A war on the law
Hassan Nafaa* ponders the significance of the demonstrations against a war on Iraq
The millions of people who poured into the streets last week in capitals around the world did not turn out because they support Saddam Hussein or even because they fear a war that the US seems intent on launching. Indeed, the vast majority are probably opposed to Saddam Hussein and his policies, no doubt wishing he would drop off the map entirely and, with him, all pretexts for a war that has the potential to devastate not only the region, but the whole world along with it. Perhaps French President Jacques Chirac, one of the most prominent leaders opposed to America's Iraq policy, spoke for the global public when, in contravention of diplomatic norms, he publicly stated that Saddam Hussein's departure would serve the interests not only of the Iraqi people but the entire world.
At the same time, however, it is clear that the throngs of protesters are not convinced by US justifications for war, deeming them either illogical or unbelievable, and likely concealing ulterior motives that are incompatible with international law. This is why the crowds turned out: to announce their rejection of an unjust and unjustified war that threatens the stability of the region and global peace and security.
Nevertheless, some in the Arab world continue to underestimate the popular opposition to the war on Iraq, dismissing it as simply a movement driven by a bunch of peace activists who lack an objective vision and oppose all wars on principle no matter where they occur or what the reasons. They are certain that most protesters know little about Saddam and the danger he represents and have a somewhat benighted view about the region as a whole and the conflicts within it.
This belief, however, shows a poor understanding of the inner workings of the international order and of the significance of the Iraqi crisis for the future of this order. Despite the bitter cold, the number of people that heeded the call to protest and filled the streets on Saturday 15 February, was far greater than any other protest in modern history -- including those against the Vietnam War in the late 1960s. If this is indicative of anything, it shows that the protesters represent a wide spectrum of political and intellectual beliefs, going far beyond pacifism to encompass numerous points of view. Yet even in their heterogeneity they are united, for different reasons, by a shared belief that the Iraqi crisis is bigger than Saddam Hussein and more serious than weapons of mass destruction.
This crisis touches on the future of the global order and the standing of international law within it. The US's mobilisation of its armies in the Gulf without the prior authorisation of the United Nations and its insistence on attacking Iraq with or without the consent of the Security Council has sounded warning bells. As a result, people around the world have realised that the most important issue is not whether Saddam Hussein's regime has breached Security Council resolutions, thus violating international law and meriting punishment, as much as it is about the integrity of the law, namely, who has the authority to decide when it has been broken and who determines the nature of the punishment to be meted out.
In nations where democracy and the rule of law hold sway, the public recognises the legal precept of innocent until proven guilty. Many would rather a murderer go free if his guilt cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt than consign a suspect to death based on false evidence only to discover after his execution that he was in fact innocent. In the case of Iraq, there is a strong sense that the legal proceedings, laid before the eyes and ears of the whole world, cannot lay claim to even the most basic precepts of justice. The Security Council -- essentially the court in the case of Iraq -- was forced, under American duress, to issue resolution 1441, which is based on the premise that Saddam's Iraq is guilty until proven otherwise. The US is now intent on executing the Iraqi people as long as the ruling regime refuses to turn itself in or until it takes its own life. Meanwhile, the governments of the world remain silent -- out of fear or complicity, or in hopes of being given a piece of the pie.
Though the Western public believes it lacks any semblance of justice, the political trial of Iraq proceeds apace, even as the Iraqi people continue to suffer the injustice of sanctions imposed on them more than 12 years ago. As a result of the sanctions, women, children, and the sick have fallen victim to what may be considered mass slaughter or crimes against humanity. In this context, it is natural that many would be moved to demand that war be prevented -- particularly in the countries most supportive of the US position.
It now appears that the US had wagered the success of its plans for Iraq on the poor reputation of the Iraqi regime, the impotence of the Arabs and their schisms, and on the desire of the great powers to avoid a direct confrontation with the US. But the Iraqi regime's acceptance of resolution 1441 and its extensive cooperation with the international inspectors has highlighted the extent of America's pigheadedness, raising doubts about the veracity of US and British claims that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. Instead, questions about the true intentions of the US administration began to surface -- especially since it has given free rein to the extremist Israeli government, which has frustrated every attempt at a peace settlement to the Palestinian issue. Today, suspicions that America plans to occupy Iraq, gain control of its oil reserves, and redraw the map of the Middle East to ensure that the Arab-Israeli conflict is settled to Israel's advantage no longer seem like idle talk, but analyses based on hard facts.
The events of the last month have proven beyond doubt that even though a government is freely and democratically elected does not necessarily mean that it will abide by legal and moral precepts. We should not automatically assume the best from it. Many will agree that the government of Ariel Sharon is an example of a disreputable democratic government, but it is not the only one. Over the past few months, the US has been behaving like a policeman trying to prove how capable he is by torturing and blackmailing a suspect until he gets the evidence he needs.
For its part, the government of Great Britain has given in to corruption just to prove its loyalty to its American master, going so far as to fake evidence and invent facts. The British government published an official report on 3 February 2003, available on the Internet for the perusal of the global and British public. Stating that the report was based on facts taken directly from trustworthy sources, the government declared it contained evidence of the illegal practices by the Iraqi regime and its concealment of weapons of mass destruction. It was later revealed, however, that large sections of the report were copied word for word -- along with the typos -- from an academic thesis prepared by an Arab researcher named Ibrahim Al-Maraashi. After the British press revealed the scandal, the government confessed in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.
Here is the most important distinction to be made in the current crisis: it has become clear to the global public that the US may be much more dangerous than Iraq. The Iraqi regime, which no one doubts is autocratic, is ultimately only a stubborn, pathetic regime; foolish behaviour on its part undoubtedly represents some sort of danger, but it can be contained and losses can be minimised through numerous means, particularly since both the state and society have been exhausted by 12 years of unjust sanctions. But the US administration has at its disposal enormous resources and tools that enable it to determine the destiny of the human race. Foolish behaviour on its part -- not such a far-fetched scenario given the extreme right-wing orientation of the present administration -- may lead to irreparable damage and irretrievable losses.
Though the revolt of public opinion is not necessarily an expression of trust in the regime of Saddam Hussein, it certainly shows a lack of faith in the right-wing administration of George W Bush. Global public opinion is not at all convinced that the president of the greatest country on earth is so keen to attack Iraq because it is hiding weapons of mass destruction, interfering with the work of the international inspections team, which alone can prove or deny these claims -- even as North Korea is challenging the US by expelling employees of the International Atomic Energy Agency and resuming its nuclear weapons programme. The public knows that North Korea is no more democratic and no less dangerous than Iraq is; the only difference is that it actually possesses nuclear weapons. They are convinced that the US's insistence on striking Iraq comes as part of its own private political agenda. This agenda represents the greatest threat to global stability, as it can only be implemented over the dead body of international law.
* The writer is professor of political science at Cairo University.
