BOSTON, 23 August 2003 — It all happened within 48 hours: A definite movement toward a US-Libyan resolution and the deterioration of the Iraqi security situation. The tragedy at the UN headquarters must be condemned. But is there something else, something more fundamental signaled by the worsening Iraqi situation? Have there been contrasting ways in which the US has dealt with the Libyan and the Iraqi situation — essentially the Qaddafi and the Saddam factors?

Over Libya the cloud has lifted a little. The United States and Qaddafi may now openly co-exist. This was of course not always the case. The top guns of the US mandated the murder of Qaddafi in 1986 but did not succeed. Two years later Qaddafi at least facilitated terror attacks, and 256 innocent passengers of Pan Am 103 were murdered over Lockerbie. For over a decade mutual revulsion characterized the relationship between the two governments, with devastating consequences for Libya.

But in recognition of the limits of what military force and hate can achieve, three-way negotiations began among the US, the UK and Libya. In 1999 the UN sanctions were suspended. Libya agreed to cooperate by handing two Libyan suspects over for trial in a Scottish court in the Netherlands. Finally: Payment of a compensation package and a letter from the Libyan government to the UN Security Council president almost accepting responsibility for Lockerbie and reiterating its commitment to the global anti-terrorist campaign. All this is leading the adversaries toward a detente. The negotiations, encouraged by the UK and the United Nations, were marked by mutual accommodation. The US abandoned indiscriminate force as a dispute settler and relied instead on reason. Washington will support the UK-Bulgarian resolution tabled on Aug. 18 calling for the lifting of UN sanctions.

In stark contrast to this, there is the continuing tragedy of Iraq.

On Aug. 19 death came to the Baghdad UN office. Twenty people including the UN top man Sergio Vieira de Mello, an “outstanding servant of humanity,” were killed. Hundreds were wounded. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan hopes those who perpetrated this outrage will be brought to justice. He rightly said: “Nothing can excuse this act of unprovoked and murderous violence against men and women who went to Iraq for one purpose only: To help the Iraqi people recover their independence and sovereignty and to rebuild their country as fast as possible, under leaders of their own choosing.” Syria, which currently holds the Security Council presidency, said: “Such terrorist incidents cannot break the will of the international community.” The UN, then, will continue its presence in Iraq, but in a climate of fear. Security concerns will undoubtedly affect its presence there, not least by slowing down its work. Some EU staff have already been moved out of Baghdad after the terrorist attack. The American forces, responsible for “delivering” security to the Canal Hotel which housed the UN office, have failed it.

Delivering security is admittedly a tall order in a country where anger, hate, resistance and easy access to weaponry make for a deadly combination. Two weeks ago, 19 innocent lives were lost in another terrorist attack. Last week, sabotage debilitated Iraq’s northern export pipeline and Baghdad’s central water system. This forebodes more death and destruction for the Iraqis and for the forces who first invaded and now occupy Iraq in the “line of duty.”

Bush already faces increasing criticism for the continuing death of US soldiers now confronted with unconventional warfare in Iraq. But he had fighting words, as usual: “Every sign of progress in Iraq adds to the desperation of the terrorists and the remnants of Saddam’s brutal regime. The civilized world will not be intimidated. And these killers will not determine the future of Iraq,” he warned.

The American administrator Paul Bremer has already expanded the zone for blame beyond Iraq. He has indicated that “foreigners coming from Syria” may have been behind these blasts. Maybe the US will argue that Al-Qaeda has a Syrian presence too, that covertly the Syrians are supporting these terrorist activities or are supporting Saddam loyalists. There can be no limits to listing suspects, especially when the adversary is as elusive and as dispersed as the one the US forces and — tragically — the UN faces in Iraq.

Violence must be condemned. But there is no getting away from how we arrived at this tragic juncture in Iraq. Peace, law and order will not come easy in Iraq, and the situation is likely to get worse before it gets better.

Many foretold such an outcome. The US-UK invasion of Iraq was illegal and based on false premises. A UN-led process of negotiated reining in of the dictator Saddam was under way, however slow. The global community would have done far better to stay the course on that. Yet driven by hate for Saddam, by the arrogance of military power, by the convoluted security paradigms which decide what is black and what is white in this world, and, finally by an overwhelming self-righteousness, the United States and the UK abandoned the route of a negotiated settlement.

Does the left hand not see what the right hand is doing?

— Nasim Zehra is a Fellow of Harvard University’s Asia Center.