Opinion - Editorials   

Unconvincing arguments

THE U.S. PRESIDENT, George W. Bush, has virtually declared that he will initiate military action against Iraq if it does not soon rid itself of a weapons of mass destruction (WMD) capability. But, he has yet to completely explain why such a war is necessary. Mr. Bush's intent to make war was evident in those parts of his State of the Union Address wherein he stated that placing trust in the sanity and restraint of Iraq's President, Saddam Hussein, was neither a strategy nor an option and that the U.S. would not accept a serious and mounting threat to itself, its friends and its allies. Although Mr. Bush still found it necessary to insert an escape clause for Iraq — that it could avert an attack by ridding itself of a WMD potential — he did not bother to hide his conviction that Baghdad would not make use of this option. Mr. Bush has also indicated very clearly that he would not wait for the consent of the rest of the global community before embarking on hostilities since his promise to consult was counter-weighed by his declaration that the U.S. would lead a coalition against Iraq if it continued to prevaricate. The U.S. President has instructed his Secretary of State, Colin Powell, to place hitherto undisclosed information before the United Nations Security Council to further prove the charge that Iraq is not fulfilling its disarmament obligations. But from the overall tenor of Mr. Bush's address it would appear that Gen. Powell's brief is not so much to convince those countries that are opposed to a war as to propagandise against them.

U.N. weapons inspection teams, which have been given the mandate to eliminate Iraq's WMD programme, have endorsed Mr. Bush's assertion that Baghdad has not come clean on this issue. But the arguments that Mr. Bush made in his address to justify military action are not sound enough to negate the judgment made by a majority of the global community, that Iraq's failure to make a full disclosure of its WMD programme does not make a sufficient cause for war. Mr. Bush sought to prove that Iraq's possession of a WMD potential is doubly dangerous since it is known to have contacts with terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda. This is a specious argument — especially in a context wherein Washington has ruled out any connection between Baghdad and the events of September 11, 2001 — since many Governments (including that of the U.S.) have had connections in the past with the elements of global terror which eventually morphed into Al-Qaeda. There is little evidence that Iraq is currently connected to the network of global terror and given the strictly secular credentials of the Baghdad regime it does not appear very likely that such a nexus would be forged. It was also disingenuous of Mr. Bush to make the argument that Iraq's possession of a WMD potential is all the more menacing because the Baghdad regime has used such weapons against its own people, since Washington re-established friendly ties with Mr. Hussein's regime precisely at the time these attacks were being carried out.

Mr. Hussein's past record does suggest that Washington's concerns — that Iraq might use such weapons directly against the U.S., its troops or its allies or indirectly by handing them over to a terrorist group — are not entirely misplaced. However, the danger that Baghdad would resort to these weapons would become all the greater should the regime there believe that it is under threat of extinction. Efforts directed at persuading Baghdad to give up its WMD potential could still succeed if supported by a firm global consensus, and these efforts must continue since Iraq has demonstrated that it cannot handle these weapons in a responsible manner. But when Mr. Bush declares that one of the objectives that he seeks to achieve through war is to ensure that no other power can dominate a vital region, which the U.S. has itself dominated till now, he gives the distinct impression that he will not be satisfied with the elimination of Iraq's WMD potential and he thereby creates a disincentive for Baghdad to do so.

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

Opinion

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

• Reform-oriented changes
• Unconvincing arguments
• Intellectual betrayals
• Tackling terror
• Saving wildlife
• Stability in peril
• Value of river water
• Gandhi and VOC
• First Dalit CM
• Match-fixing

Copyright © 2003, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu