Letter to the Editor

Thomas Hodges, Public Affairs Officer
Embassy of the United States of America, Tallinn

Your February 10 editorial alleges that the U.S. reason for possible military action in Iraq is linked to oil. Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria, and the U.K. all supply more oil to the U.S. than Iraq.

Currently Iraq supplies about three percent of the world's oil market. If the principal interest of the U.S. were cheaper oil from Iraq, it would be simple enough to conclude a deal with Iraq to obtain it. Indeed, the U.S. has been the largest buyer of Iraqi oil in the Oil for Food program.

We cannot predict what a conflict in Iraq will cost, but it will be in the billions of dollars. The deployment of U.S. troops -- even without a shot being fired -- costs that much. These huge monetary costs, however, would pale beside the human cost, if war broke out.

Any American who has ever met the surviving family members of U.S. military personnel lost in combat would not face a single widow for the sake of cheaper oil. Surely the editors of Äripäev recognize these financial and human costs make no sense strictly in the context of oil - it would be the most expensive oil in the world.

Your editorial goes on to link the state of Estonian-Russian relations with the Iraqi crisis. The complex background of this bilateral relationship predates the Iraqi problem by so many years that it is difficult to see any serious relationship between the two issues.

The United States understands that war is not popular. If you asked every member of the U.S. government whether they wanted to fight a war in Iraq the answer would be a unanimous "no." We want a peaceful resolution of a fundamental threat to world security.

By bringing in the question of Estonian tourist revenues and unrelated foreign policy issues regarding Russia, your editorial loses sight of the real issues and real problems that put the risk of war before us. It suggests that you consider Iraq too far away to be Estonia's problem.

Sadly, that's what some western democracies (including my own) thought about the plight of small countries in Europe in the last century. We think a return to the days of the 1930's when democracies ignored risks to others when those risks disturbed their quiet lives would produce a very dangerous world indeed.

The real issues before us are not Estonian tourism, but the risks to the world if terrorists obtain Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

Please consider the carefully-researched presentation of U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell before the United Nations last week http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300.htm .

Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction in violation of seventeen separate UN Security Council resolutions passed over a period of twelve years. Iraq has links to the organization that carried out the September 11, 2001, killing of over 3000 citizens in my country.

This is a fundamental threat and a more persuasive argument for global solidarity in the face of that threat than an economically-unsound allegation that the U.S. is pursuing action against Iraq in order to save a few pennies at the gas station.

War is difficult to contemplate for any free and sensible people. But, we are faced with what Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman calls "the paradox of force." When dealing with a dictator who obtained power by force, maintains himself by force and communicates with his neighbors by force, one has to be ready for a war to avoid a war.

By standing united, the world community may successfully compel Saddam to comply with the UN Security Council Resolutions to disarm without firing a shot. Without unity, and without a manifest willingness to use force, there is no chance that Saddam will disarm peacefully. Rather, he will remain a threat to civilized nations everywhere, who may one day regret not having been resolute when the moment called for it.

This is a difficult time in which we face important decisions. These decisions will require clear vision and courage in the face of unknown risks. These have not been in short supply in Estonia over the recent past. You are quite correct in asserting the Estonian people have a right to consider these risks. I hope we can rely on your paper to be more helpful in clarifying the real issues in the future.