The Hindu : 'Credibility of U.N. on Iraq at stake'

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Dec 24, 2002

National

National

'Credibility of U.N. on Iraq at stake'

By Amit Baruah

NEW DELHI DEC. 23. Whether it is the issue of Western "double standards'' in addressing the issue of Pakistani terrorism or dealing with Iraq as opposed to North Korea, foreign visitors are receiving a polite earful on both counts.

Peter Mandelson, MP and former British Trade Secretary, who spoke with conviction at a CII-organised lunch meeting about the need to deal with Iraq, found that his largely Indian audience was not fully convinced about the West's approach to both Pakistan and Iraq.

Just a few days ago, a Republican Senator from the U.S., Sam Brownback, had been confronted with similar questions relating to perceived American softness in dealing with Pakistan-sponsored terrorism at the same venue.

In his address, Mr. Mandelson said that it was better to anticipate crises than simply be good in crises with the explicit mandate of the U.N. wherever possible but always on the basis of international law.

While saying that the moment of decision on Iraq had still not arrived, he took the view that allowing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to be developed by Iraq would be to ignore the "true'' lessons of September 11.

``The message to Saddam (Hussein) is clear: stop the game playing and the evasion with the international community and the U.N.; disarm voluntarily or involuntarily but the time for waiting is running out,'' he said.

Mr. Mandelson, like many other Westerners, stressed that the very credibility of the U.N. was at stake when it came to dealing with Iraq and the implementation of the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441.

``When intervention is contemplated, certain criteria are important. Is a diplomatic alternative available and has it been tried and seen to fail? Is the use of force practical? Are we prepared to sustain a commitment to nation building over the long-term?....''

``Nobody would suggest that applying these tests is anything but difficult. Their assessment will inevitably vary from Government to Government. But that is the value of the U.N., the forum in which these matters should be thrashed out and a consensus forged,'' he said.

In response to comments, Mr. Mandelson conceded that there would be differences of opinion on what constituted a "material breach'' on the part of Iraq as far as the implementation of U.N. resolutions were concerned.

He claimed that it was very hard to detect WMD — these were mobile, could be moved around and Iraq was a large country. The Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein, was showing no signs of cooperating on the WMD issue.

War in Iraq, the British MP said, would not be determined by the United States and the United Kingdom, but by Saddam Hussein himself. "It is in his hands.''

Mr. Mandelson disagreed with a suggestion from the audience that the terrorist threat from Pakistan posed a bigger threat than the danger emanating from Iraq.

He repeatedly stressed that Britain was keeping up the pressure on Pakistan on the question of terrorism.

The former Minister, however, warned that any change of Government in Pakistan could mean something a lot worse.

Maintaining that the West was being consistent in South Asia, Mr. Mandelson said that terrorism could not exist without the active support or benign tolerance of governments.

In his prepared speech, he stressed there was no room in any civilised society for groups like the Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Jaish-e-Mohammad.

"The appalling terrorist attacks suffered in India demonstrate the threats posed by such people to democracy....''

After September 11, 2001, the world had recognised the fragility of national borders and societies. Pointing to the inter-dependence of values and interests, Mr. Mandelson said: "The international community is not defined by America's national interest. The United Nations is not driven by the need to accommodate America or the yearning of Britain's or anyone else's armed forces to pacify every conflict of the world.''

``I refuse to accept that our response to terrorism is simply being dictated by American policy. We are all at risk.... the Al-Qaeda network has been driven back but has not been destroyed. They are fanatics, a kind of foreign legion that is totally divorced from the true beliefs of Islam. In India, you, like us, see violence and extremism as incompatible with the pursuit of values born of true religion,'' he added.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National