jinx writes:

"The Ides of March"

Partha Chatterjee

There is a gnawing sense of inevitability in the way things are

moving. The flood is rising inch by inch; the only question is

when the dike will burst. Except, this is not a natural disaster

waiting to happen. These are events fully under the control of

world leaders playing for high stakes. Why is the world being

pushed to the precipice?To begin with, let us set aside the high-sounding moral reasons

for going to war with Iraq. Not even their proponents believe in

them, except as linguistic instruments for pushing a diplomatic

point. Not only are these moral reasons applied selectively -

Iraq, not North Korea; Iraq, not Saudi Arabia or Pakistan; Iraq,

not Israel -- thus confirming the charge of double standards; they

are also changed to suit the requirements of the diplomatic game.

We were first told that the real goal of military action would be

to change the regime and liberate Iraq. Then when it became

necessary to seek support in the United Nations, the objective was

changed to the disarmament of Iraq. Now, when UN support looks

unlikely, the moral case is once more the removal of Saddam

Hussein and the liberation of Iraq. Who will believe that these

moral arguments are anything more than instrumental devices -

dressed-up language designed to secure other ends?



What then are the real objectives? There is little doubt that the

current chain of events was suddenly set in motion by President

Bush in August 2002. We have heard a lot in recent days of the

world having waited for twelve long years to see Iraq disarmed. If

the UN did indeed fail to act during this time, then surely the

United States of America must share the responsibility for it

along with the other key members of the UN. The fact is that there

was a general consensus among the world powers that Iraq was being

effectively contained. The only dispute was whether the sanctions

that the UN had imposed should be lifted. The sudden clamour

raised by Bush over Iraq in August last year took the world

diplomatic community by complete surprise.



Why did the US administration decide to turn its sights on Iraq?

It is known that sometime last year, the most influential group

within the administration, consisting of associates of the senior

George Bush such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz,

Richard Pearle and others, floated the idea that the situation

after the September 11 events had created not so much a crisis as

a new opportunity for the US. The global war against terrorism and

the worldwide sympathy for the US could be turned into a moment

for recasting the entire world order and inaugurating "the

American century". Instead of containment and deterrence, the US

should assert overwhelming military superiority and the right of

pre-emptive strike against any perceived threat. Instead of

letting the world's rogue regimes and trouble spots fester under

the cloak of national sovereignty, the US should intervene

forcefully to change the political map of the globe and fulfil

America's true destiny as benevolent master of a new world empire.



West Asia was the theatre where this imperial vision could be most

dramatically revealed. Get rid of Saddam Hussein and establish a

permanent American military presence in Iraq. Try and set up a

pliant Iraqi administration, with Iraqi oil revenues paying for

the costs. This would put immediate pressure on Saudi Arabia and

Syria. The impact would be so huge that the back of the

Palestinian intifada would be broken. That would be the time to

impose a lasting two-state solution on Israel and Palestine.

Islamic militancy would lose its most potent rallying cry.

Imperial America, driven by a new zeal and purpose, would bring

peace to the world.



Moral bigots often acquire a chilling self-confidence that

persuades them that all means, no matter how questionable or

unpopular, are justified in reaching their ends. The US

administration today is led by a right-wing clique whose attitudes

and ambitions make it the most reactionary force to have hijacked

a Western democracy in recent years. It is known that this group

was not in favour of seeking the approval of the UN before going

to war in Iraq. President Bush was apparently persuaded by Tony

Blair and Colin Powell to take the UN route in order to secure

greater international legitimacy for military action. Now that the

attempt has ended in diplomatic disaster, the UN has become the

target of American vilification. Unrestrained abuse is being

heaped in the American media, not only on France, but on an

international body that allows countries like Guinea and Angola,

full of impoverished and illiterate people, to sit in judgment

over American foreign policy. What this reveals about the

arrogance and barely concealed racism of American commentators is

unsurprising. What is new is the significance of such views for

the future of the world order as we have known it.



That is what makes March 2003 such a defining moment. The reason

why France, Russia, China, Germany and so many other members of

the security council have resisted the so-called second resolution

is not because they stand to gain by supporting Saddam Hussein. If

anything, they will probably lose a lot by flouting the will of

the US. For one, they will certainly not be invited to the feast

of the vultures after the slaughter is over in Iraq. The reason

for their resistance is their unwillingness to dismantle the

multilateral and democratic world body that was built in the era

after decolonization and to put in its place a new structure of

imperial hegemony.



What the US is really demanding is that in the new American

century, no country should have the right of veto over the US. In

other words, if the UN is to function as a world body, the US

should be effectively the only country with a veto. The debate

over Iraq has thrown the challenge to all nations to decide

whether they are prepared to approve that scheme of things. As of

now, most have refused. They were in large part emboldened to do

so by the unprecedented popular mobilization against the war all

round the globe. The UN, the world's highest representative body,

refused to be coerced into approving a timetable for war

unilaterally decided several months ago by American military

planners.



The war will now be launched in Iraq without UN approval. Saddam

Hussein will be removed and the country will be ravaged. But

history will not end there. The American quest for unchallenged

hegemony may be consistent with the current distribution of

military and economic power in the world. But it is wholly

contrary to the democratic spirit of the age. The principles

represented by the UN belong to democratic institutions

everywhere: they are meant to put a check on absolute power. If

the UN is to have any meaning, it must be to limit the absolutism

of the US. That battle has not yet been lost. It will be resumed

when the costs are tallied of the war and its aftermath.