The Hindu : Resolution lacks moral authority

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Apr 11, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Resolution lacks moral authority

By Cho S. Ramaswamy

The unanimity that was on show in the Rajya Sabha while passing the resolution deploring the U.S. action against Iraq was not a spontaneous one. It was ordered to be so. I was one of the members listed to speak on the resolution.

The Chairman decided that from among the nominated members, only one would speak, and that was not me. When I pleaded that since mine might be perhaps be the only voice against the resolution, I should be given an opportunity to express my views, I was told that opposing the resolution would be an insult to the Chair, since the resolution was in the name of the Chairman. My explanation that my intent was not to insult the Chair but to exercise my right of expression was found unacceptable.

The resolution proves that we are as much capable of adopting double standards as the U.S. is. Parliament had not condemned or even deplored the Soviet invasion of Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Nor was the Soviet invasion and the subsequent decade of occupation of Afghanistan deplored by the two Houses.

Even if we let that pass, as the non-aligned nations then were aligned with the USSR, Parliament did not condemn the U.S.-led NATO bombing of Milosevic's Serbia for more than a month. That, too, did not have the sanction of the U.N. Security Council.

The resolution bemoans the fact that the U.S.-led action against Iraq is not in conformity with the U.N. Charter. We, who are so jealous of the primacy of the U.N., did not condemn even once, the 12-year thwarting of the U.N. resolutions by Iraq. Is this not double standard? We, who now express our anguish through a resolution of Parliament, about the loss of civilian lives did not utter a word of disapproval when Saddam Hussein gassed and killed thousands of Kurds and slaughtered crowds of Shi'ites. Is this not adoption of double standards? In the name of condemning the U.S. action, should we absolve Saddam Hussein of all the dastardly crimes he had committed against his own people?

France has ambitions of becoming the de-facto if not the de-jure, leader of the European Union which it hopes to nurture as a counterweight to the U.S. France also has its contracts with Saddam's Iraq to protect it. France is concerned that if the U.S. has its way in Iraq, the euro would lose all its fancied chances of replacing the dollar as the number one international currency. Russia has a huge debt to recover from Iraq, and is worried that a new regime may disown the debt as that of Saddam Hussein.

We do not have such vested interests in the continuation of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Our primary concern now is about global terrorism. After this war, any nation that entertains ideas about the funding and assisting of terrorists may have to think twice before venturing to do that. Of course, the U.S. is now trying to differentiate between the cases of Pakistan and Iraq.

But this war would make their objections to our right to a pre-emptive strike weak and unacceptable. There lies our interest and this war serves it.

The death of innocent people, women, and children is shocking and heart- breaking. But when Saddam's soldiers take refuge in mosques, hospitals and civilian homes and fire at the allied forces from the safety and sanctity of those places, civilian casualty would only be an unavoidable result. And let us not forget that the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam Hussein is much greater than the number of casualties in this war. Let not our anguish be denied to them.

The opposition of France, Russia and Germany has achieved only this: the war which could have been over in a few days got prolonged by a few weeks only because of them.

Their opposition to the U.S. action led Saddam to believe that they would prevent the war. And when war broke out, their continued opposition to it led not only Saddam Hussein and his soldiers but even the people of Iraq to expect that these countries would obtain a ceasefire if only Iraq prolonged the war. This resulted in unnecessary devastation and loss of human lives.

Those countries which would participate in the rebuilding of Iraq have been described as participants in a feast for vultures. If that be so, are we going to avoid any role in the rehabilitation of the devastated country? No. We will go later, to pick up the crumbs, the leftovers, after the vultures leave. If they are vultures, we would be scavengers. Are we going to take pride in it?

If we had been honest to ourselves, the resolution, while deploring the U.S. action because it is unilateral, would have also condemned the Saddam regime for its contempt of the U.N. Since the resolution did not do it, it lacks moral authority. For the reasons stated by me earlier, it lacks practical wisdom.

So, while I hesitate to condemn it, I do deplore it.

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

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Return to the U.N.

Two birds with one stone

The end of economic reforms?

Has U.S. over-reached its limits?

Resolution lacks moral authority

Fighting TB worldwide

Contain this fire

Shaping post-war Iraq

A voice of sanity