Archives

by Professor Laksiri Fernando, University of Colombo

It is a moment of despair and a crisis in human history. The US President George Bush had given an unusual ultimatum to the President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, to leave the country with his sons, if to prevent war, and the latter has point blankly rejected it.

The United Nations, formed fifty-eight years ago, primarily to prevent war, has terribly failed to do so. Saddam Hussein has provocatively threatened the world to take the war to anywhere it may matter. It is perhaps in this context, apart from its usual diplomatic vacillation, that France has now offered its possible military support to the US, if Saddam Hussein uses his chemical or biological weapons. Is not this an admission of the fact that Iraq possesses chemical and biological weapons, in large or small quantities?

But the war is not only about weapons. Everyone knows that. To say it is about oil is an observation of too simplistic a nature. George Bush somewhat spoiled his credibility when he 'ordered' Saddam Hussein to leave the country.

Because, three weeks back he declared that 'changing the ruler is a matter for the people.' What they intended from the beginning, both Bush and Blair, was a regime change in Iraq. The ultimatum shows the real intent of war, right or wrong, than anything else.

But war for regime change cannot be justified within the existing international law or practice. 'Weapons of mass destruction' is a more acceptable term than regime change. What the son Bush tries to achieve now is what the father Bush could not fulfill in 1991, again because of some cumbersome international law. In that year, the US led coalition had a UN mandate to oust Iraqi armies from Kuwait, but not to march to Baghdad. If they had marched to Baghdad then, the world would have been significantly different now, at least in the Middle East.

There is growing anxiety among the people in America about some impending attacks on them by al-Qaeda or some such terrorist group, similar to what happened on September 11. The whole country is on alert, apart from its war in Iraq. International terrorism is undoubtedly a menace against the civilized world whether it strikes in New York, Bali or London. This time, Britain may have to be more careful of terrorist attacks than the US. Britain is much more a soft target.

The cry of 'weapons of mass destruction' is not merely a bogey. It is a real threat in many parts of the world today. When there were two super powers before the end of the Cold War, the US and the Soviet Union, there was some control in the world system. Now the Soviet Union is dead and gone, and the US is the only remaining 'super-super power', it is somewhat natural for the US to think and behave as a world 'policeman'.

Reading it as mere imperialism is too much of old rhetoric. The change of the bi-polar system into an uni-polar world, after the fall of the Soviet Union, has undoubtedly created enormous gaps and holes in the international system through which both international terrorism and terrorist type states have emerged.

The presence of the Soviet Union, or the deterrence under the previous bi-polar system, perhaps could have prevented the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

This invasion has proved to be the 'mother of all wars' that we are experiencing today in the Gulf region. It is also the Soviet Union, apart from the US, that propped up the Hussein regime in Iraq against the countries like Iran. The decline of the Soviet Union prevented its 'modernizing mission' unfinished in Afghanistan, and it was finally left to the US to collect the remnants and place them in some order at great risks to its own security and others. It was from this virtual mess, partly created by the US itself, that terrorist leaders like Osama bin Laden and organizations such as al-Qaeda emerged.

The weapons of mass destruction, to the extent of nuclear capability, are proliferating in many regions and particularly in the Middle East. North Korea is also toying with nuclear capability with great risks to itself and to the surrounding countries including China. It may be morally correct to question the validity of the call for disarmament by those who possess the same weapons of mass destruction. But it is highly unrealistic to imagine all countries disarming themselves together and instantly. It is true that war for disarmament in itself is a contradictory notion. That is why this war should have been prevented at all costs. A war for disarmament can cause a major human disaster than any other war, given the enemy's enormous destructive capability by definition.

The UN or even the US did not realize that a regime change in Iraq might be necessary to defuse the situation in the Middle East after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Although the promotion of peace, human rights and democracy are some noble objectives of the UN, there is no mandate for the organization to effect regime change towards that direction, directly or indirectly. Here the world is in a 'Catch 22' situation.

The mere strategy of weapons inspection can be a continuous vicious cycle with regimes like Iraq, as it has become obvious during the last twelve odd years. If the weapons of mass destruction proliferate among the 'rogue regimes' like Iraq at the current rate, it may be necessary to have a dozen of Hans Blixes, on a permanent basis, at the disposal of the UN.

Even from a Third World perspective, a regime like Iraq cannot be defended or justified. What has it contributed to the Third World development apart from perhaps buying our tea or labour? While thousands of people in the US and Britain today can march against their leaders, opposing the war, none in Iraq could do the same against Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait in 1990, or today against his war preparations.

This is not to justify a war against Iraq, but to highlight the differences of political systems or regimes of dictatorship and democracy. The existence of despotic or dictatorial regimes is a major problem in the world system today, more than before, because of the rapid proliferation of the weapons of mass destruction.

It is mainly up to the UN to find solutions to this problem with the support of all peace-loving countries in the world, big or small.

It is in the above context that the failures of the UN, with so much of world experts and country diplomats, are sad and unfortunate. It was completely futile for the UN Security Council to rely on the weapon inspections alone and debate again and again whether a second resolution on Iraq was necessary or not.

There must have been some acceptable concerns on the part of France, Russia and Germany about the strategic intentions of the US in the Middle East.

These, however, could not have been valid reasons to allow the situation to slip out of hand altogether. These countries seem to have acted as if their threat of veto or opposition to a second resolution could have prevented a US-Iraq war in the Gulf, if not in the Middle East altogether.

While the countries opposing the war, particularly France, Russia and Germany, were preaching diplomacy with Iraq, they have failed in their diplomacy with the US with some major repercussions for the future of the world system at large. They have somewhat behaved like the 'peace protesters' in many countries, only highlighting the adverse effects of the war without using diplomacy with Iraq or the US to avert the impending military conflict.

Their opposition to the US has even given some strength to the Iraqi regime. As the Prime Minister of Britain, Tony Blair, declared to his Parliament, 'it is not possible to retreat now'. The logic of the confrontation, since the UN Resolution of 1441 in November 2002, has been such no one was in a position to withdraw, unless there was strong mediation from a third party or alternative proposition than the continuous weapons inspection to deal with Iraq. Iraq has done enough provocation to effect the war, endangering its own innocent people.

As the UN has failed, the war cannot be avoided. As the war breaks in the Gulf, the UN seems to crumble more and more. What is possible may be to minimize the adverse effects and to avoid the spread of the war into other regions.

Otherwise, the consequences could be disastrous for the future of the world.

www.crescat.com

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager