 |
|
| Kathmandu, Friday March 21, 2003 Chaitra 07, 2059. |
|
War on Iraq
President George Bush, in an address to his
nation, informed his people and the world that the US has launched its long anticipated
war against Iraq, particularly aimed at "disarming" the country and finding
weapons of "mass destruction". That the United States went ahead with its long
planned strikes against Iraq despite international opposition is a clear indication that
it was quite convinced that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. The battle against Iraq
may be a cakewalk for the armies of some of the most advanced countries of the world. The
state of the art war equipment are being used and Iraq stands a very dim chance of pushing
back armies using most sophisticated weapons produced by mankind. Reporters say the US-led
armies possess equipment that can "see" anything that happens in Baghdad. Iraq,
in real terms, is outgunned and may be even outnumbered, and it is now a matter of time
before Baghdad falls to the US-led armies. And time is precisely the crucial element in
the military action initiated by the US. There is little doubt that the longer it takes
for the US-led armies to take power in Iraq, the worse the international economic
situation grows, and so will anti-war sentiments even in the US. Using guns as a means of
settling issues in the 21st century is something that should not be encouraged. They
should be the last resort when all else fail. The US, Great Britain and a few other
countries decided to strike on Iraq without the United Nations’ backing. The UN,
which had been a beehive of activity to prevent the outbreak of war on Iraq, failed to
persuade the US and its allies to desist from immediate attack. There is much
justification in UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s poignant and despairing remarks
that it was a "sad day for the UN". Bypassing the UN to launch a military action
cannot be termed as a wise move. Yet despite saner advice, the attack has taken place. The
first objective of the invading force could well be getting rid of President Saddam
Hussain and then trying to find "weapons of mass destruction". If such weapons
are indeed found in sufficient quantities, the US and its allies could still justify the
use of force. But such findings should be of reasonably sufficient quality to pose a
threat to Iraq’s neighbours and the world.
In any post-war scenario, it is important that
the government in Baghdad be that of the people of Iraq. We in this column in the past had
clearly spoken out against the repressive policies of President Saddam Hussain. But the
people of Iraq deserve the leadership they want, and the US and its allies must not merely
install a puppet regime in Baghdad and think that their task is done. Indeed, the task of
all responsible countries begins when the war ends, which we hope will be soon.
Reconstruction in Iraq, bringing it back on the track to economic prosperity and democracy
are the tasks that might prove harder than getting rid of Hussain. Iraq is said to have
the second largest reserves of oil in West Asia and this needs to be properly exploited
for the welfare of the Iraqi people who have suffered much during the past decade due to
the UN sanctions. The war on Iraq, whether justified or not, is now on and it is the
responsibility of all countries of the world to ensure that the Iraqi people do not suffer
further. The UN, which was bypassed when the war bugle was sounded, is most likely to play
a pivotal role in the reconstruction of what could easily be a war ravaged Iraq. We hope
all countries, particularly those that launched the attack, will be forthcoming in their
generosity to rebuild the country and give the Iraqis a better and just deal. We hope all
sane people will pray that the war on Iraq will be short, and the killings and destruction
minimal. |
