitting behind the United Nations plate saying "Iraq". If you turn to Abu Dhabi and Dubai you will find an Iraqi delegation sitting at the International Monetary Fund, if you go to Vienna you will find an Iraqi delegation with a minister for oil sitting at the OPEC meeting. What on earth do these things, if they are not the beginnings of a manifestation of Iraqi sovereignty returning to Iraqis? Now I do understand that what Chirac is saying is that there must be a steady and purposeful progress towards giving Iraqis a say and control over their own affairs and that there must be a process also - and that's where I would see the United Nations playing a much bigger role - in ensuring that the Iraqis who do come forward in that function are legitimised by not appearing simply to be puppets of the Americans. But I honestly think that this idea that somehow there's a magic holy grail called sovereignty which you sort of pass from hand to hand at one moment or another - that's a little bit fanciful.

Frank Gardner:
I think you've almost answered my question, I was going to say that I think the criticism would be that those people who are attending international meetings behind a name plate saying "Iraq", those individuals are effectively selected and approved by the coalition authority.

Lord David Hannay:
Yes, well I have tried to answer that but - and I think that is a legitimate criticism - but the point I'm making is that if they sit in those international organisations, and the Arab League is another one, behind a plate saying "Iraq" then Iraqi sovereignty is alive and well and is in their hands to some extent. But they are not free agents and what we've got to do is to move now steadily and purposefully but with the Americans providing security - there I agree absolutely with the other panellist - and we must move purposefully towards a situation when Iraqis, hopefully chosen by Iraqis, not chosen by the Americans, or at least chosen by the United Nations, will be taking more and more of the decisions.

Frank Gardner:
Alright. Dr Mustafa Alani I'd like you to put your security hat on here for a minute. Raj Vankiporam [phon.] from the United States writes in: Do you think the toppling of Saddam helped to abate terrorism across the world?

Dr Mustafa Alani:
Well the situation is the complete opposite to what we wished. Al-Qaeda now is established in Iraq and I think this is a proven development. We had three attacks in August, basically on the UN, Jordanian Embassy and attack in Najaf. Altogether now we have six car bomb attacks, very organised ones, it's very advanced.

Frank Gardner:
Do you think it was al-Qaeda?

Dr Mustafa Alani:
I believe that no Iraqi has any interest to attack the UN, basically because the Iraqis want to see the UN have better role in Iraq and a major role in Iraq. So I don't think any Iraqis, any honest Iraqis, even in a resistance movement, will attack the UN or even the Jordanian Embassy. So certainly we're talking about a situation now developing to be a free country for terrorism - there is no border control, there is no army, there is no security services, and the anti-American feeling within the Iraqi community now encouraging this sort of action to terrorism. So I believe we have completely the opposite result.

Frank Gardner:
So who do you blame for this, is this an American failure to plan properly for Iraq post-invasion, do you blame the neighbouring countries to Iraq, do you blame Osama bin Laden - who do you blame for this?

Dr Mustafa Alani:
I was very surprised that the Americans thought that Iraq will not develop to be a centre for international terrorism or for al-Qaeda or the Mujahadin for a very simple reason, the regime encouraged those people before the war to come to Iraq, then during the war there's a wave of terrorists entering the country because there was no control and after the war. So I believe that al-Qaeda - you cannot blame terrorists when you create a good environment for them to operate. Now if you go to the website of many Mujahadin movement they consider Iraq as a great place, better than Afghanistan, better than Chechnya for a very simple reason - it is the Americans in Iraq, there are 170,000, and they are easy targets and basically they believe the population comes to support them. So I think the Americans are not in control over this and developed a nest of terrorism. I hope they can control it from now on but if they're going to fail I think Iraq will be better than Afghanistan for terrorists.

Frank Gardner:
You don't sound very optimistic there Mustafa. Right another e-mail here from Bob Henderson in the United Kingdom and this is one for Lord Hannay: Can President Bush balance the obvious need for greater contributions from other countries - I assume here he's talking about troops and money - and balance out and compromises that he might have to make with the likely loss of face with his US electorate?

Lord David Hannay:
Well I'm not sure that he will lose much face with the US electorate, much of it, if he moves back on to the centre ground and if he takes effective action to broaden the coalition and to get wider support both in terms of money and men and political legitimacy from the United Nations. There are a lot of Americans who will think that's a very good thing. There will be some Americans, on the right wing of politics, the neo-conservatives, who will gnash their teeth and dislike it but they're not going to go off and vote for a Democrat candidate in next year's election anyway, they're going to vote for President Bush. So I think the calculation he has to make is how far does he have to go in order to make a success of Iraq, because the big threat to him this time next year, in the run up to the presidential campaign, is if Iraq is a terrible mess and a lot of Americans are getting killed daily on the ground in Iraq and that is something that the American electorate is not going to like one little bit. So he's got to avoid that and questions of face are probably secondary, they usually are with politicians when they're trying to get themselves re-elected.

Frank Gardner:
This is an interesting one here, this is from Steve in the United Kingdom - one for Dr Mustafa - he says: With the effective transfer of all Iraqi assets to US ownership - you may want to confirm or deny that but these are his words - isn't this invasion looking more and more like a simple theft, albeit on a global scale? Could this be an explanation of the growing waves of anti-Americanism even if it's wrong?

Dr Mustafa Alani:
I don't believe - I mean we heard a lot of talk about the oil, this is war for oil, not only from the Iraqis outside the country. I don't believe it is a war for oil, for control of oil. Oil is a factor but it's not the central question, the central question is strategic. I think the United States strategic vision is that Iraq will be transferred to a major centre for US influence and basically possibly the US military presence in the region. The Americans are facing problems in Saudi Arabia and Iraq is the only replacement, Qatar is not a replacement, Kuwait is not a replacement because they are small states and basically you cannot operate from this sort of state. So I think the reason why the United States went to war, apart from removing a regime which is an unfriendly regime in Iraq, I think there is a strategic objective rather than a financial or economic or oil objective.

Frank Gardner:
Do you agree with that Lord Hannay?

Lord David Hannay:
If the American motive was to get their hands on Iraq's assets and to make money out of it it's pretty odd that President Bush has just gone to Congress and asked for $87 billion in order to put into Iraq and those are 87 billion of US tax payers' money, raised from US tax payers and being transferred to Afghanistan, Iraq and the military effort in the Middle East. I honestly think that the argument that they're laying their hands on Iraq's assets is completely fanciful and I agree entirely with the other member of the panel that the oil motive has been grossly exaggerated. I don't think it works at all in the way that is suggested because the oil is going to be Iraq's - do not kid yourself - just as British oil is Britain's even though most of it is drilled and produced by foreign companies, but it's still ours and we get the tax take from it. And Iraq's oil will be Iraq's and they will get the benefit, the economic benefit from it, even if there are some multinational companies in there working with Iraqi companies to dig the oil. So I really do think that if one's going to understand the problems of Iraq - both war and what has followed - it really is better to set aside these conspiracy theories relating to oil, I don't think they help you to understand, I think they simply muddy the waters.

Frank Gardner:
Alright, we're running out of time but I do want to turn to a question which I think is fascinating the whole world here and I want to put it to Dr Mustafa Alani: What is happening in the race to find Saddam Hussein? Do you think he's still in the country? This comes from Amish [phon.] in England.

Dr Mustafa Alani:
I believe Saddam's still in the country .

Frank Gardner:
Still in Iraq you mean?

Dr Mustafa Alani:
Still in Iraq I mean. In a certain part of Iraq actually. The Americans scored a major success in narrowing geographically the possibility where they can find Saddam. And I think it's a matter of possibly weeks that they were discover Saddam. We have to understand out of 55 identified leadership of the regime now 41 is captured or killed, so the regime has no hope to come back to power at all in Iraq. And for the Iraqi people Saddam is already dead whether he's alive or not, politically he's dead. And I don't think that any Iraqi believes that Saddam has a chance to come back or to control power again. So I think the question is that Saddam is still in Iraq. The other option that either he's in Iran or in Syria, Jordan would cooperate, Turkey would cooperate - all the neighbours of Iraq - Saudi Arabia would cooperate, Kuwait would cooperate. Possibly Syria and Iran - I don't think they will really take the risk of giving refuge to Saddam. Saddam's still inside the country and it's a question of time that they will find him and I don't think they will capture him alive, there is no chance. If they capture him alive it will be embarrassment for the United States, it's better to have him as dead man. And I think he will fight to the last minute instead of surrendering to the Americans.

Frank Gardner:
How do you think he's been able to stay at large, a free man, for the last five months?

Dr Mustafa Alani:
The problem is the anti-American feeling now. Basically all the temptation of $50 million reward they still - and we have the experience with Osama bin Laden, Osama bin Laden since 1995 the CIA was chasing him and $30 million on Osama bin Laden never felt that people basically give information about him. I think he's still in control of a large amount of money - cash money - so he can buy people for security, more than the American's are paying. Secondly I think because the Americans mishandled the whole situation in Iraq he might be able to find people to support him but I don't think people support him in hope that he will return to power.

Frank Gardner:
Lord Hannay, finally from you, how important do you think the capture or killing of Saddam Hussein is to the judging of whether the whole war in Iraq was a success or failure?

Lord David Hannay:
Well I think it's become a bit of a side show. I agree entirely with the other member of the panel. It would give a temporary boost but since even the Iraqis who are shooting Americans or the terrorists who are there are not doing it, I suspect, to bring Saddam back to power, I'm not sure that it will be very relevant in the success or failure of the after-war period. I think the success or failure of the after-war period will depend on whether the Americans and British can enlist a wider support in the country and can get a better show on the road to put Iraq back on its feet and if we can get a prosperous democratic Iraq, even if through much travail, that will be a big success. That's what it will be judged by.

Frank Gardener:
Thank you very much. The trouble with you two panellists is that you spend much too much time agreeing with each other. We're going to have to find people who are on a completely different wavelength next time. But thank you very much for the interview. That's sadly all we've got time for. My great thanks there to our guests Dr Mustafa Alani from the Royal United Services Institute and Lord Hannay and to all of you for your many questions. From me Frank Gardner goodbye.