According to the US, since Iraq will most likely refuse to voluntarily disarm by destroying all its biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs, it must be compelled to do so. As part of the reasons for possibly going to war and forcing Iraq to comply, the US charges that (1) Iraq is hiding its biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs instead of destroying them, in accordance with UN resolutions, (2) Iraq is a major threat to the world and must be disarmed, (3) Iraq has repeatedly violated the No Fly Zones in Northern and Southern Iraq, (4) Iraq has repeatedly used biochemical weapons against its citizens and the Iranians, (5) Saddam Hussein must be removed from power because he has waged wars of aggression against his neighbors, (6) Saddam Hussein must quit or be removed from power because he is a brutal dictator, (7) Saddam Hussein must be removed from power because Iraq and Al Aqaeda are working together to spread terrorism and biochemical weapons, (8) Democracy must be established in Iraq, and (9) failure to enforce compliance would lead to lack of respect for United Nations resolutions and laws.
The charges leveled against Saddam Hussein and Iraq appear to be true. However, the world does not seem to agree with the context in which the US is trying to justify waging a second Persian Gulf War against Iraq.
1. Iraq is hiding its biochemical and nuclear weapons programs instead of destroying them as required by the United Nations resolutions.
There is an atom of truth to this charge. Iraq has not been forthcoming concerning disarming itself of the weapons of mass destruction, as was agreed upon, after the Persian Gulf War. It tends to cooperate with the United Nations investigators only when the United States threatens to attack. For instance, after it expelled the UN investigators in 1998, Iraq did not allow another team of inspectors to investigate its weapons of mass destruction programs until the US threatened to use force to ensure compliance in 2003. It refused to allow UN demand for U2 flights to monitor its weapons activities until it realized that the US might attack. Thus, Iraq tends to cooperate at the very last minute when it realizes that there is no other option left to avoid compliance.
Nonetheless, according to reactions from various parts of the world, Iraqi's uncooperative behavior does not necessarily warrant or provide sufficient reason to justify attacking or going to war with it. The reason being that since there is a United Nations monitoring program in Iraq, many countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Middle East, and Europe, including Belgium, China, France, Germany, and Russia want the UN investigative work to continue. These countries believe that Iraq's appetite for mass destruction weapons can be contained through continuous monitoring, rather than through another bloody war that could kill hundreds of thousands of people and upset the balance of power in the Middle East. In fact, many countries in the Middle East believe that another war with Iraq would turn the region upside down. These countries and peoples believe that there is no need to rush to war while investigators are still on the ground. They point out that more Iraqi arms were destroyed through UN's monitoring after the Persian Gulf war than during the war itself. Finally, they insist that if any war is to be fought, it must be carried out through a United National resolution or declaration and not through the unilateral decision of any single member state.
The United States and Britain seem to think that the countries which oppose a possible war against Iraq are either naïve or have something to hide about their own relationship with Iraq. They believe that this is the time to take out Saddam Hussein so that he does not become a greater threat later. They believe that Iraq will continue to play hide and seek with UN monitors, thereby incessantly prolonging the need to take action. The countries that oppose going to war wonder why the US and Britain are so impatient with the monitoring program when the last time around, it was monitoring that actually helped to uncover the multitudes of Iraqi mass destruction weapons.
Iraq finds the disarmament requirements to be very intrusive. This is understandable, since no state in the world, including the United States and Britain, would be quite willing to destroy weapon programs that it had spent billions to acquire. Likewise, if the principle of sovereignty is to be maintained, then Iraq finds it unacceptable for other nation-states to treat it as less than a sovereign entity. The No Fly Zones and the U2 Fly Program are truly intrusive and greatly threatens the sovereignty of Iraq, hence, the Iraqi hesitancy to be fully cooperative.
The rest of the world seems to understand the Iraqi sensitivity, hence, does not want to justify the need to attack Iraq on the basis that Iraq is not complying with United Nations resolutions. The reason being that Iraq is not the only nation that has violated UN resolutions. The Catholic journal, La Civilta Catholica (Catholic Civilization) stated that "Iraq has violated 91 U.N. resolutions, but Israel and Turkey, two U.S. allies, have violated 59 U.N. resolutions without prompting U.S. military intervention" (Florida Catholic, Miami Edition, 2003, January 23).
2. Iraq's biochemical and nuclear programs are a major threat to the world.
While biochemical and nuclear weapons are generally a major threat to the safety of the world, people tend to rationalize that Iraqi possession of such weapons does not pose any more danger than the United States, Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, India, North Korea, Pakistan, etc., having them. Therefore, it is not convincing to argue that Iraq must be disarmed because it poses a great danger to the world for having such weapons when other nation-states are also sufficiently armed with the dangerous weapons. Perhaps, the realization that other nation-states already have these mass destruction weapons, contributes to the universal opposition to attacking Iraq on the ground that it is producing dangerous weapons.
If the US strongly believes that biochemical and nuclear weapons are dangerous, then, as the only remaining super power, it should work toward universal disarmament. This means that the US and the United Nations should work together to debiochemicalize and denuclearize the entire world. Selective enforcement or disarmament, based on who is an ally and who is not an ally, does not eradicate the great danger that these weapons represent. Selective enforcement tends to arouse suspicion and distrust throughout the world. For example, if the U.S. insist that Iraq must disarm or face war, then what stops the Arabs and the Moslems to also insist that Israel must also disarm? If the U.S. insist on Iraqi disarmament and remains very quiet about Israeli possession of biochemical and nuclear weapons, suspicion is created in the minds of the Arabs and peoples throughout the world that the U.S. motive is selfish and directed toward the enhancement of its strategic interests and not the safety of the world. The Catholic publication, La Civilta Catholica, commented "There would be no reason to punish Saddam Hussein for possessing arms that other states - first among them, the United States in unsurpassable measure - possess and threaten to use in case of conflict with other states' ( taken from the Florida Catholic, Miami Edition, 2003, January 23). It is understandable why the Belgians, French, Germans, and the Russians insist on further investigative effort rather than war.
The U.S. has not been able to convince the world that Iraq poses a greater danger to the world than the U.S., Russia, Britain, France, India, North Korea, Israel, and Pakistan which actually possess mass destruction weapons. Those who oppose a military attack against Iraq wonder why the US is willing to use force against Iraq and does not want to use force against North Korea, which many believe, poses a greater threat to the world than Iraq.
3. The charge that Iraq has repeatedly violated the No Fly Zones.
This reason for attempting to go to war is not convincing at all. By saying that Iraq cannot fly its planes in Northern and Southern Iraq, it means that Iraq cannot maintain its territorial integrity. The No Fly Zone is a direct violation of the principle of sovereignty. It is very doubtful whether any nation-state, no matter how small or powerless it is, would accept a rule which stops it from exercising authority over its territory.
The argument that the No Fly Zone is necessary in order to protect the Shiites in the South and the Kurds in the North of Iraq is not a very satisfying justification. The reason being that if the United States and the United Nations were so much interested in protecting the human rights of the Kurds, they would have vigorously worked toward the establishment of a Kurdish state. The world should be reminded that there are between 20 and 40 million Kurds. This means that the Kurds can thrive very well in an independent Kurdistan. Moreover, the Iraqi treatment of the Kurds is not necessarily worse than the Turkish treatment of the Kurds. In other words, Turkey is as guilty of violating the human rights of the Kurds in Turkey as much as the Iraqi violation of the rights of the Kurds in Iraq. Therefore, creating a No Fly Zone in Iraq without also creating a No Fly Zone in Iran and Turkey simply shows that the world body and US are simply grandstanding.
4. Use of Biochemical Weapons against citizens.
There is no doubt that Iraq used biochemical weapons against the Kurds and the Iranians in the 1980s. However, those weapons were used at a time when Saddam Hussein was an ally of the U.S. The U.S. actually assisted Saddam Hussein during the Iraqi/Iranian war, fearful of Iranian victory. The U.S. did not stop him from using the dreaded weapons at the time. Americans might not be very conscious of the Iraqi-American relationship during the Reagan presidency in the 1980s, however, non-Americans have a long historical and political memory. As a result, the attempt to influence world opinion on this ground does not attract much sympathy.
Although the Iraqi use of these dreaded weapons are very well known, nonetheless, it cannot be said that other leaders and regimes throughout the world have not used such weapons against their unsuspecting citizens and foreigners. People are quite knowledgeable about these things and cannot be easily persuaded.
5. That Saddam Hussein must be removed from power because he has waged wars of aggression against his neighbors.
There is no doubt that President Saddam Hussein caused the Iranian/Iraqi War in the 1980s and invaded Kuwait in 1990. He has been very hostile to Israel and would do everything necessary to attack it if he has the military capability.
However, this is not a sufficient reason to go to war and remove him from power. Within the last twenty-five years, it is an historical fact that other countries too invaded their neighbors. Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974 and occupied it. Cyprus has been divided into Turkish Cyprus and Greek Cyprus for over twenty years. The U.N. effort to resolve the conflict has met with persistent failures. Neither the U.N. nor the U.S. has threatened to invade Turkey over the violation of the sovereignty of Cyprus. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979 in an attempt to install a communist government. The Soviet invasion caused innumerable destruction, death, and suffering to the people of Afghanistan. The Afghan people are still suffering. The Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Northern Alliance are products of the Mujahedden, sponsored by the U.S. to counter Soviet invasion during the Cold War (Hastedt & Knickrehm, 2003). Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 and occupied the Southern part of the country for almost 15 years. Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands (Malvina) with a view of incorporating it into its territory. The United States invaded Grenada and Panama. In the case of Panama, the head of state, Gen. Manuel Noriega was arrested, tried, and sent to prison in the United States on the ground that he was involved in illegal drug activities by allowing safe passage for international drug cartel members and helping to launder illegal drug money. Rwanda and Uganda invaded the democratic Republic of the Congo recently and helped to widen the civil war.
Thus, of all the cases involving the invasion of one country by another in the last twenty-five years, only Iraq seems to be subjected to the most severe form of punishment. The U.N. did not threaten others with a war. Twelve years after the invasion of Kuwait, sanctions are still in place and a threat of a second war is being proposed. In other words, Iraq is the only invader which must pay severely for the invasion of another, almost to the point of territorial invalidation of its sovereignty. Due to the severity of the punishment imposed on Iraq, people are questioning why is Iraq being singled out for severe punishment while other violators are ignored.
6. Saddam Hussein must leave power voluntarily or be removed from power because he is a brutal dictator.
It is unlikely that anyone would disagree with the characterization that Saddam Hussein is a dictator. He has committed some unpardonable acts against his opponents, both inside and outside Iraq. Yet, this is not a sufficient ground to declare a war on the country and remove him from power. Quite a large number of people inside and outside the U.S. know that he was an American ally even though the U.S. knew that he was not a democrat by any means. The U.S. and Britain are responsible for cultivating him by giving him political, military and financial support in the 1970s and 1980s. Norton-Taylor noted "Every time Blair and his ministers repeat a truth - that Saddam used gas against the Kurds and Iranian troops in the 1980s - they remind us that Britain responded by secretly encouraging exports of even more nuclear and other arms-related equipment to Iraq while Washington supplied the regime with more crucial intelligence" (Norton Taylor, 2003, February 24).
Moreover, there are still many dictators in the world. Authoritarian regimes dominate the landscape in the Middle East. Some of these regimes are still U.S. friends despite their non-democratic standing. Some of the leaders of these countries have carried out despicable acts against their own citizens. Yet, their right to govern their countries are not being questioned by the international community. People are aware of this discrepancy in American foreign policy, hence, the doubtfulness about the need to democratize Iraq, especially when the Iraqi National Congress is being proposed as a potential replacement regime to Saddam Hussein. The skepticism over the argument that it is necessary to replace Saddam Hussein with a democratic regime is the fact that many of the U.S. allies who support overthrowing Saddam Hussein are also authoritarian regimes. It is a contradiction to install a democratic regime with an undemocratic means and allies?
7. That Saddam Hussein must be removed from power because Iraq and Al Aqaeda are working together to spread terrorism.
There seems to be a universal rejection of the US assertion that a connection exists between Iraq and the Al Qaeda, despite numerous efforts to tie the two together. It can be said that some kind of relationship might exist clandestinely between the two, even though Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are not ideological bedfellows.
However, even if the two were to be connected as working together, it still does not necessitate going to war against Iraq. The reason being that there is abundant evidence to say that at one time the Al Qaeda and the Taliban were also connected to the US, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. It should be recalled that during the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan, the Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Northern Alliance worked together and received training, arms, and financial support from the three countries mentioned above. If not for September 11, 2001, the relationship would still continue. Consequently, it appears that the US view of a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is not taken seriously by other members of the international community due to the fact that the US, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia were major contributors to the growth of Al Qaeda. In addition, it appears that many high ranking members of the Al Qaeda, including Bin Laden, are still in Pakistan (McGeary & Wailler, 2002). Obviously, punishing Iraq for a relationship which can also be attributed to other countries seems overreaching.
Moreover, attacking Iraq for having ties with Al Qaeda would appear to be an overkill since it is a known fact that 15 of the 19 suicide bombers who participated in the September 11, 2001 attacks against the U.S. were from Saudi Arabia (Ratnesar, 2002). This means that the Saudis were more involved with the Al Qaeda than the Iraqis. This being the case, if Iraq were attacked on this ground, the world would also expect the U.S. to attack Saudi Arabia since its citizens were actively involved in the September 11 operation. However, since Saudi Arabia is a friend of the U.S., the U.S. would most likely not attempt to wage a war against its ally.
8. It is necessary to establish a democratic regime in Iraq.
While democratization of Iraq is quite necessary, the rationale for wanting to wage a war against Iraq is not satisfactory. After many failed experiments, the world is keenly aware that democracy cannot be established by force of arms. It must germinate within the people and cultivated to materialize. People are aware of the discrepancy in American foreign policy, hence, the doubtfulness about the need to democratize Iraq. In fact, some members of the Iraq National Congress are beginning to have some doubts about U.S. plans to institute a democratic system in Iraq after Saddam Hussein might have been removed from power. According to a recent press report, it is alleged that the U.S. intends to install a U.S. military administrator over Iraq for a period of about 12 months. In addition, the ruling Baath party would be allowed to remain. Likewise, Turkey would be allowed to send thousands of troops into Northern Iraq to probably protect the city of Kirkuk. An adviser to the Iraq National Congress, Mr. Kanan Makiya reacted "This would be an unmitigated disaster for the long-term relationship between the U.S. and the Iraqi people. The Iraqi opposition is going to become anti-American the day after liberation. It is a great irony" (Harding, 2003, February 16).
The skepticism over the rationale that it is necessary to replace Saddam Hussein with a democratic regime is increased threefold when the options proposed for the change of regime are seriously analyzed. For instance, if the Iraqi generals were encouraged to successfully dethrone Saddam Hussein, they would end up dominating the new regime, thereby minimizing the democratic effort. On the other hand, if Saddam Hussein were to be overthrown after a war, there would be an infighting among the members of the Iraqi National Congress, concerning who becomes the president. Moreover, the remnants of the Iraqi military could resist replacement by waging a guerrilla war against an American installed government. There is no guarantee that the Kurds would not join forces with the Kurds in Turkey to launch a struggle for the establishment of a Kurdish state. Likewise, the Shiites could decide to go their separate ways and form a strong alliance with Iran. The situation in Afghanistan provides an excellent laboratory for what could happen in Iraq. In Afghanistan, many Taliban warlords were bought over with money during the war to deTalibanize the country. Some of those warlords are now clandestinely waging a war against the new regime. President Ahmid Karzai survives due to the protection of the United States and the ISAF forces. If American and ISAF forces were to be withdrawn, the warlords would overwhelm the Karzai regime and drive him out of power. An imposed democracy could lead to the same scenario in Iraq as various elements struggled to dominate the country.
Moreover, Iraq is not the only dictatorship in the region or in the world. Would the U.S. and Britain also wage war to democratize Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Syria, as well as Equitorial Guinea, Uzbekistan? This is very unlikely since the aforementioned countries are U.S. allies.
9. Failure to enforce compliance resulting in the ineffectiveness of U.N. resolutions
On the surface, a failure to compel Iraq to comply with UN resolutions can result in much doubt about the effectiveness of U.N. resolutions. However, this is not very likely because Iraq is not the first country to have violated U.N. resolutions. The list of countries which have violated various resolutions is very long, including Turkey, Cyprus, Indonesia, North Korea, Russia, Israel, Yugoslovia etc. Yet, the U.N. continues to thrive. It continues to thrive due to the fact that it does not necessarily have to use force in order to ensure compliance. Its declarations and resolutions seem to have moral authority to make any nation state become particularly cautious about its behavior. A number of cases can be cited to show that nation-states do respond to U.N. demands. Since after the Gulf War, even though Iraq has hesitated to destroy its mass destruction weapons programs, it has been very careful not to offend the world in an arrogant display of power. Israel too has been very careful in using its military power against the Palestinians. The Tutsi led Rwandan government has been very cautious in reacting to Hutu and Congolese situations, even if outright compliance has not been the case. Even the only remaining superpower in the world, the U.S., too, has been very careful not to rush to attack Iraq. It has been working behind the scenes to influence world opinion and gain universal support for its efforts to compel Saddam Hussein to comply with the U.N. resolutions.
The Implications
The United States escalated the demand for total Iraqi capitulation by saying that it does not only want total disarmament but also a regime change. This means that the Iraqi leader and government must also be changed to make way for a new regime. The U.S. believes that Saddam Hussein is too dangerous and cannot be allowed to possess biochemical and nuclear weapons. It is afraid that if Saddam Hussein continues to remain in power, he would eventually possess nuclear weapons and use them to blackmail the economy of the world by threatening to totally control or stop the flow of oil from the Middle East. Some Iraqi neighbors tend to agree with the U.S. view of Saddam Hussein, hence, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, and Bahrain are willing to work with the U.S. to ensure a regime change in the country.
Thus, the United States energetic posture toward disarming Iraq of mass destruction weapons could lead to unforeseen political and military consequences. In particular, it could lead to the destruction of the principle of state sovereignty, the universalization of the principle of preemption, and the proliferation of biochemical and nuclear weapons throughout the world. Consequently, the United States and the United Nations should be very careful in attempting to force total compliance on Iraq.
1. One of the major tenets of the state system is that independent states have sovereignty over their territories. When an entity has a supreme authority, its actions cannot be challenged within a definable territorial area. Of course, in the case of an aggressive behavior, the state, even if it has sovereignty, can be punished for violating international law. Obviously, both the United Nations and the United States have a right to try to punish Iraq for invading Kuwait. However, if Iraq is being punished for invading Kuwait then why are other invaders not similarly being punished for committing the same crime? Why does the United Nations remain quiet over similar crimes committed by other nation-states while it is working so profusely to punish Iraq through stringent monitoring effort and sanctions?
There is no doubt that the conditions imposed on Iraq tend to violate the sovereignty of the country. The stipulation that Iraq cannot fly its military planes over its Northern and Southern regions is very contradictory to the principle of state sovereignty.
2. The U.S. and the United Nations do not seem to realize that the severity of the conditions imposed on Iraq twelve years after it had invaded Kuwait and had not engaged in any other disruptive behavior since then, is a great concern to other states in the world who are fearful that the United States could use its vast military and economic power to thwart their national aspirations through the United Nations. As a result, the relentless effort to disarm Iraq could actually spur other nation-states, to beef up their military forces so that they do not have to experience the kind of humiliation that is being imposed on Iraq. Many developing countries are frightened that a country like the United States can arbitrarily and unilaterally impose its will against them because of its superior military power. For instance, the fear of having its sovereignty trampled upon, appears to be a motivating factor in North Korea's decision to jumpstart its nuclear program in order to deter U.S.
3. By insisting that Iraq complies completely with the resolutions imposed by the United Nations, the United States and Britain are actually fueling the kind of resentment that led the Germans to ignore the League of Nations. It should be recalled that the Germans felt humiliated and insulted by the severity of the conditions imposed on her at the Treaty of Versailles after the 1st World War. The conditions imposed, including reparation amounting to billions of dollars at a time when Germany was totally broke and the limitations placed on German military forces actually forced the Germans to reject the League of Nations. Angered by the humiliation, the hawks in Germany, led by Adolf Hitler, embarked on a massive clandestine rearmament program. Eventually, Germany became the strongest military power in Europe and decided to pay back in kind for the humiliation. This led to the 2nd. World War.
Similarly, by attempting to bring Iraq unto its knees, the U.S., Britain, and perhaps the United Nations, are actually encouraging many countries, including China, North Korea, Pakistan, India, Syria, Libya, etc. to rapidly accelerate their military capabilities. Likewise, Japan and Germany too might secretly think about starting a rearmament program in an effort to avoid depending singularly on the North Atlantic Treaty Organizations (NATO) or the United States for defense. Germany and Japan might also think about rearming themselves as a way to avoid being compelled to support the U.S. whenever the U.S. pursues strategic interests that might not be beneficial to them. The Russians too could be forced to start a massive military modernization program, in an effort to match the U.S. militarily. This could revive the Cold War again. This time, the Cold War would be much more complicated since it would become multipolar rather than bipolar as it was in the last fifty years.
4. The uncompromising insistence that Iraq must either totally destroy its arsenal of biochemical and nuclear weapons programs or face war while Israel is allowed to possess biochemical and nuclear weapons in the Middle East, is only going to accelerate the pace of illegal nuclear weapons programs throughout the world. It is not surprising that North Korea has boldly expelled the two-member monitoring team of the International Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) from its territory. It has publicly announced the resumption of its nuclear energy program, despite opposition from the United Nations and the United States. It is also not surprising that Iran is working profusely to develop a nuclear capability. Many Arab countries would secretly explore ways of facilitating the development of nuclear weapons. The incessant pressure on Iraq is particularly a marketing bonanza for the Al Qaeda since many Arabs and Moslems are being persuaded to join the movement, in response to the perceived sense of a double standard.
5. The U.S. threat to attack Iraq and overthrow the current government is probably forcing many countries and leaders to realize that the only way they can guarantee their sovereignty is to have or develop nuclear bombs. Learning from the powerlessness of Iraq and the powerfulness of North Korea, some countries might decide to ignore their commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and begin to clandestinely develop nuclear weapons in order to deter any preemptive military attack.
The reasons given for a possible war against Iraq are not convincing. Even in Britain, the citizens have doubts about the need to fight a war with Iraq. In a recent poll, Britons believe that the US and North Korea are a greater threat to the world than Iraq. In the same poll, conducted by YouGov (CNN.com 2/11/3), 61% of those surveyed said that the evidence presented by the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell at the United Nations was not convincing. It should be recalled that a day after the Secretary of State had made his presentation, it was revealed in the European and Canadian media that some of the facts presented were copied from a dissertation prepared by a doctoral student in California. The British Observer commented "Yet a dossier presented as containing prime-cuts of fresh intelligence material turns out to be nothing of the sort - but rather an internet cut-and-paste exercise largely lifted from a California post-graduate thesis focused on evidence from the invasion of Kuwait 13 years ago." (The Observer, 2003, February 9). Although the U.S. media has not made reference to this revelation, the Europeans felt disappointed and hoodwinked when the report surfaced.
The countries that tend to support the US position on Iraq, Bahrain, Britain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Australia etc. are very edgy in their support due to their citizens' lukewarm support for war and a strong desire for a peaceful resolution of the crisis. The world seems to support the continuation of UN inspections in Iraq, not war. Only Israel, Italy, Spain, Kuwait, and the former East European communist countries seem to have an unquestionable support for a military solution to the Iraqi conflict. Canada is in a wait and see mood, being very doubtful of the efficacy of war and yet not wanting to openly criticize the United States.
6. The U.S. has been trying to justify its right to attack preemptively as a way to protect its national security. If the U.S. were to actually carry out an attack preemptively without U.N. support, it would set up a dangerous precedent in international politics. Other countries too would also automatically have a right to carry out preemptive actions to enhance their national security. This means that North Korea would be able to attack South Korea preemptively in order to flush out the U.S. forces there, just as South Korea would be able to do the same. It means that China can attack Taiwan whenever it chooses to do so. Russia could strike at Poland or any of the former Communist countries in Eastern Europe if it feels threaten by the effort of the East European countries to join NATO.
7. Regardless of the outcome of the international chess game concerning whether to go to war or not, the international political system will never be the same again. It appears that new alliances are being formed. Belgium, France, Germany, and Russia seem to be forming a new alliance against an equally emerging new alliance involving the United States, Britain, Italy, and former East European countries. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) might undergo some changes regarding its strategic goals as the members disagree on the role of the organization concerning providing security for Turkey (CNN, 2003, February 11). Although NATO issued a joint statement on 2/17/03, warning Iraq to comply and promising to support Turkey militarily, the wound already inflicted psychologically will take a while to heal. Turkey does not support a war against Iraq but it is afraid of expressing its true feelings because it does not want to jeopardize its relationship with the U.S. On the other hand, it is treated as an unwanted child in Europe. Likewise, a new intercontinental alliance involving China, France, Russia, and the developing countries seems to be emerging.
Japan, the second largest economy in the world, is being forced to reconsider its stance toward the acquisition of mass destruction weapons. It seems to be paying so much psychologically for relying on the U.S. for its own defense. It was compelled to participate in the first Persian Gulf War, even though it did not have any direct strategic stake in it. Now, it is being forced to take sides again. Moreover, the North Korean situation is very worrisome since any military confrontation between North Korea and the United States could easily entangle China, Japan and South Korea. North Korea's decision to reactivate its nuclear program could instigate nuclearization in South Korea, Taiwan , and Japan.
The Third World increasingly views the attempt to impose compliance on Iraq as another Western effort to impose a colonial order on a developing country. The members of this group are very suspicious of the motives and are working to reactivate the nonalignment movement again. They are befuddled by the fact that Third World countries are always expected to pay severely for misbehavior while the industrialized countries can get away with even more serious offenses. While the Arab world is divided between those who support a war against Iraq and those who oppose a war against Iraq, sub-Saharan African countries vehemently oppose a war against Iraq. The Nonaligned Movement might increase their demand for inclusion of some developing countries in the Security Council, so that the veto power would be spread equally among the major political groupings in the world. Japan and Germany could ask for inclusion too since they are the second and third largest economies in the world.
Evidently, a multipolar balance of power system, which resembles the old European system, appears to be emerging. Whether a war is fought against Iraq or not, the U.S. is going to face numerous challenges from the emerging alliances.
8. The U.S. is right in strongly maintaining that Iraq is hiding its weapons of mass destruction and is unwilling to disarm voluntarily. The U.S. is also right about Saddam Hussein's murderous and aggressive behavior. However, given all the facts, arguments and counterarguments, the rationale for going to war against Iraq is not convincing when the Iraqi situation is contextualized or analyzed in terms of world politics. Iraq is not the only country that has biochemical weapons and has invaded its neighbors. Iraq is not the only country that has seriously violated the rights of its citizens. Iraq is not the only country that has violated UN resolutions. This is why many people, including the Catholic Church, believe strongly that Iraqi's aggressive behavior can be contained through constant UN monitoring of its weapons programs. In the Persian Gulf War, about 100,000 Iraqis were killed. People are afraid that a war intended to change the regime in Iraq could lead to more deaths for the Iraqi people and coalition forces. This is why anti war demonstrations were carried out throughout the world recently.
9. Perhaps, a final reason why there is a strong opposition to going to war without U.N. authorization by some of the powerful states is the feeling of betrayal engendered after the Persian Gulf War. It was widely reported that after the war, most of the contracts for reconstruction in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia went to American companies, while the other coalition partners got very little. It appears, therefore, that they do not want the same situation to repeat itself again. Hence, the strident opposition to any American dominated effort to topple Saddam Hussein and his regime.
References
CNN.Com (2003, February 11). NATO meeting ends with no resolution on Turkey. Online:
Htpp://www.cnn.com/2003/World/meast/02/11/sprj.irq.wrap/index.html.
2/11/03.
CNN.Com. (2003, February 11). Poll: U.S. more a threat than Iraq.
Online:
HYPERLINKS
"http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/02/11/british.survey/index.html/"
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/02/11/british.survey/index.html/
2/11/03.
CNN.Com. (2003, February 14). Security Council's dilemma on enforcement.
Online:
http://asia.cnn.com/2002/US/02/13/sprj.irq.un.enforcement/
2/14/03
Wolfe, R. & Hirsh, M. (2003, February 2). War and consequences. Newsweek. Pages 22-27.
Harding, L. (2003, February 16). Iraqi opposition slams plan for military governor. The Observer. Online.
http://www.observer.co.uk/Iraq/story/o,12239,896778,00.html. 2/20/03.
Hastedt, G.P. & Knickrehm, K. (2003). International politics in a changing world. Longman. P.42.
McGeary, J. & Wailler, D. (2002, November 25). Why can't we find bin Laden? Time. pp. 34-35.
Norton-Taylor, R. (2003, Frebruary 24). Both the military and the spooks are opposed to war on Iraq. The Guardian online.
http//:www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,901728,00.html. 2/23/03
Ranesar, R., (2002, December 9). A twist of the arm. Time. P. 45.
The Florida Catholic, Miami Edition. ( 2003, January 23). Jesuits journal suggests oil is true U.S. motive for Iraqi war. An article originally in the Civilta Catholica newspaper of the Vatican., p. A13.
The Observer Online. (2003, February 9). The dossier that shamed Britain. http://www.observer.co.uk/Iraq/story/0,1222239,892066,00.html. 2/20/03.