Opinion - News Analysis   

World order bombed out

The brazen manner in which Washington has gone about its war on Iraq has dismayed the world. Sridhar Krishnaswami reports.

A U.S. marine replaces the Iraqi flag in Umm Qasr... regime change.

THOSE FAMILIAR with college basketball in the United States call this time of the year March Madness. But the way things are turning out, it seems to be madness of a different kind and of a totally different magnitude. The Bush administration has set in motion a conflict in Iraq that evokes "shock and awe" of a totally different nature from what its air raids aim for — shock that Washington would poke the international community in the eye and go it alone on Iraq; and awe that this Republican administration could then turn around and pretend that it indeed has the support of the comity of nations or the so-called "Coalition of the Willing".

The brazen manner in which Washington has gone about its war on Iraq has dismayed the world. If it was only a question of getting rid of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the U.S. could have, in the end, brought Russia, France, China and Germany into the "alliance" even kicking and screaming. But the Bush administration was perceived — and rightfully so — to be pushing a different agenda. The obsession with Saddam Hussein meant that George W. Bush was willing to go to any lengths to get rid of the Iraqi dictator.

That this was the same Mr. Hussein that the U.S. and Europe were humouring in the 1980s or that Western firms were quite actively involved in several dubious weapons programmes is now a totally different story. The fact of the matter is that today, Mr. Hussein has become a thorn in the side of this Bush administration. Its obsession with him meant that disarmament `had' to come along with regime change — an idea that many in Europe were not too keen on going along with.

This Bush administration has long been asked why it was that its objectives in Iraq just kept shifting — from disarmament and regime change, to nation-building, to democracy in the whole of the Middle East, an `idea' that must be quite thrilling to many of America's allies in the Arab world! And then came the `Mother' of all rationales — that Mr. Hussein was somehow connected with Al-Qaeda. Even the biggest supporters of the U.S. in the war against terrorism such as France questioned the linkage.

Anti-war protesters in Philadelphia.

At the United Nations Security Council, the onus was put on the top weapons inspector, Hans Blix, to come out and lay the cards on the table. This Mr. Blix did, but not to the liking of the U.S. Washington's argument from the very beginning had been that Mr. Hussein has had 12 years; and that 12 more weeks were not going to change things. With the exception of Britain and Spain no one went along with Washington and the focus shifted to the non-permanent members who were variously pressured.

Suddenly, the Permanent Members, who for the last five decades had so zealously been guarding their right to decide major issues, were passing the buck to those who were totally out of their depth in making a decision on international war and peace. And when all else failed, in the absence of nine votes, the U.S. pulled the Resolution out of the Security Council vote. And now the war. The hawks in the Bush administration and extreme right wing Republicans have always been "gunning" for the U.N. and everything it stands for.

The breakdown of diplomacy at the U.N. Security Council would certainly not have led to loss of sleep to this crowd; and there are the practical conservatives who perhaps look at the whole thing and move on. But Mr. Bush is convinced that he gave it his very best shot at trying to take the world body along. And listening to the U.S. Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, one is supposed to be impressed by the precision strike capabilities of the military which also "reflect" Washington's determination to `minimise' the damage.

But the damage has been done. And to the ordinary Iraqis it is of little cheer that things are going to shape up for the better in the `future'. The bottom line has been clear even before the start of hostilities — trends towards unilateralism in foreign policy having a debilitating impact on not only the functioning of the international system but in the shaping of the structures as well. And, with this, the scramble for answers, if there are any.

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

Opinion

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

• World order bombed out
• Quiet, for now
• Ducking the issue
• Deep differences
• Will his gamble pay off?
• Our future climate
• The United Nations in a divided world
• Hardly any `shock and awe'

Copyright © 2003, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu