The Hindu : After the deluge

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Apr 18, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

After the deluge

By Rajeev Dhavan

Without the countries of the world coming together to monitor the aftermath of the war, an already delicate situation will explode to destabilise the region, tear Iraq apart and start fresh wars with Syria and elsewhere.

USING NAPOLEON as a mouthpiece, George Bernard Shaw makes a telling comment on British Imperialism, which is no less — if not more — apposite to the American imperialism of our time. He says: "There is nothing so bad or so good that you will not find an Englishman doing it; but you will never find an Englishman in the wrong. He does everything on principle. He fights you on patriotic principles; he robs you on business principles; he enslaves you on imperial principles; he bullies you on manly principles; he supports his king on loyal principles and cut off his king's head on republican principles". America is no different. It claims to act in terms of international law; but feels free to subvert international norms whenever it wants. It supports the authority of the United Nations but turns its back on the U.N. to suit its convenience. It globalises trade in the name of fairness; and most unfairly usurps the major trade benefits to its own advantage. It launches a war to secure the largest oil reserves in the world but pretends it fights for peace. It claims to act in the name of democracy, but leaves behind battered states wherever it has gone. It fights a war for peace, but makes huge profits by the sale of arms that follows. Its peacekeeping results in war. Its war brings no peace. No sooner are its interests maintained, it leaves behind a debris of enfeebled states. It is never at a loss for an effective moral attitude.

Amidst these contradictions, the fate of Iraq hangs in the balance. After I wrote last, I received a spirited defence on the legality of the war from the British High Commission enclosing Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith's considered opinion that Resolution 678 authorised force to liberate Kuwait in 1992. But after the Kuwait war, the ceasefire Resolution 687 suspended the use of force. However 10 years later, the use of force revived because Resolution 1441 found Iraq to be in breach of earlier Resolutions. So, the Kuwait war continues for reasons that have nothing to do with Kuwait. But, if no further authorisation was required from the U.N. why did the allies move the Security Council to authorise action and then withdraw the proposed resolution in the face of French and other opposition. And, of what use is the charter of the U.N. if the exclusive powers to authorise armed intervention under Article 42 are usurped by a somewhat crazy and unprincipled interpretation to violate Iraq's sovereignty by ghastly and relentless bombing. There is nothing in the text of the U.N.'s Iraq resolutions which credibly supports the laughable theory that the U.S.' Iraq war was authorised by the U.N. as a continuation of the Kuwait war. Indeed, distinguished English Counsel (Rabinder Singh QC and Alison Macdonald) gave an Opinion for `Peace rights' which wholly negates the revival theory. America's unpredictable policy on Iraq raises new fears. No doubt, various U.N. Resolutions such as Resolution 1154 require Iraq to comply with its obligations. But, equally the Security Council has always remained "actively seized of the matter". The U.S. is not the U.N. The U.S. cannot override the U.N. But, the U.S. can rise to greater mischief in the name of the U.N. A later and much contested Resolution 688 also mentions the repression of the Iraqi people " including most recently in Kurdish populated areas". This has very wide implications. Although this Resolution (unlike Resolution 678) does not refer to using all necessary means, it is this Resolution that was used as a basis for badgering Iraq to cease military activity above the 36th parallel. If the U.S. plan to created `safe havens' is implemented, the U.S. will find itself interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq. It is this that made several nations contest this resolution. India and China abstained.

The U.S. presence in Iraq is linked to the control of oil, the arms trade, the reconstruction contracts and American hegemony over Iraq through a captive government. But, if U.S. governance in Iraq interferes in internal affairs concerning the Kurdish question or Shia and Sunni portions in an otherwise fragile Iraq, which is wrecked and enfeebled by a devastating war, there is a Pandora's box waiting to be opened. The American empire has not been averse to dividing nations. Apart from divisions created after the Second World War, Korea remains divided. Yugoslavia has been split and splintered. Grenada suffered a divisive onslaught. The Middle East is in ruins. South East Asia suffers even now.

The restlessness for expensive control is now directed towards Syria to intimidate and control the Government in Damascus. Syria has been warned about its weapons of mass destruction on the basis of some obscure evidence. Syria wholly denies these accusations. Charges and postures of this nature can only put the region into further gloom. A spokesperson for the U.N. Secretary-General expressed his concern that "... recent statements directed at Syria should not contribute to the wider destablisation in a region already affected by the war in Iraq". American and British plans to weaken the entire region are angular and partial. Not a word is said about Israel's open violations of international norms and gratuitous attacks on its neighbours — including the headquarters of Yasser Arafat in scenes that shocked the world. America's policy for the area is riddled with injustice.

Nations which suffer the treatment given to Iraq do not recover easily. The remains of America's Vietnam War are still visible in today's South East Asia — 30 years after the event. Such war's often produce `failed states' which take years to re-build. Apart from Bosnia and Kosovo, Somalia remains fragile whilst Haiti struggles for governance. The Afghan war resulted in an unfinished aftermath. There is no reason to fear America's `destroy and control' policy. The destruction is complete. The control is opportunistic. The policy of reconstruction espouses welfare without effective self-governance. The best of soldiers make the worst of the imperialists. Whether America is amongst the best of soldiers can hardly be illustrated by the cowardly and unequal wars it has engaged in since 1945. But, it remains amongst the worst of imperialists. The political map of the world has been re-drawn as a testament to America's unfinished business.

Even though America with its supporting cast from Britain has bypassed the U.N, it is difficult to believe and accept that the U.N. is defunct. The U.N. peacekeeping role has been injured. But, the U.N. performs a large number of functions. Peacekeeping must be restored to the U.N. which must retain its overall insight. It is through the U.N. as a focal point and peoples' resistance that pressures emerge on imperialist powers in a unipolar world. No one is suggesting that a bypassed U.N. should clean America's mess after the deluge. America should be asked to pay reparations for the Iraq war which is indefensible morally and legally.

But without the countries of the world coming together to monitor the aftermath of the war, an already delicate situation will explode to destabilise the region, tear Iraq apart and start fresh wars with Syria and elsewhere. Horrifying and unimaginable tensions will be released in a world which already suffers a surfeit of them.If India wants to be in the Security Council, it must speak with a voice that commands respect for its wisdom.

If it does not do so it is just another nation floundering in a mindless diplomatic space.

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

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Violating the rule of law

Letting the airlines fly

After the deluge

A gap in the education policy

A 'model' of democracy

Doctrine of aggression