|
Open Page
Bush and Iraq
|
What we need is not a club of five with a second tier membership of many, but a truly international, veto-free body. One that is dedicated to championing, promoting and preserving human rights and civil liberties in every little corner of our world.
|
IN HIS speech from Northern Ireland (incidentally, the people of Ireland, Northern or otherwise, are called the Irish, not Irelanders), the U.S. President, George W. Bush, gave four reasons for the war in Iraq: security from terrorism for the peoples of the U.S. and the U.K., weapons of mass destruction, enforcement of the resolutions of the U.N. and, finally, freedom and human rights for people everywhere in the world.
Everyone recognises the terrible threat of terrorism and accepts the need to eradicate it, particularly those of us who live in India. But, crying "wolf" doesn't get this job done, especially when the threatening animal is a hyena. It also doesn't help that a "dear ally" of the U.S. in the declared war "against terrorism everywhere" is an unrepentant champion of it. Such inconsistency severely undermines the American case, again, particularly in India.
We in India promptly recognise inconsistency when we see it, though we don't oppose it consistently. We have had centuries of experience. We saw it when Churchill spoke eloquently on freedom, but refused to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire. We sniggered. We joined the fight against Hitler, but wouldn't utter a single word against Stalin. The USSR was a "friend." We saw it when our great former Prime Minister founded the Non-Aligned Movement along with such republicans as Nasser and Tito, but embraced Khruschev. We were respectful. We privately admit that Saddam is an abomination, but sent our Foreign Minister to hug him. We were pragmatic. Such examples are numerous, but you don't really want to read about all of them, do you Mr. President? Nevertheless, some consistency would help. At least, it will help me face my friends here.
Duplicity
Everyone recognises the terrible threat of weapons of mass destruction as well. But, don't you think it sounds just a bit duplicitous when the permanent members of the Security Council gravely declare that possession of WMD is a valid basis for war? After all, these five countries possess more than enough such weapons to wipe out the entire population of the world many times over. And, so does America's "dear ally." So do we in India. Clearly, the issue is not possession of these dreadful weapons, but the character of the possessor. You and I know that America is, and always will be, responsible. Unfortunately, many are not that knowledgeable. Would you sincerely argue that a former senior member of the KGB can be trusted with control over an enormous supply of WMD? And, who knows who Hu really is? Or, whether and when Wen may strike?
Everyone will insist openly that U.N. resolutions must be enforced, of course. Most vehemently so when the resolution is aimed at the other fellow. I am not a U.N. historian, but I suspect that U.N. resolutions have been observed more in the breach. We in India have ignored at least one. The USSR paid scant attention to them. There is a more fundamental issue here. The people of the world didn't get together and vote to grant just five countries permanent membership, with veto power, on the Council that issues these resolutions. Would Mr. Bush accept this arrangement if America were to be excluded? So, let us not waste much time preaching the spurious sanctity of resolutions by self-appointed permanent members. Let us instead eliminate the Security Council altogether and build another organisation that will, in fact, truly represent all the peoples of the world.
That leaves us with just one last hound. The issue here is not terrorism, WMD or violated U.N. resolutions. It is Saddam Hussein, his regime and its brutally despotic reign over the cruelly victimised people of Iraq. Human decency requires, dictates, that such regimes be removed, by all appropriate means, at all reasonable costs. I am painfully aware of all the arguments against this position. I have been reading articles by erudite professional columnists with greater interest in column inches than human rights, listening to harrumphing pundits on TV.
Who determines which regime deserves to be removed? This is a specious argument. Does anyone really have a doubt about Saddam? Did anyone have any doubt about Hitler? Or, Idi Amin? No, such villains are not difficult to identify and the world has a way of reaching a quiet consensus on them. National leaders may not agree openly, but they too know them. Sonia Gandhi may vociferously push for a parliamentary resolution against the Coalition, but find it politic not to discuss a ghor ninda resolution against Saddam. Yet, she knows him for what he is. And, where her votes are.
Sanctity of borders
No, the problem is not with identification and consensus. The problem really lies with national leaders. In a world where most countries are not democratic and whose leaders find civil liberties inconvenient or inefficient, it will be impossible to get a majority, or even a reasonable plurality of them to support any meaningful action against despots. Support for aggressive action will be as difficult to come by as Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair have discovered. We must recognise and deal with this difficulty, not retreat from it. On the other hand, we can't deal with it by ignoring all national leaders. Some will deserve to be ignored, like the Chancellor of Germany. Of all the countries in the world, how could Germany argue against the use of force to remove a despicable despot?
Shouldn't the sanctity of borders and national sovereignty be respected? Kofi Annan gave a courageous speech, considering the membership of the organisation he heads, at the University of Michigan a few years ago. He declared that the civil rights of individuals rank higher. Should a regime that kills a hundred thousand of its own citizens be saved by the sanctity of its borders, while another that foolishly kills a few thousand across its borders deserves to be attacked? No, Annan is right.
I am not one of the many who have been berating American "unilateralism." There appears to be a critical number here, two. If there are only two countries involved in an action, that is unilateralism. If two other countries, France and Russia, had voted in their favour, China would most likely have abstained and there would have been a fully justified action by the "entire international community." Two plus two equals entire! That is U.N. maths. I need to work on my political arithmetic, my understanding of it is pitiably weak.
What are appropriate means and what are reasonable costs? With churning guilt at my own calculating callousness, I feel that a few hundred civilian deaths — definitely including mine, if necessary — now are better than tens of thousands over future years. I see no humanity in those who see villainy in the Bush and Blair Coalition, but don't bat an eyelash over the many times as many civilian deaths in the Congo (a news publication in Chennai devoted more words to Elizabeth Hurley and Russell Crowe that day). I see unforgivable hypocrisy in Indian leaders whose subhuman disregard lets thousands die every day from readily curable diseases (the Health Minister was too busy acting in a play!), but whose countenance is likely contorted with affected anguish by visions of mutilated Iraqi infants.
Yet, I am afraid I can't define precisely what is appropriate and what is reasonable. But, there are those who can. There are statesmen, jurists, diplomats and other experts aplenty who have drafted national constitutions and charters for international organisations. Yes, they are from the very class of people who designed the U.N. But, they had then been asked to design a club of five, with a second tier membership of many. What we need is a truly international, veto-free body. One that is dedicated to championing, promoting and preserving human rights and civil liberties in every little corner of our world. Where France's prominence is duly and deservedly diminished.
N. BALA GANESAN
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Open Page
|
