Bush's `just war' in Iraq

While it is certain that President George W. Bush is prepared to defy international law in going to war with Iraq if the Security Council does not give its approval, the consequences of such a move are far less certain. We know it will be devastating for the United Nations and the standing of the United States.

In his state-of-the-union address last week, Bush disclosed that Secretary of State Colin Powell would brief the Security Council on Wednesday about new evidence proving that Iraq has been producing and developing weapons of mass destruction. Bush said America would "consult" with the Security Council while also making clear that his forces, already deployed around Iraq, would disarm President Saddam Hussein of his menacing weapons by force, with or without the Council's approval.

It is one thing for President Bush to appear gung ho before the American congress to whip up domestic support for his war plans, but completely another to defy international public opinion, which still has not bought his war plans, and most of all, to break international law, which is what precisely he would be doing if he went to war without the Security Council's mandate.

This would not be the first time that international law was being flouted. Israel and Iraq are constantly defying Security Council resolutions and have got away with it. While such actions undermine the credibility and integrity of the United Nations, they have never threatened the very existence of the world body.

It would be a different story if Washington were responsible for the violation. The United States is not only the most powerful UN member -- politically, militarily and economically -- but is also one of the five Security Council permanent members, whose chief job it is to ensure global peace and security.

With such responsibility, council members have been vested with authority to do their job effectively. And the permanent five -- which include Russia, China, Britain and France -- have the power of veto. But, first and foremost, the members of the council, particularly the Big Five, are expected to comply with the international laws themselves.

The United Nations, which is still run along rules created in its early days after World War II, is not exactly an ideal organization to reflect today's world. And the Security Council is not exactly run along democratic lines either. But, pending the outcome of current debate on reforming the world body, the United Nations is still the only organization entrusted with the power to police the world.

The United States would be taking its unilateralism to the limit if it decided to invade Iraq without the council's mandate.

If the most powerful member of the world body fails to show respect for international law, then all countries of lesser power, which means virtually everybody else, will find justification to flout the laws if and when they see fit.

An attack on Iraq without council approval could mean the beginning of the end for the United Nations, the consequence of which to world peace is simply beyond imagination.

There is another compelling reason why Security Council approval is absolutely necessary, for the sake of the United States, before it goes to war with Iraq.

Indonesia, along with most other UN members, will be forced to condemn Washington for its aggression against another sovereign member state. Governments will also have to condemn Washington's allies like Britain and Australia if they take part in the war. A condemnation by one state against another would automatically strain their relations, with all the ugly consequences.

Indonesia did not condemn the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan in 2001 or the U.S.-led coalition attack on Iraq in 1991 because both had the Security Council's stamp of approval. Jakarta simply expressed regret on both occasions and was spared from having to issue a condemnation, and thus it managed to maintain cordial ties with Washington and its allies.

In many parts of the world, people have sufficient reason to hate America as things stand. They resent America because economic globalization has benefited Americans more than anybody else; in much of the Muslim world, there is a feeling that Muslims are being unfairly singled out in Washington's campaign against terrorism; many hate America for its unilateralism. An invasion of Iraq, especially one without Security Council approval, would only make more people across the globe hate America. In short, an attack on Iraq would be counterproductive to America's own interests.

Most of the world is still not convinced that there are grounds for the U.S. to attack Iraq, or for that matter, that war is the answer to the current Iraqi standoff. But if President Bush were to go it alone with his war plan, as he indicated that he might, the least he should do is secure the Security Council mandate.

That way, he would turn his "just" war into a "just and legitimate" war.