Give diplomacy more chance

Historically, many international conflicts have been resolved either through negotiations, the use of force, or a combination of the two. Most of the time, conflicts have been resolved through negotiations, with the looming threat of a possible war hanging over all.

Diplomacy, that is, peaceful negotiations, is always the preferred option. Military action, because of its devastating consequences, is always seen as a solution of last resort, if and when diplomacy fails. A military option, or the threat of waging a war, is often one of the bargaining chips. But this threat must be credible, that is, the one making the threat must show that it is willing to carry it out; it cannot be a bluff.

The international effort to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction has now reached a critical juncture. The world must decide whether to continue with a diplomatic approach to convince Baghdad to voluntarily disarm, or to launch a war against Iraq.

The battle of wits today is not between the United States and Iraq. Rather, it is between the United States, together with a handful of its allies on the one hand, and France, with the backing of most of the rest of the world, on the other.

The ongoing debate at the United Nations Security Council boils down to the question of whether diplomacy has runs its course, as Washington is saying, or whether more time is needed amidst signs of greater cooperation from Baghdad, as Paris is suggesting.

The question today is whether "to war or not to war".

The United States has already mobilized its forces along the Iraqi border, waiting for the word "go" from Washington to invade Iraq and remove its leader Saddam Hussein, as a prelude to dismantling its weapons of mass destruction.

Admittedly, it is this military build-up that has forced Saddam to comply with a UN resolution calling for disarmament. But whether his compliance is genuine and far reaching enough is the subject of a debate that has split the world into the above two camps.

In military terms, it may just be a small push of the button to launch a war once all the necessary preparations have been made. In terms of politics, however, starting a war is a huge step, a decision that has to be made with the greatest care.

This is why the approval of the UN Security Council is important. Any war the U.S. launches must at least be legitimized through the auspices of the UN, if it cannot win popular support.

While the world is united -- or almost united -- in wanting Baghdad disarmed, it is far from being united in the approach toward achieving that goal. Going by the massive global antiwar protests these past few weeks, the sentiments of most people in the world, including many in the United States, remain that war is not the answer.

While we all have the same goal, the difference between those who support a war on Iraq and those who oppose it is not simply a matter of degree.

The point of contention is not about when -- now, after March 17, April 17 or whenever -- as Britain's Tony Blair is now arguing in his efforts to save his own skin. The issue at hand is a matter of principle: Should the United States launch an invasion of Iraq at all, or should we give more time for diplomacy to achieve that goal?

The debate goes back to the question of peaceful negotiations versus the military option.

This is the question that has not only divided the world into two camps, but is also the question that has broken up traditional allies, and could possibly undermine the future of international organizations and alliances, above all, the future of the United Nations as the guardian of world peace.

Can war still be averted, given the bullheaded position of the United States to the point of wanting to go it alone?

We think so.

The onus, first and foremost, falls on Iraq's Saddam Hussein to defuse the threat of a war against his own country and his own people. It is his belligerent attitude that has brought the world to its present state of crisis. He must now convince the world that he is sincere in his pledge of cooperation, and that he was not simply reacting to U.S. military pressure.

However, the onus also falls on the United States. It must show that its intentions toward Iraq is limited to disarming Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction. Statements from Washington suggest different agendas at work simultaneously in regards Iraq, and disarmament is but one of these.

Talks about a change of regime, about democratization of the entire Middle East after Iraq, about America's oil interests in the region, about President George W. Bush, Jr. completing the job his father had started 11 years ago -- all this has blurred the aim of this debate: to disarm Iraq.

By trying to go beyond the UN mandate, America is fast losing many of its supporters and friends in this proposed war.

Last, but not least, the onus falls on the rest of the world to prevent a war from taking place.

This is where diplomacy, with the support of the global antiwar movement, can make a difference and save the world from an unnecessary catastrophe.