& 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

Perspectives

Iraq War: The looming disaster

M ABDUL HAFIZ
***Through these man-made disasters on the brink of which the world is standing today new enemies will be bred -where there was none -- call them terrorist or by any other name. And with a fresh cycle of violence they will hold their creators or catalysts to ransom even many years after the war in Iraq.***
IN the face of a French threat to block it in the UNSC as a draft war resolution was withdrawn on 17 March last by its sponsors -- the US, Britain and Spain -- and the window of diplomacy practically shut against the backdrop of continuing schism both in the United Nations and transatlantic community, the countdown to war in Iraq began. With that a moment of truth also arrived for America which asserts its right to militarily intervene even without UN approval. President Bush, while addressing his nation as well as an international audience, issued a bizarre ultimatum to the Iraqi president to leave the country within 48 hours or face invasion. Prime Minister Tony Blair, his staunchest ally, met his cabinet in an emergency session before a marathon parliamentary debate where he won a vote of support for his Iraq venture although a rebellion in the ruling Labour Party continues to brew up. President Saddam, left with little choice seems to have willynilly taken up the gauntlet and is facing the world's mightiest country. Most of the foreign missions in Baghdad have closed down, the UN weapon inspectors, the foreign journalists and aid workers have already left. On the battlefront, more than a quarter of a million of troops are on
the strike. As an unusual gloom thickens up around the world capitals, an eerie quietude grips the mood in opposing camps.
The US-led coalition has unleashed, as planned, a sharp swift campaign against Iraq's ragtag defence. That an overwhelmingly superior invading force will score an easy victory is a foregone conclusion and it elicits little curiosity about its chronology. What is, however, of interest is what will follow in its aftermath.
The baffled global community is trying to fathom if this unnecessary catastrophe could really not be averted! Because at stake is not just the future of Iraq and its people but that of the planet itself and a balance in which it is sustained. The whole edifice of an order painstakingly built up by the world leaders through the ages is now on the verge of being torn down, international law contemptuously violated and the world body, the UN, rendered irrelevant.
Yet only years ago when the cold war ended with the collapse of Soviet Union, many argued that the triumph of liberal democracy buried the idea of the history represented by rivalry of the opposing ideologies. Many fondly believed that the United states not only had the resources to lead but also seemed to have what most others lacked -- the absence of imperialistic impulse. She was perceived as benign, principled and one ready
to abdicate much of its overwhelming authority to promote the spirit of democracy. All those notions of America evaporated with a cascade of events from nine/eleven to American invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and an attack on Iraq. Hopes of a new dawn in human history after the demise of cold war was thus cruelly dashed. "Never has one nation combined so much of power and so much of arrogance and lack of responsibility, so much scientific knowledge and so much contempt for the rest
of the world." The result is obvious when such a nation is in the grip of powerful multinationals, the oil lobby and military-industrial complex.
It is an anti-climax to another America from where General Eisenhower( later President) led the European allies to victory. When faced with another similar situation in Egypt in 1956 he chose containment rather than invasion and forced the invaders -- France, Britain and Israel --to retreat and resolve the crisis peacefully. President Kennedy chose to contain Cuba rather than invade it. Even President Reagan, the architect of star wars refrained from attacking Libya. Where then is the case for attacking Iraq by George W Bush? When 'regime change' citing the Iraqi government's deplorable human rights record, was given as motivation, America was unable to explain why many other countries, including several of its own allies
were not also identified for coercive measure as it was in Afghanistan and is going on in Iraq. Driven by its penchant for manufacturing an excuse for military intervention when she attempted to establish a link between Iraqi government and al-Qaeda the connection was so tenuous that even the Mossad was unable to assist them with credible evidence on this count. But that has not stopped the war from taking place. Because "you are guilty of the fact that I am hungry" (said the wolf to the lamb in the
Russian proverb) aptly describes how America is perceived globally in its stand against Iraq.
When the Twin Towers fell in New York on nine/eleven the rubble fell on Afghanistan although there was no concrete proof of direct involvement of al-Qaeda or Taliban or bin-Laden in the 9/11 attacks. To America's misfortune its war on terrorism failed to find the war's prime target, Osama bin Laden and hence needs a new one. After two years in office Bush has nothing else to trumpet: Sharp economic decline, corporate skullduggery, a foreign policy marked by more broken fences. American economy is heavily dependent on oil. And thus the greed for oil, political domination of Middle East through Israeli domination of the surrounding Arab countries and the reelection of Bush at home are indeed the motivating factors behind Iraq's invasion. The US National Security
Council Stated in 1953 "United States' policy is to keep the sources of oil in the Middle East in American hand".
Notwithstanding the mealy mouthed promises before the US-led coalition's war on terror in Afghanistan, the country is in a terrible mess with the revival of pre-Taliban predatory practices, poppy cultivation, bitter interethnic fightings, old warlord-ism and re-construction ofAfghanistan still remaining a non-starter. In
case of Iraq even those promises are not made. All that is made are grim predictions about the war's humanitarian consequences that too by the countries and agencies other than the US. Hans Blix, while giving his latest report in the UNSC remarked that use of force in Iraq will be a disaster. Although concerns are expressed by millions of peace marchers around the world about a horrendous toll of human life and destruction and sufferings that a war would bring in its wake, even the surveys of the loss conducted by the UN itself found no mention in the speeches made in the UNSC and else where.
MEDACT which is an affiliate of International Physicians for prevention of nuclear war, estimates that in any new conflict in Iraq casualties would be five times higher than the first Gulf war of 1991. The UN specialist agencies have already estimated that above 500,000 people would require
medical treatment of one sort or other. One lakh civilians would be wounded and 400,000 hit by epidemics while four-fifth of these victims would be children under five and pregnant or lactating women. Iraq is already impoverished by sanctions. As many as 16 million people depend on a monthly food-basket supplied free by the Iraqi government. This supply can no more be sustained as the banking has started and thousands will starve once again. The UN estimates that the bombing will disrupt the electric network on which pumped water supply depends, leaving millions without drinking water in an already parched land.
After the 1991 Gulf war it was estimated that 15,000 civilians died and 120,000 Iraqi soldiers laid down their lives in the defence of their homeland. With improved and more destructive weaponry now available and in use the figures will be much higher this time.
The flood of refugees fleeing the war for neighbouring countries estimated by the UN to be around a staggering 900,000 while one million persons may be displaced in Iraq itself. The destruction of homes and properties alone would result in 40 million people requiring emergency shelter with hardly anyone there to provide it.
Through these man-made disasters on the brink of which the world is standing today new enemies will be bred -- where there was none -- call them terrorist or by any other name. And with a fresh cycle of violence they will hold their creators or catalysts to ransom even many years after the war in Iraq.
Brig ( retd) Hafiz is former DG of BIISS.