War won’t help Bush

Around 100,000 American troops are amassed around the Gulf along with half of Britain’s army, navy and air force while the UN Security Council is scheduled to consider a resolution on military action against Iraq. Meanwhile, UN Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix is to submit a report on alleged possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction to the Security Council.

America and Britain have been sending so many ‘signals’, ‘warnings’ and ‘messages’ that ‘time is running out’ to Iraq while the wily Iraqi dictator has, at the last minute, come out with offers of last minute co-operation. He did it this week as well and the world will still be wondering whether this is one more stage of the cat and mouse game between Saddam Hussein and the two most powerful nations.

There is no sympathy for Saddam Hussein as an individual either among his own people or in the outside the world following his ruthless rise to power, physical elimination of all opposition-even his family members – while carrying on ruthless wars against Iraqis themselves such as the Kurds and senseless wars on neighbours-Iran and Kuwait. The victims of this sadism have been his own people, a ten year war against Iran and then the invasion of. Kuwait followed by ten years of economic sanctions imposed by the UN.

This second Gulf War being planned out by George Bush (Jr) however, will not have the near global support for the war that his father had in 1990. In that instance the Iraqi dictator provoked the world with the invasion of oil rich Kuwait and the destabilisation of the entire Middle East. George Bush (Snr) was able to cobble a coalition not only of western allies but even radical Arab countries like Syria against Hussein. In his proposed military action the present US president will not even have his western allies alongside him but only his British cousins led by the ever-faithful Tony Blair.

On Monday, Secretary of State Colin Powell – himself not an all too enthusiastic a supporter of this proposed military action – warned members of the UN Security Council not to shirk their responsibility when they meet on the crisis. But two members of the Security Council, France and Germany, appear to be forging European Unity against the proposed onslaught. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin had hinted a veto of the possible Security Council resolution calling for authorisation of a war. ‘In the event of a second resolution we will not associate ourselves with military intervention that is not supported by the international community,’ he had said German Foreign Minister Joshka Fischer had firmly refused to go along with military action. China’s foreign. Minister,Tang Jiaxuan too had argued for giving more time for UN weapons inspectors to search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Whether the mighty United States with its resources can influence with three of these members to go along with the American resolution will be seen next week.

The quest by the UN weapons inspectors backed by the US to search for weapons of mass destruction said to be in possession of Iraq has dragged on for so long without producing any convincing proof that impartial observers, particularly of The Third World do not take it seriously. Some of the statements made by US Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix sound ridiculous. Yesterday he was quoted saying: ‘It is up to Iraq to convince the world that it does not have weapons of mass destruction.’ How does one prove to the world that he does not posses something if he really does not have it?

The intense searches carried out by UN inspectors for so long have not yielded any proof to substantiate the charges that have been made. A discovery of 11 rockets said to be capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction had been made. So have some 3000 nuclear related documents in the house of an Iraqi scientist who had claimed that it had nothing to do with nuclear weapons. Surely much greater proof will be required if a war of the magnitude that is planned for is to be launched?

The principle of passing judgements on countries in possession of Weapons of Mass destruction (Conventional as well as nuclear) appear to be all skewed up. For example, Pakistan was considered a pariah nation when it was going ahead with its nuclear programme and economic and military sanctions were imposed on it by the US. But all these sanctions flew out of the window once the Global War on Terrorism commenced and bin Laden was suspected to be in hiding in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Today, many nations outside the Nuclear Non proliferation regime are known to posses nuclear weapons but the US turns a blind eye. North Korea admitted going ahead with its nuclear programme and the US opted for negotiations rather than military action like against Iraq. Why?

We do not sympathise with Saddam Hussein. We do not subscribe to the view that a war to displace Hussein is a war against Islam.

But a war of immense destruction is not the way out for America. It is already severely undermining Third World support for the Global War on Terrorism. President Bush has to think of other ways and means to boost his popularity both at home and abroad.

Your comments to the Editor