cktimes.ca Archives for East-West
East-West
War in Iraq Seems Inevitable
Tuesday, March 4, 2003
by Philip ShawHere in North America, September 11, 2001 changed everything. The conventional wisdom had always been North Americans were immune from the problems Ñover the pond.Ñ Terror bombings in Sri Lanka and Israel, were only realistic on our television screens. The 1991 Gulf War against Iraq came across more as a video game than an all out war. Nobody thought any of these problems would hit home.
So when 19 murdering bastards hijacked four commercial airplanes and crashed them into buildings in New York and Washington on September 11th, North America recoiled. The shock of a successful terrorist strike against the heart of world commerce was real. Fear gripped people like it had never gripped them before. What could lead these murdering zealots to kill themselves and 3000 plus others for some sort of cause. Still today, it's a mystery to many.
It is this atmosphere which many Canadians find themselves in as the world careens closer to a war with Iraq. With 80% of Canadian exports going directly to the United States, our government is treading a fine line with regard to an American-led coalition against Iraq. There is no country on earth more affected by the United States than Canada. If the Americans wanted, they could shut down our economy over night. So when it comes to Iraq, the UN and the Americans, Canadians know what to do and where to go. It is not an easy arrangement.
At the same time, I sometimes recoil from the anti-American feeling I get when I travel the world. Surely, some of it is justified, but from a Canadian's perspective, it's not always necessary. The American people are wonderful people. As this new century dawned, they found themselves the world's lone superpower. With that comes a lot of responsibility.
The focus of that now is Iraq and Saddam Hussein. In a world of low rent dictators, Saddam is the latest preoccupation of the west. Since his defeat in the Gulf war in 1991, he has been a constant thorn in the side, kicking out UN weapons inspectors in 1998. Since then the American President has challenged the UN to enforce its own resolutions. Add a little bit of American and British sabre rattling to the mix and Saddam is facing the full might of a military coalition poised to take him out.
In many ways, it seems cooler heads should prevail. There are far worse despots on the African continent who need replacing. The war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has lasted for years and cost several million lives. But the western media yawns at such world events, more intent on the high tech war games currently threatening Iraq. Surely, the strategic importance of Iraq's oil reserves have something to do with that equation.
The American President has also made some connection with the Al Qaeda terrorist network responsible for September 11th. Although many in foreign intelligence circles have questioned this connection, one must not discount the resonance of this assumption within the American public. There is no appetite in North American circles to wait until something terrible happens again. If it can be prevented by striking at the enemy first, so be it. Iraq is the latest manifestation of that. It's smoking gun (weapons of mass destruction)will not be a mushroom cloud in the middle of the Western Hemisphere, if the American lead coalition has anything to do with it.
Last month in Canada there were large demonstrations for peace. These same types of demonstrations took place around the world. I had a good friend who took part in one. On the same weekend, Tony Blair the British Prime minister said, ÑThe moral case against war, has a moral answer: Not removing Saddam Hussein condemns the Iraqis to his killing fieldsÑ. Clearly, he has a point. Sadly, the same thing was probably said about the King of England in places like India, Kenya and South Africa, Ñback in the day.Ñ
Our world is full of unfulfilled UN resolutions. They stretch from Israel to the Ivory Coast. In the case of Iraq, UN resolution fatigue is setting in. But this time around, I think things are going to be different. When military action comes as it invariably will, it'll be over quickly. Then the world will pause, look around, and once again, start picking up the pieces.
Fading the World Order
by A.K. Enamul Haque
Surely, September 11 has changed the world. It is, however, not true that prior to this day there were no terrorist activities or suicide bombs. There were many attacks and many innocent people died but it did not take place in the United States. Terrorists were active in many parts of the world and still exist today in almost all the countries starting from Ireland to Timor. However, never before terrorists attacked in such a scale at a single place. This just tells us the gravity of the situation. The scale of their operation was a surprise to all of us.
The world was shocked and for sometimes everybody thought terrorism could be eradicated, like other diseases that were eradicated from the world. Believing this, most countries of the world supported the actions led by US against terrorists – including the war in Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan was fought quickly. Sweeping victory was achieved. After a year of sweeping victory, many now realize that it is not the fact. The facts are, US and the allied forces imposed a government that cannot exert its control outside the capital city – Kabul. The Talibans, which were thought to be an evil force, have regained public sympathy and are living around in the countryside. The US troops, who were fighting them, have so far bombed civilians, including a wedding party. This is also a war where we are avoiding counting of dead body. The quality of intelligence against
the Talibans is now in question. Above all, Osama bin Laden seems to be still alive. Given all these, the question is how to eradicate Laden or such terrorist forces?
Application of bombs seems to be working against us. Yes, we have succeeded in replacing the Taliban government but that’s all. End of the story. Continued presence of Taliban forces outside Kabul suggests that the people of Afghanistan failed to understand the benefit of the change in their government. The ‘war’ is still on and nobody knows when it will end. US and allied troops are stuck inside Afghanistan, much like that of Vietnam, and if it continues without much of a success, then one day people inside US
will question the validity of war as a weapon to fight terrorism.
The issue here is fighting terrorism and on this count still today all nations of the world seem to agree. The debate that is looming around us is whether the means for fighting terrorism is war or not. Threat of a war and a war are not the same thing.
We live in a heterogeneous world. It is diverse in terms of beliefs, cultures and colors. However, we all are human. This is the only bond that is keeping us together. After the end of apartheid, we all believed that human race has ended divisions among them based on colors.
Toward the middle of the last century, after Europe and the Far East experienced the carnage of war, we all agreed to some common denominators. We had redrawn the world map with many newly independent nations appearing on it. The process was not always fair, but the world accepted the fact that it is not right for other nations to impose a government in another country. It was thought to be a more acceptable norm among us.
This does not mean that no new nation can emerge. New nations, like Bangladesh, for example, emerged in the world map through independent struggle that was fought from within the people.
At this point, I would like to recall the experience in Vietnam. The war that was fought by the US in Vietnam was also against an ‘evil’ force. The free world could not believe that Vietnam could be taken over by a hostile communist power. The fight was bloody and long. Many people died to establish what they believed to be the right cause. After nearly 30 years, interestingly, the Vietnamese people are now more pro-US than anti-US. The point here is that US has finally succeeded in bringing the people Vietnam on their side but not through war and lives. This is a big lesson that we keep forgetting. Similarly, the Soviet government could not succeed in Afghanistan too. One may claim that unless the US and Pakistan were involved in the fight against Soviet-backed government in Kabul, it would not have been easy. True, but we cannot say it would have never happened.
Considering this background, when I look into this issue, I still see a lot of arguments for standing firm in favor of military strikes by the US and British forces. The need to disarm Saddam, as I have mentioned above, is not the dividing line between US and its European allies, and in between US and the LDCs. All agree that weapons of mass destruction must be removed from Iraq. The debate is in the process and its associated risks.
If we believe that US and its allies are not against the people of Iraq and at the end, want to be their friends, then we must calculate the impact of the war on these people. Wars today are far more dangerous, in terms of human cost, than those of the 50s and 60s. Today, our soldiers do not need to ‘see’ the kills or the killing fields. It is all done through remote control buttons, much like a computer game. As a result, while it would all look like a computer game and many innocent people of Iraq would eventually die, of course, by accident.
This is where the danger of a war lies. This will create are permanent scar in the minds of the ordinary Iraqis against the US forces. So the challenge would be, how long can they stay inside Iraq? Many would argue that US does not want to stay inside Iraq for long. Agreed, but if we observe conflicts and involvements of outside forces starting from Cyprus to Kosovo, we realize that it is important that there is stable government that replaces Saddam in Iraq.
For this reason, I believe that the official war will be over within a few week time. Taking the cue from Afghanistan, establishing a stable government in Iraq may not be as easy as we all expect. Most of our calculations in Afghanistan went wrong, and so we would expect the same in Iraq.
Surely, Saddam cannot fight for more than a few weeks. His public image within his own country and also among his neighbors may be even worse than that of the Taliban leaders in Afghanistan. However, the critical point in disarming Iraq or in overthrowing Saddam is linked in the process of doing it. Any unilateral action by US or its allies without a sanction from UN means that we are going to re-write the universal rule of engagement that was agreed between nations when UN was created to prevent further wars. If war is imposed with US backing and without UN backing then UN itself may find its way into the history book.
East/West is a joint column written by A.K. Enamul Haque and Philip Shaw. Dr. A.K.Enamul Haque Ph.D, is a Professor of Economics at United International University. Philip Shaw M.Sc. is farmer, writer and broadcaster in Dresden, Ontario, Canada. Each month they will bring their uniquely East/West perspectives to specific topics of world interest.
