The present political struggle indicates that a fundamental change is about to take place in the world. The US is certain that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction and that it represents a threat to the US and its neighbors. Therefore, it has amassed military forces whose destructive power is unprecedented. This has been done at a time when the chief weapons inspector has said that Baghdad is cooperating and that no chemical or biological weapons have been found. Then came the Al-Samoud missiles and the chief weapons inspector demanded that they be destroyed since their range exceeds what was earlier agreed upon. The White House announced that the destruction of these missiles changed nothing and that Iraq was still defying the international community. The pro-war countries continue in their demands for Iraq to announce what plans it has to destroy its prohibited weapons of mass destruction.
At the same time, North Korea announced the restarting of its military nuclear weapons program which goes against international nonproliferation treaties. Further, it announced that any measures taken against it, whether penalties or blockades, would be considered aggressive acts tantamount to a declaration of war and would give it the right to defend itself by any means. This is a clear threat to its neighbors and to the US itself.
Washington did nothing. It did not send troops to threaten North Korea. In fact, it announced that no direct measures would be taken but instead began calm diplomatic efforts through Chinese, Japanese and South Korean leaders. Moreover, the American secretary of state announced at the inauguration of the new South Korean president that the US would send hundreds of tons in aid to North Korea and that this could be increased in the event of it stopping its nuclear weapons program and submitting to international inspection. This obvious contradiction between two US stands led to some questions.
Is the American stand due to its fear that North Korea might indeed use its nuclear weapons? Is the stand due to North Korea’s having no oil? Is the US presence in Japan and South Korea sufficient to guarantee stability in the region? Or did the stand come as a result of Washington’s conviction that China would never allow a military strike against North Korea?
This unbalanced struggle between great nations is one of interests — first and foremost an economic struggle rather than a political or ideological one. Further it is far removed from the war against international terrorism, the banner which Washington has hoisted and is working under.
If Washington begins the war without a Security Council resolution approving an invasion of Iraq, it will face some financial and moral losses due to the reactions of those who oppose the war. As for political losses for deviating from international law, those losses would probably be felt in the near future. However, backing away from war for one reason or another, even if it were to earn the US the respect of the world for complying with international law, would cause it to suffer financial losses worth billions of dollars which would have disastrous effects on the American budget and, consequently, on the entire American economy.
By complying with international law, the US would surely decrease some of the hatred felt for it by many nations which disapprove of its actions and behavior.
Arab News Opinion 3 March 2003
