Geneva, 21 Sep 02  -  Last week live on CNN, Saddam’s longest-surviving mouthpiece, Tariq Aziz, sought to deflect both George W‘s call to arms and the ensuing chorus for Iraq to prove that it no longer has any teeth.  Even traditionally neutral Switzerland used the occasion of its maiden speech as a full UN member to fall in line with the Piper of Hamelin on Iraq; it, too uses Security Council resolutions like a modern Holy Grail mantra - as if they were a substitute for well-considered policies befitting sovereign nations. That looked like a no brainer, and so I called my guru for lost causes to look into Tariq‘s invitation for anyone to come up with ideas which, in effect, would

1. assure the Republican Party’s return to full control of the US Congress in the November mid-term elections without a nice little war in a far-away place;
2. assure regional peace and security in the Middle East with maximum containment of the danger of weapons of mass destruction being used there or elsewhere;
3. assure a decent footnote in future history books for both George W and his nemesis Saddam.

1. Traditionally, in times of war, the US voter tends to support the Commander-in-Chief at the polls.  This time, with the implosion of the bubble of the virtual economy seriously affecting the real economy, the unprecedented numbers of ordinary US voters who have been burnt in the stock market may actually turn in a protest vote if they see themselves taken for a ride against a possibly overblown threat from Saddam. Conversely, they may honor at the poll the foregoing of an obvious election gimmick in favor of sound measures to regain the investors’ confidence in the US market. With the US economy already looking at a tail spin due to confidence factors and administrative overreach, an accelerated run to the door by its Mideastern and other foreign investors could be globally devastating.  Thus everything should be avoided which risks to breach the dykes, and everything should be done to stem that tide.  In fact - and on a global scale at that - it would be enormously helpful if the US economy were to keep or get every dollar of foreign investment it could attract.  To this end the White House may want to promptly set up a Presidential Council for Foreign Investors which, through its composition and advisory role, may effectively reassure foreign investors that their investment in the US market is not only safe but also administratively and fiscally privileged as well as fully protected against foreign snoopings and non-US taxations.
2. Though a result of the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and the creation of the predecessor of the United Nations, Iraq is a sovereign country, like the United States, Italy, Switzerland and others.  The system of equal sovereignty is a time-tested one; if the events of 9/11 demonstrated one thing it is that it needs to be strengthened, not weakened.  Appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, in international law, the United Nations is not a sovereign entity and neither is its Security Council; the UN is no more and no less than a governmental organisation in the service of its members.
3. Contrary to other countries in the Middle East and elsewhere, Iraq is also bound by a key treaty negociated under UN auspices, i.e. the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968.  The NPT covers only what is forbidden, not what is allowed.  Wrightly or wrongly, it devides the world into haves and have-nots, and it relies on the risk of early detection as a deterrent against cheating.  Moreover, it provides for international controls of nuclear material and activities only if they are for peaceful purposes.  In contrast, the acquisition of nuclear material of any quantity and quality, and related assistance and activities designated for military purposes are neither prohibited nor subject to international controls. Under the NPT - and contrary Security Council mantras notwithstanding - any signatory country might thus legally seek related services and, in the event, even build a nuclear submarine.  Any capable and willing sovereign country - NPT member or not - might thus legally supply Iraq also with all related material, know how and technical assistance.  That was the price for non-nuclear weapon states to sign on the dotted line.  And if that quid-pro-quo were no longer assured, Iraq might be the first, but not the only country wishing to reconsider its commitments under the NPT, even exercise its sovereign right to withdraw from the NPT.
4. Prior to the NPT, statesmen were expected to act on the level of responsibility entailed in their sovereign capacities and obligations, with security effectively served by the system of mutual awareness, preparedness and deterrent.  There is no apparent reason to expect such a system to have been useful only up to, and not also beyond the fall of the Berlin Wall, in Europe, the Middle East or anywhere else where human aspirations and fears are at work.
5. If he wants to be seen to seriously seek to promptly and conclusively win the war already at hand – i.e. that against politically-motivated and religiously-driven global terrorism - George W, too might be well advised to rule out no option.  In this light, even Saddam, Iran's mullahs and/or Hamas might again be turned into an objective ally.  E.g. by following and indeed furthering both Yassir’s and Ariel’s legitimate agendas in an original, balanced and mutually beneficial way.  For Saddam, too could probably be prodded into offering the Palestinians a modern version of the regenerative Babylonian exile their brethren experienced some 2600 years ago.  This could take the form of a 99-year Hong Kong-type lease for part of Iraq’s water-rich and oil-bearing 19000 km²Diyala Province.   And it would be in exchange for getting his own Principality of Tikrit while abdicating power to suitable successors properly reflecting Iraq’s great cultural past and its more recent political, notably royal background.  Perhaps somebody could remind Switzerland and Russia of their past Good Offices functions in relation to the Middle East and to other hotspots of the world.  Alternatively, some suitable organization or institute of a signatory, observer or other country might be found for arranging a timely review of the genesis, current results and outlook of the Lausanne Treaty of 24 July 1923 which sealed the breakup of the Ottoman Empire with its still festering and inadequately attended wounds.