The illegal war and 'march of democracy'

While his indictment of the intervention in Iraq has come eighteen months too late, Mr. Annan's prediction on the 2005 election in Iraq is even more foreboding. He sees a bleak prospect of a credible election under the current security situation in Iraq.

No election will severely hurt the occupation force's attempt to provide a semblance of legitimacy and justification of its in invasion of Iraq, which a successful election would invest their action with.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Not unexpectedly, the Secretary General's remarks have raised many hackles and some very sensitive toes have been trodden upon. Not surprisingly either, those who feel most hard done by and aggrieved by Mr. Annan's remarks, are those that have to face their electorate through the ballot boxes in their countries shortly. The Secretary General's remarks could not have come at a worse time for them.

The protagonists of war continue to offer justifications for their illegal actions, as they had been doing in the past, that are at best puerile. Resolution 1441 is flaunted as a sanction to attack Iraq, overlooking the fact that it is only the UN that can authorise military action against a member state. It is the protagonists of war who continue to believe that the earth is not round, to appropriate Sen. Kerry's phrase.

Unfortunately, the Secretary General's remarks reveal the abject lack of clout of the UN to prevent illegal acts of its member states. Great damage has been done to the world order that had so far relied primarily on sanity of thought and reason and not aggressive pursuit of parochial self-interest in conduct of international relations. In the event, a nation stands defiled, a country ravaged, a people immersed into the vortex of a phenomenon that it was not exposed to so far.

What one is inclined to ask is that, if the Secretary General considered the US action illegal, what prevented him from rallying the saner elements in the world body to prevent an illegal action? Was it impossible for him to array the member states to "fight" for peace against the US who had opted for an illegal war? Would it be presumptuous to suggest that there was an abdication of responsibility on the part of the UN and its secretary general, a responsibility reposed on him, to ensure that no body other than the UN dictates the course of action that a particular situation demands?

Although the Secretary General's remarks vindicate the position of those opposed to the war but had failed to prevent it, to the Iraqis it comes as very little comfort or provides them little reprieve from the atrocious and unbearable situation they find themselves in.

Value judgement on the Iraq invasion will serve no purpose, now that the damage has already been done. It is futile to blame the UN when it was actually a collective failure of the world community at large. Save for France and Germany, the European partners led by the UK fell in line with the Americans. South Asia was a case of expediency getting the better of principles. Except for India, which exhibited its gumption by adopting an anti-war resolution in its parliament, the reaction of the other nations was noticeable by the meekness of their response.

It is time for the world community, led by the UN, to act in a substantive and tangible manner to find a way out for the Iraqi people from the morass they find themselves in. The despondency is noticeable in their attitude to the US forces in Iraq. While many of them had indeed welcomed the end of Saddam era, trading mayhem and death for a dictator was the last thing they had wanted.

The perception of the Iraqis as to the cause of their miseries is amply proved, when, after the horrendous bombing in Baghdad and other cities over the weekend, that took a heavy toll on the Iraqis, it was not the insurgents they blamed. The objects of their wrath were Allawi and the Americans.

Regrettably, the conduct of the Iraq war is being motivated primarily by political considerations. Critics attribute the "peaceful" end to the Najaf standoff to the Republican National Convention at the end of August. The plans by the U.S. military to go after the insurgents at the end of the current year, waiting for the November elections to be over, smacks of pure political stratagem. Clearly, the insurgent's strategy is to foil the January election in Iraq. Unfortunately, time will see more and more bomb attacks in the principal towns and cities, directed primarily against people and institutions seen to be siding with the occupation forces.

More and more mayhem we see in Iraq, the more we feel inclined to believe Amr Moussa's description, "The gates of hell have opened up in Iraq" and less and less are we inclined to give credence to George Bush's claim, "Democracy is on the march in Iraq."

Mr. Bush has a great stake in Iraq's political development. He stands to be indicted if he fails in Iraq because that would mean his failure in the "war on terror." Having made the two synonymous, he has to see democracy established in Iraq.

But the march of democracy in Iraq may take a long time yet to complete, and the US will continue with its occupation, and the longer the occupation of Iraq, the longer will be its sufferings.

It is time the conscience of the world acted in unison to deliver the Iraqis from the miserable consequences of an illegal war, if for nothing else, then at least to atone for their failure to prevent it in the first place.

The author is Editor, Defence and Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.