& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

War on Iraq: Is it really in America's interest?

M. M. REZAUL KARIM
***The only course to avert war now may be to induce Saddam Hussain to go on exile. But neither he himself nor anyone else could accomplish such an arduous task. The only other course may be to exercise adequate pressure to be brought to bear by American law-givers on their President... As of present, many people think that the war on Iraq may serve America's limited and short-term interest, but this is likely to make the people of America suffer a moral setback and America's image as the world leader may start eroding...***
THE war on Iraq appears imminent. One surmises that after hearing President Bush's press statement on 6 March, stipulating that nothing, including UN resolutions, would deter America from going to war, if it is to protect her own interests and security. The statement is both strong and significant. It is fraught with at least two underlying assumptions or decisions of the American President. One is what is regarded as America's interest and security perception and the other is America's attitude towards United Nations and the world community.
President Bush reiterated time and again that Saddam Hussain had failed to comply with the UN resolution on destruction of weapons of mass destruction and must, therefore, face the "consequences". To him, the consequences means war, and he does not consider the necessity of a second resolution for it. Prime Minister Tony Blair also very recently talked in the same vein, despite his earlier pledge to act only following submission of the final report by the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq and decision of the Security Council.
The inspectors presented their report to the Security Council on 7 November and stated that they had found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction and even traces of underground chemical and biological weapons. They also failed to discover any efforts by Iraq to possess nuclear weapons or efforts to manufacture such weapons. They considered that commence- ment of destruction of the proscribed Al-Samoud missiles was encouraging, the Iraqi authorities had cooperated more this time and expressed the hope that their task would be completed within the next few months. On the negative side, they stated that the Iraqis had not supplied them all the documents they needed. The Americans countered that Saddam Hussain resorted to deceit and delay and has not completely disarmed. They also pointed out that the inspectors had no means to undertake comprehensive subterranean surveys to unearth chemical and biological weapons, and cannot be given unlimited time for inspection and disarmament. France, Germany, Russia and China opposed any UN action to wage war. What is America's interest in this context? People are confused, confounded. According to President Bush, America's security was threatened. Of course, 9/11's heinous terrorist attacks in America were universally and severely condemned. The combined international expedition led by the USA in Afghanistan was widely supported by the international community. But Bin Laden, the selfconfessed architect of the incident, still remains at large. USA tried to establish a link of Bin Laden's Al Qaeda with the Iraqi regime, but without success. Then what danger is posed by Iraq to America, the West and the rest of the world? People wonder. Iraq has no missiles to launch even chemical and biological weapons, if any kept hidden under the earth. One can argue, Iraq can pass these on to international terrorists. But international terrorists can also try to procure these and other weapons from alternative sources. It is difficult to sell the idea that the Iraqi regime must disarm -- the arms they claim they do not possess nor discovered by those engaged in this task.
If the analysis mentioned above is logical, what real interest then must exist for the US administration to lead primarily a US-UK armada to launch an attack against Iraq, even without securing UN endorsement? The compulsions appear real and pressing, though not clearly explained, for the US government, especially in the teeth of worldwide protests against war, including massive demonstrations in the USA itself! The British Prime Minister faces even greater risks of not being re-elected in the next election, as anti-war supporters constitute about 70 per cent of Britain's population. The planned and consistent way the war preparations have been going on for the past several months, at staggering cost, suggest that the decision on the war issue had already been taken decisively by the US President with or without the United Nations and world opinion. Then what was the real intention? People talk about America's interest in the second largest oil reserve of Iraq, to bolster business of America's military-industrial complex, Jewish lobby and Israel's security, manifestation of power and status as leader of the unipolar world, and so on and so forth. Is there any truth in it? People wonder.
The other factor about President Bush's remarks about relevance or usefulness of the United Nations' Security Council also constitutes a matter of great concern to many. The anti-war resolution of the Nonaligned Movement, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the Arab League, the Vatican and others, besides world-wide condemnation, did not deter President Bush from altering his decision. But to wage war against a country without an appropriate resolution of the Security Council is unprecedented and strikes at the very raison d'etre of the United Nations, which has been carrying out, with due credit, its task of maintaining world peace and promoting co-operation and development of nations. Such posture of the US Administration is, therefore, frightful and of deep concern to the international community.
The public resistance against war on Iraq, as manifested by America's important trans-Atlantic allies like France and Germany, as well as by traditional foes like Russia and China, even at the risk of veto, did not deter America from its chosen path. US plan is now to obtain a majority vote in the Security Council on a second resolution to get some moral boost and, therefore, to work by all possible means on those members, who are yet to decide upon how to vote. Even the strategic disadvantage on account of sharp division among memberstates of the NATO and the refusal of Turkey to station American troops on its soil, rejecting the enormous financial and aid package offered, could not desist the US administration. There appears no way to persuade the American President against going to war. His oft-repeated remarks of "time is running out" signifies his determination to do a prompt and surgical operation of dislodging Saddam Hussain before the desert becomes too hot and the financial world too unstable. In any way, in the event of a war, the consequent destabilisation will not remain confined within the geographical bounds of Iraq but will spread over the entire Middle East, if not beyond.
The only course to avert war now may be to induce Saddam Hussain to go on exile. But neither he himself nor anyone else could accomplish such an arduous task. The only other course may be to exercise adequate pressure to be brought to bear by American lawgivers on their President, but such a step is theoretical and can only be hoped but not expected. Yet, miracles do happen. But as of present, many people think that the war on Iraq may serve America's limited and short-term interest, but this is likely to make the people of America suffer a moral setback and America's image as the world leader may start eroding for ignoring opinion of the international community at large. M.M.Rezaul Karim, a former Ambassador, is a member of BNP's Advisory Council.