Full steam ahead
By
Salama A Salama
Can the war against Iraq be stopped? The question is being asked around the world. In the past few days international opposition to the American-led war has grown. A strong and outspoken alliance opposed to Washington has emerged, and it is insisting the US does not have the right to launch a war in the name of the international community without a clear mandate from the Security Council.
Momentum is gathering: its first manifestation was in Munich, and clearly showed that a great many people consider the evidence furnished by the US to the Security Council inadequate to justify the rush to arms.
It is unprecedented for the foreign minister of an American ally, such as Germany, to tell the US secretary of state for defence that his arguments are unconvincing, that the change in US policy from the war against terrorism to a war on Iraq is misguided, and that the US must first resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict if it is truly seeking to stem terrorism.
This intensity of the debate reflects the levels of disagreement among traditional allies. And all this is taking place despite the fact that countries such as France, Russia and Germany closely guard their relations with the most powerful country in the world.
Fears among the international community over the repercussions of US war-mongering lay behind UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's warning to the US that it cannot launch a war in the name of world peace without a clear mandate from the Security Council.
It appears that the masses in other parts of the world are more capable, and determined, in their mobilisation against war than they are in the Arab world. The leaders of the Catholic Church in Italy have announced their opposition and condemnation of the war, a move that Muslim organisations such as the OIC have yet to follow. At the same time, Arab governments remain undecided about whether or not they should convene an Arab summit on the grounds that it may well result in failure. All the Arab countries appear to be doing is to call on Saddam Hussein to provide international inspectors with all the data they request.
It is, however, far from certain that the US will backtrack on its decision to go to war even if the Iraqi regime hands over every existing document, opens the doors to all its storehouses and uncovers all its secrets. US strategy could all too easily be directed at concealed secret goals which the hawks of the US administration are determined to achieve whatever the cost in lives, or in Washington's own reputation.
Shortly before presenting their reports to the Security Council, during their last and final trip to Baghdad, UN Chief Inspector Hans Blix and International Atomic Energy Agency President Mohamed El-Barad'ie were given more documents by Baghdad, guiding them to further sites for inspections, allowing for the questioning of Iraqi scientists and permitting aerial searches for possible weapons sites. Meanwhile, there are yet more moves by France and Germany to attempt to resolve the Iraqi crisis without resorting to military force.
If the latest reports by Blix and El-Barad'ie prove that Iraq no longer represents a danger to international security and that the weapons in its possession are not prohibited, will the US go back on its war decision? I doubt that the US will change its mind; rather, it will make new demands. At the forefront of these demands will be the removal of Saddam Hussein and the toppling of the Baghdad regime under the pretext that it threatens peace and security in the Middle East. The hawks of the US administration, with Sharon's help, will be able to plot an Israeli military escapade that might justify US military intervention.
