Opinion - Leader Page Articles

The battle begins now

By Amit Baruah

America's 'victory' will not bring peace to Iraq. At best, it will administer a sullen population, one that may be as unhappy under a retired American general as under Saddam Hussein.

THE WORLD has been "shocked and awed" at the sight of American and British ordnance raining down on Iraqi cities and civilians. The live "television" war has brought images of Iraqi civilians — dying and dead — into the households.

The American "projection" before the war was such that it appeared as if the Iraq President, Saddam Hussein, was already gone. All that was needed was a new "chosen" leadership and massive doses of aid for the country.

Whatever the fate of Saddam Hussein's security forces, the Iraqi people have already sent out a signal to their "liberators" — that there is a distinction between "regime" and "nation". Whether you disliked Saddam Hussein or hated him, Iraqi nationhood was a fact that seemed to have eluded the television-savvy military planners sitting in the United States.

The markers of victory have been shifting. The first attack was on a "target of opportunity", Saddam Hussein. It failed. After it became clear that a "dead" Saddam Hussein being displayed on television was an improbability, the "main target" shifted to the "regime". And, then it reverted back to Saddam Hussein.

But what will be the benchmark of victory? American and British firms taking control of Iraqi oil and trying to build a state out of a shattered nation? Or a stable, secure, democratic, secular Iraq — without foreigners determining its destiny, at peace with its neighbours? Or the Stars and Stripes fluttering over Saddam's palaces?

In one sense, the Americans lost their "war" even before it began. This war has no legitimacy, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 does not give any sanction for America to go to war against Iraq. Post-September 11, all the sympathy that the U.S. won for itself has been dissipated by George W. Bush & Co. The attack on Iraq was pre-determined, and anything that the Iraqis might have done to cooperate in the U.N. search for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) would not have led to a change in the plan. Apart from securing access to Iraqi oil, the war is about "control". George Bush & Co. are clearly of the view that they can "order" the world to their specifications. And that Saddam Hussein and Iraq have no place in this order.

All hope that the world order, after the Cold War, would be more peaceful and cooperative has been shattered by what the Americans have done. It needs to be stressed that the unilateralist impulses of the Bush administration have been clear for some time. Whether it was on the Kyoto protocol, the International Criminal Court or the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty — the impulses were evident.

You might not have liked the Soviet Union, but while it existed there were things that both Moscow and Washington could not do. The "balance of terror" worked for the smaller nations. Would Iraq have happened if the Soviet Union had existed? Probably not. Today, Mr. Bush is presiding over the emergence of a unilateral world order, not even a unipolar order, where "might is right" for some. If it is Iraq today, it could be Iran tomorrow. What about Vietnam and China, nations that do not conform to what the Bush administration thinks is democracy? They could be down the line.

No one is safe; all countries are on notice after Iraq. Recent statements coming from senior functionaries in the Bush administration talk of the signals that Iraq should send out to Syria, Iran and North Korea. That "errant" nations must "behave" or face the consequences of defiance and indiscipline. The invasion of Iraq has united people across the globe. Spaniards, Moroccans, Indonesians, Australians, Britons... the list is endless. But it does not seem to have had any impact on how Iraq is to be dealt with. Is not protest part of democracy? Are the protests taking place on Jupiter? As far as the Bush regime is concerned, that would seem to be the case. Tony Blair has been made painfully aware that protests are taking place nearer 10 Downing Street and might even lead to a "regime change" in London. Though there has been a large protest in Kolkata and smaller ones in other cities, Indians by and large have expressed their disapproval in private. Muted protests on Iraq would appear linked to the general lack of desire among Indians to take to the streets these days.

The Vajpayee Government was forced to concede that ordinary Indians were against the war and finally agreed to a unanimous resolution in Parliament. The resolution began by saying that it was an expression of "national sentiment". As India initially adopted the middle path, France, Russia and Germany performed a limited . Standing up for the U.N. system might cost these countries and their companies lucrative contracts in the post-war scenario. But, simply differing with the method of disarming Iraq (not the objective) has led to trans-Atlantic tensions. France, especially, is being seen as a spoiler. China has largely kept out of the limelight, making some noises when the occasion demanded.

But all that might change if the U.S. actually goes ahead with the "threats" issued against countries such as Syria and Iran. North Korea and what happens there, too, is of particular interest to Beijing.

There is, however, need for both the permanent and non-permanent members of the U.N. Security Council to take this issue further. A resolution can still be introduced in the Council at least "disapproving" of the unilateral American-British war. It will certainly attract a veto, but the point would have been made. If another Iraq is to be prevented (even as the world deals with the mess being created there), France, Russia, China, Germany, NAM, the Arab League will all have to display more gumption. Standing up to the U.S. is no easy task.

As fighting and looting take place in Iraq, the world will continue to watch what will happen in the cradle of civilisation. Tragically for the Americans, there seem to be differences on who will play the role of a Hamid Karzai in Iraq. America's `victory' will not bring peace to Iraq. At best, it will administer a sullen population, one that may be as unhappy under a retired American general as under Saddam Hussein.

And, what about the "smoking gun" that was never found? Iraqi weapons of mass destruction? As the war winds down, desperate Iraqis have not so far used any chemical or other weapons. Was that a sign that the U.N. weapons inspectors were successful in defanging Iraq? Given the kind of propaganda that is being conducted across Western television channels, it would hardly be surprising if some weapons of mass destruction actually "turned up" somewhere in Iraq.

For a world that was talking about the benefits of globalisation and making ever-more complicated rules for trade, the war on Iraq could have more implications for multilateralism than have been conceived. This is an unjust and unjustifiable war. No gloss, no provision of "humanitarian" aid can cloak its patent illegality. American and British soldiers must quit Iraq.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu