|
THE tug-of-war between the
United States and a growing European bloc opposed to military action against
Iraq, unless there is much better evidence of an Iraqi threat to international
security, gives the United Nations a chance to show that it is not run for the
convenience of its most powerful member.
There is a clear consensus emerging that the inspection teams mandated by the Security Council to check Iraqi compliance with disarmament resolutions must be allowed to complete their work and report fully before any further action can be permitted. More countries and people throughout the world, including in the United States itself, are against a war with Iraq unless far better evidence of breaches of UN resolutions is presented by these independent inspection teams. With Russia, France, Germany and China opposed to a unilateral military strike by the United States, the United Nations has a clear mandate to act tough on America. The UN must not allow anyone to start a war. The UN has a duty to put a stop to this rush towards the destruction of another country because its most important mandate is to keep peace and prevent war as well as enhance the security of all nations. There can be no greater threat to peace and security than the situation currently unfolding in the Middle East. As pointed out by South African President Thabo Mbeki, "We trust that sense will prevail so that no country or combination of countries take it upon themselves to embark on unilateral action against Iraq, which should itself co-operate fully with the Security Council to resolve all outstanding matters." The Americans have, in their published plans, said they would secure Iraq�s huge oil reserves. Should we surely risk world war because America wants to secure oil? America also says it wants to stop Iraq President Saddam Hussein from amassing weapons of mass destruction. So does everyone else. But no one except the US, and with less enthusiasm the British, wants war as the first option. A very tough Security Council resolution last year told Iraq that it had to accept a full inspection. There is no evidence yet that Iraq has not complied with the resolution. Only if the inspection teams either find that Iraq is continuing to develop banned weapons, or is refusing to allow inspections, can further action be considered. And here the Security Council should clearly consider non-military action first. War has to be the last resort. Dislike of another government is not an excuse for war. Whatever weapons of mass destruction Iraq may once have had, some it acquired with American help when the US, for reasons that held little water then, covertly supported Iraq in its unsuccessful invasion of Iran, simply because Iran humiliated the US. What is also disconcerting is that the UN-mandated war against Iraq more than a decade ago was fought by President George Bush�s father using, in principle, the same war cabinet that has just changed roles. The younger Bush should recognise the wisdom his father showed when he decided that any change of government in Iraq had to be done by the people of that country, and not by an outsider, especially a distrusted outsider like the US. Bush Sr forced Iraq to obey UN resolutions to withdraw from Kuwait and then, correctly, stopped. His son should do likewise and not try to twist UN resolutions to suit his own desires. The Mulindwas
communication group
"With Yoweri Museveni, Uganda is in anarchy" |
