HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
http://www.jordantimes.com/Wed/opinion/opinion3.htm Jordan Times September 18, 2002 The feeble argument against war By Hasan Abu Nimah The writer is former ambassador and permanent representative of Jordan to the UN. He contributed this article to The Jordan Times. -Because we live in a time when the rule of law has been severely paralysed in favour of selfish, short-sighted superpower interests, it may be right for Iraq to respond to the overwhelming advice and allow the inspectors to return, instantly and unconditionally. It is even probable that this may temporarily avert a disaster, but even if it does not, Iraq has not that much to lose. The focal point, in fact, goes far beyond the Iraqi issue. What is most important is that legality should be restored and respected, double standards should be abolished and justice and principles in international relations should rule. In the absence of that, by the time the Iraqi problem is behind, we will be confronted with many more ahead. ATTEMPTS TO stop what appears to be a definite and imminent American war on Iraq have so far been weak hearted, and more oriented to acknowledging the right of a superpower to threaten, at will, another United Nations member with destruction. First is the insistence that Iraq should allow immediately and unconditionally the return of the weapons inspectors. This dictate � when from the �foes� and, recently, from the United Nations secretary general � or advice � when from �friends� � is supposed to remove a pretext from the hands of the warmongers. Therefore, and instead of confronting the threat by declaring it wrong and illegal before international law, instead of rejecting the idea of basing a major military action on fabricated pretexts, the peace makers are resorting to facing a game with a counter game, without paying due attention to the fact that the Americans have been repeatedly asserting that the return of the inspectors is not the goal, it will not solve the problem and simply it will not succeed as a clever counter game. It is well known, as it is openly declared, that the goal is the Iraqi regime. Once agreeing that the basis of dialogue is a game of pretexts, the anti-war argument becomes self defeating. The Americans have indicated their preparedness to produce as many pretexts as necessary. They have also made it very clear that their determination to topple the Iraqi regime is already well beyond the need for any legal or moral cover. The second anti-war argument is that the region is already dealing with the devastating consequences of the ever escalating Arab-Israeli conflict, the raging Intifada, the ongoing political and social frustrations, the economic difficulties, the overwhelming climate of uncertainty and fear of further aggravation, and the gloomy aftermath of the terrorist attacks in the US last September and their depressing impact on the Muslim-Arab-American relations and, therefore, another war would generate certain chaos and create many more problems than it can ever solve. This is absolutely true as an existing fact. But again, and once accepted as a basis for discouraging the threatened attack, the ominous implication is that the war would be justified if the prevailing conditions in the region would enable it to cope with the consequences. That dangerously shifts the debate into a totally unrelated and irrelevant territory. The argument would, in this case, limit itself to whether the region can or cannot endure an additional war. What if, as we often hear, the war mongers would enforce the notion that the region can indeed cope? Or if some form of artificially improvised �progress� on the Palestinian-Israeli front can be claimed in order to better prepare the region and its people for a war whose validity, according to this absurd logic, is to be judged on the basis of its results rather than its international legality? The best anti-war argument pursued so far is that no unilateral action should be permitted, and that only the UN or the Security Council should decide multilateral action once such action is deemed necessary and appropriate. Secretary-General Kofi Annan was very clear about this point in his speech before the General Assembly, in its opening session last week, and he was absolutely right. These calls for international action through the UN only, which have been heard from many other important sources, are not entirely �innocent�, and they could produce two contradictory outcomes. First is the view that the American decision to attack Iraq is an irreversible decision and, in that case, only international multilateral action would save those who have no courage, and indeed no interest, to stand against it the embarrassment of their timid acquiescence. For the secretary-general, in particular, it would be a great breach of his most essential responsibilities if he kept quiet about an illegal aggression from a member state against another. It is obvious, on the other hand, judging from his common performance, that it would be very difficult for him to stand up against lawlessness and oppose an American action of this nature courageously and openly. Again, a UN-supported action would save face, but not the region. This simply means that the real purpose of any calls for referring the matter to the Security Council is to provide the necessary international cover for an already accepted American action, rather than judge the issue on the basis of law and objective factors, an eventuality which may reject the idea of any military action altogether. This, though, does not seem to be an option. According to this partial approach, the Security Council should tailor any resolution or any decision to fit the American plan by issuing an ultimatum to Iraq, including prohibitive conditions, with the perfect anticipation that Iraq would fail to meet it and, therefore, legitimise its own punishment. Secretary of State Colin Powell stated very clearly that the issues with Iraq should not be limited to inspection or destruction of weapons, but should also cover matters like total compliance with the UN resolutions, the return of the Kuwaiti prisoners, the issues of human rights, and many others. How could the Iraqis return prisoners whose existence they have been firmly denying? Second is the opposite view, which requires a totally independent assessment by the Security Council of the entire Iraqi case. It is the view of those who truly and honestly want to see the UN shouldering its responsibilities away from manipulation and dangerous exploitation of international law, as a way, and certainly the only way, for the preservation of law, order and peace in our world. Contrary to a �rubber stamp� approach, the Security Council should take the matter in its own hands and conduct a thorough, objective, just and judicious assessment of the whole issue of Iraq, sanctions and the conduct of former inspectors. The Security Council, for its own integrity and credibility, should deal firmly with any violations or non-compliance with its resolutions, but not on a self-defeating, selective basis. Compliance with its resolutions should be applied indiscriminately and evenly to all, including Israel whose contempt of international law and of Security Council resolutions has for long become an affront to the entire UN system. On the Iraqi-American crisis, the council should indeed deal with the issue of inspectors, but again, it should go back in time to the accelerating events of December 1989, and determine why the inspectors where withdrawn (not expelled by Iraq as often claimed) and who should be held accountable for that reckless and tendentious decision taken without the knowledge, let alone the authorisation, of the Security Council or the secretary general, a decision which was intended to pave the way for one more destructive attack on Iraq at the time, for totally unrelated causes. The behaviour of the inspectors should be thoroughly reviewed and assessed as well, including their intrusiveness, their provocations and, worst of all, their shameful involvement in spying. The issue of sanctions should also be reviewed and freed from manipulation and abuse. It should not be allowed to remain a weapon in the hands of those who want to maintain a stranglehold on the Iraqi people until the regime has collapsed. Yes, it is not only the right but also the duty of the UN to require full compliance with and respect of its resolutions, provided the principle applies to all. It is the right of the UN to check and prevent any violations regarding weapons manufacturing and stockpiling, weapons of mass destruction in particular, but again, the principle should apply to all and should pay particular attention to Israel's out-of-reach nuclear arsenal. It is the duty of the UN to check the behaviour of member states to make sure that no one constitutes any form of danger or threat to the safety and security of the others. Within that context, the Security Council should ensure that Iraq does not harbour any mischief against any of its neighbours. But in the same manner, the American threats to Iraq should be seriously addressed and duly censored. The ongoing Israeli aggression, on top of the 38-year-old occupation of Arab territories, should also be subjected to the rule of international legality and stopped. Because we live in a time when the rule of law has been severely paralysed in favour of selfish, short-sighted superpower interests, it may be right for Iraq to respond to the overwhelming advice and allow the inspectors to return, instantly and unconditionally. It is even probable that this may temporarily avert a disaster, but even if it does not, Iraq has not that much to lose. The focal point, in fact, goes far beyond the Iraqi issue. What is most important is that legality should be restored and respected, double standards should be abolished and justice and principles in international relations should rule. In the absence of that, by the time the Iraqi problem is behind, we will be confronted with many more ahead. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com --------------------------- ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.bacIlu Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
