Leaders and politicians too often ignore their citizens’ opinions and ideas in the mistaken belief that the ruler knows the country’s strategic interests better than the man in the street.

America’s obstinacy and insistence on invading Iraq recalls the horrors of the Vietnam War and has resulted in the emergence of serious differences between citizens and leaders.

It is neither possible nor logical for the American administration to ignore the American street’s anti-war sentiments or the global rejection of the American military operation. Twenty million protesters in 600 cities around the world on the same day is a phenomenon which the world has never before seen.

The surprise for the supporters of war came when reports confirmed that there is no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq nor is there evidence that the country has a nuclear weapons program. The reports also said that the Iraqi government has been cooperating with the inspectors which makes their jobs much easier.

When the reports were made, the Security Council turned into a battle of diplomatic wit not seen since the Korean War — the foreign ministers of France, Germany, Russia, China and Syria clearly opposed the American stand.

It became apparent to the American secretary of state that his theatrical show had failed to convince his allies and world opinion of the rightness of America’s view. In the UK, popular pressure affected Britain’s pro-America stand; Tony Blair was forced to withdraw some of his wholehearted support for an immediate war on Iraq and he said that he still hoped for a peaceful resolution to the matter from the UN.

The Iraqi invasion will not begin World War III because its significance is not comparable with the causes that led to World War II. By the same token the conflict between the great countries inside the Security Council — and more especially inside the European Union — is indicative of the world’s refusal to accept American domination which aims solely at protecting its strategic interests without care or concern for anyone else.

And so the Security Council decided to continue its diplomatic war until March 14, in accordance with France’s wishes, and to delay the Iraqi invasion until after that date. On the official front, all the American administration could do was attempt to minimize the importance of what has happened in the Security Council’s last meeting. The administration’s hope is that Washington will once again be able to influence the countries opposed to war and make them bend to its will as it usually does by either convincing them or by threatening economic penalties. Finally we can say that the American administration is at a crossroads; either it retreats from war, which is difficult since it would shake American public opinion and the political organization’s credibility in the current administration at a time when the American budget had been practically depleted in preparation for armed conflict. It is also an armed conflict the cost of which the American taxpayer will bear alone. Or Washington could begin the war without approval from the Security Council and in so doing break international law, isolate itself from the international community thus threatening its interests not only around the world but also in its own territory. None of this has been thought through very carefully at all.

Arab News Opinion 24 February 2003