& 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

On a diplomat's letter

MusLEHuDDIN AHMAD
THE letter of the British High Commissioner in Bangladesh, published in The Daily Star on May 7, was quite in order if one sees it in the light of a public relation exercise presumably under some sort of instruction from the top. But wrong cannot be made right by arguments -- said a lady who has British education and been closely following the Iraqi issue. Ordinarily, one would not appreciate a letter that tries to justify a blatant aggression against a sovereign state headed by someone recognised by the UN. That someone was undoubtedly a dictator but elected by the popular vote and certainly not appointed by a court. There may be real dispute or even questions over the form of election in Iraq, but are all the elections under the western democracy free and fair? What about raising of huge campaign funds and postelection awarding of huge business deals and positions of high profits to those who give such funds? These sort of democracies are no better then dictatorship.
In some countries the people having millions of dollars regardless of their qualities and intelligence become Presidents, in some other countries the people with muscle and gun power become President, yet in other countries, people become Presidents on the basis of inheritance. That is the sort of political world we live in.
British High Commissioner spoke of the lack of balance in the comments and writings on Iraq. To find some balance he would be well advised to compare them with the post resignation statements of his former boss Robin Cook, the comments of over 120 Labour MPs who rebelled against Tony Blair and slogans of millions of Britons and of the people around the world, who protested against the war.
Talking about dictators? Saddam Hussein was a dictator to his own people and not to Britons or Americans. What did the American and British forces do to "liberate" Iraqi people? The country has practically been destroyed. Can any one say that Iraq is a country with some form of central authority let alone a government that the
UN can recognise? The whole country -- the oldest civilization -stands upside down. Was this a civilized way of changing a government of an internationally recognised country? What was the hurry?
The world has so many dictators but is there any international law that allows a country to attack another sovereign country and remove a "dictatorial" government by force? The UK did not support regime change which was US's only agenda. Were the UNSC resolutions 678, 687 relevant to the present war? As far record goes, these were connected with Kuwait attack and situations thereafter. Did Resolution 1441 of UNSC authorise any military action? If so, why did the US and the UK go for the second UNSC resolution seek-
land as Saddam could, as Blair believed, activate his alleged weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes and destroy England!
The attack on Iraq was a serious violation of the UN Charter. This clearly means that the US and the UK jointly defied the UN to punish a government which defied the UN. What about Israel? How many resolutions has Israel defied so far? Indeed, UN is irrelevant so far as Israel is concerned; it's only the US that matters. One day the US might face the same problem and consequences as Germany faced in terms of overall Jewish influence over that country.
The UK dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was "fake" and finally it was proved to be so as nothing was found by Blix's team of
inspectors under Hans Blix.
Another major point raised in the letter was "The people of Iraq spent decades under a ruthless military dominated regime". Yes, he was ruthless, but now the Iraqis are under Bush-Blair's military -no less ruthless by any standard, may be methods differed. The record destruction by bombing including cluster bombing and killing of Iraqis is the solid proof. An internationally recognised government has been declared fugitive unilaterally -- but under what international law? Iraqis have been rendered totally stateless within their own state. Non-existence of law and order. Weeks have gone by even after the war -- no water, no food, no electricity though the temperature is over 40C, no central
advisory role. It is hard to see how France, Russia, Germany and others would accept such an advisory role. These countries know full well that any lifting of sanction at the request of the U.S. will virtually legalise the US and the UK's military attack against Iraq.
Moreover, full control over Iraqi oil fund means America will use these funds to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure destroyed by the US and the UK. In the process Helliburton, Bechtel and other will reap the benefit and the US will recover its war losses. As Prime Minister Mahathir said -- they destroyed it and they should repair it by their own fund.
The Coalition of Willing against Iraq was built largely through some form of modern bribing -- eco-
ing authorisation of military action? It is Prime Minister Blair who reportedly advised President Bush on the need for a second resolution because the second UN resolution was necessary to overcome the problem of violation of international law that could ultimately trigger legal actions against the aggressors.
Prime Minister Blair raised the "moral" issue too. Blair seems to be holier than the Pope. The Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury strongly spoke against the war in Iraq. Millions of Britons protested against any war in Iraq. An octogenarian walked in London street in freezing temperature and shouted -- no war, no war. After all that where did Blair find moral justification or even compulsion to go to war? One wonders whether Prime Minister Blair ever advised the Queen who is also the head of English Church and took Her Majesty's permission to attack a sovereign country. The Queen is the head of England and constitutionally and morally responsible for the welfare and indeed the fate of English people. After all, Blair was risking the existence of Eng-
weapons Inspectors. Prime Minister Blair said publicly that Saddam had the ability to attack any country in the region and also elsewhere, probably indicating the UK and the US, by his weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes. If Saddam had that much capabilities with weapons of mass destruction, why did his regime collapse within days? Where are the weapons of mass destruction? The war ended weeks ago but there is yet no trace of any weapons of mass destruction. How is it that the mountains of weapons of mass destruction that Saddam allegedly had, which he could activate in minutes and destroy the civilized world, have suddenly evaporated? As the situation stands, the general view is that Prime Minister Blair misled the UK Parliament and the British people. Bush Administration said coalition forces would find weapons of mass destruction but it might take even a year. Yes, this much time may be needed if weapons of mass destruction are to be invented and not discovered. But the world will not accept anything of the sort without the full verification by the UNMOVIC
authority, no security, looting under the eyes of US and UK military, hospitals ransacked, oldest museum on earth totally vandalised ... the list is endless. Hundreds of men, women and children have been killed. Many other children have lost their limbs and stand traumatised. 12 years of UN sanction led by the US and the UK already took a toll on the children. About half a million children already died due to UN sanction. This is known worldwide and stands corroborated by many belonging to UN agencies. Some indeed resigned in protest and disgust. By this unjust war, the circle has been completed by the US and the UK -- Iraq has lost a generation.
The letter also says -- "Like the Bangladesh Government, we want to see the UN fully engaged in achieving democracy in Iraq". Yes, this is exactly what is needed. But is the UN fully involved? No, not at all. The US has rejected central role of the UN in Iraq. The latest draft resolution presented on lifting UN sanction shows US and the UK's full authority over Iraq and the UN has been given supportive and
nomic, political and security assurance. Turkey's $16 billion deal did not materialise because of people's opposition. Now a bizarre type of democracy is in the process of being worked out in Iraq through open bribing. Iraqi National Congress and so-called opposition leader Chalabi and others who had no connection with Iraq for the last couple of decades have suddenly become Iraqi leaders and are working under the umbrella leadership of American General Jay Garner and now another American civilian Paul Breumer.
The letter boastfully mentioned about the achievements in Basra -"Water supplies, Food, Medicines, Restoring basic services. Look what we are achieving in partnership with local communities". I hope, the High Commissioner watched the BBC/CNN reports of 7th May where even partisan electronic media warned of 'imminent health disaster' as cholera has broken out and been spreading fast among children in Iraq. There is practically no hospital or medical services.
The reporter also said -- '13
years of UN sanction and three weeks of war and heat' have brought havoc on the lives of Iraqis and particularly on the children. The report also clearly mentioned about 'no water, no medicine, no hospital services, garbage everywhere, no power; life is more squalid now than what was during Saddam regime'. The fear is that a generation in Iraq is likely to be wiped out -- they would be finally "liberated" to the Next World.
The letter said -- "What is done is done". Yes, but doing of such a ghastly thing against innocent people should have "serious consequences". President Bush has done more harm than good to the American people. The Democrats are already looking for a regime change in Washington. As it seems both Bush and Blair may lose the next election. Shah of Iran, Marcos of the Philippines, Ceaucesscu of Romania, Shuharto of Indonesia, etc. were thrown out by their people. Saddam would have faced the similar fate if America played its cards well instead of falling into Israeli trap. In any case, Saddam could have been thrown out without destroying the country and inflicting so much of pain on the already suffering Iraqi people. But the US intention here was different -- all geared to oil and Israel, but the UK got caught in the mess reportedly because of Blair's personal ties with Bush.
Bush's war has not only divided Europe and NATO, it has also alienated the entire Muslim world. The damage done appears irreparable and may continue to haunt the world for many years to come. The UN has been made irrelevant and useless for the purpose of dealing with the world problems. The world relationship based on mutual trust and healthy diplomacy has virtually been destroyed. The political and economic bribing now dominates normal interstate relationship. This is too bad for the civilized world.
Muslehuddin Ahmad is a former Secretary and Ambassador and founder president of North South University. He is also the Chairman of Civic Watch-Bangladesh.
***Bush's war has not only divided Europe and NATO, it has also alienated the entire Muslim world. The damage done appears irreparable and may continue to haunt the world for many years to come. The UN has been made irrelevant and useless for the purpose of dealing with the world problems.***