JP/7/RIZA

JP/7/RIZA
World waits for U.S. pledge after the war

Riza Sihbudi
Indonesian Institute of Sciences
(LIPI)
Jakarta

The United Nations (UN) Security Council finally held its
emergency meeting on March 27, following strong pressure from the
Arab League and the Non-Aligned Movement. Indonesia was among
those UN member countries which actively pushed for an open
emergency meeting, one in which all UN members could participate,
to debate the U.S.-led aggression against Iraq.

Still, the fact that the UN finally decided to convene this
meeting shows increasing pressure from most nations, urging that
the UN should not just sit on the fence in the face of barbarity
in Iraq -- quite unlike its prompt reaction against Iraqi
aggression against Kuwait in 1991. What the U.S. and the UK are
doing to Iraq today is not very different from what Iraq did to
Kuwait then.

Therefore, it is understandable that people in many countries
have been urging that the UN be disbanded, as it has proven
itself incapable of protecting a weak country against the
atrocities of a strong country. There is more to this, of course.

Iraq has even accused UN Secretary General Kofi Annan of
complicity in smoothing the way for the aggression. Just a day
before the deadline of the ultimatum that Bush had given to
Saddam Hussein, Annan decided to withdraw the UN inspection team
from Iraq. Annan may thus go down in world history as the weakest
and most timid UN Secretary-General.

If theoretical and mathematical calculations are correct, the
collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq is only a matter of
time. Anyway, the military might of the U.S. and the UK is far
superior to Iraq's military strength. This is indeed a very
unjust "war" -- or to be more apt, aggression or invasion -- that
lacks parity.

In the aftermath of the 1991 Kuwait war, the UN -- by order of
the U.S. -- exacted economic, political and military penalties on
Iraq. Embargoes and other kinds of sanctions in virtually every
sector of life were imposed on Iraq, which was allowed only to
purchase food and medicine supplies. Besides which, the UN, again
by "order" of the U.S., also disarmed Iraq.

Saddam is undeniably a "monster" for his neighbors and his own
people -- and, perhaps, he is also a hoodlum, as he is fond of
extorting the wealth of the rich emirs around him.

Innumerable people have died as a result of his cruel
political machine since he took power in 1979. However, most
Iraqis -- including 60 percent of the marginalized Shiites --
hate the American and British aggressors more than Saddam. This
is why the hope of the U.S. and the UK that their soldiers would
receive a warm welcome from the Iraqis has remained a dream.

Besides, where is the morality of the U.S. and the UK? In the
1980s, both clearly had their share in Iraq's military build-up
under Saddam. Both have pocketed millions, or even billions, of
U.S. dollars from this Iraqi strongman. Then, they fully
supported Saddam when he felt the urge to attack Iran to prevent
the spread of the Islamic revolution.

After blocking Ayatollah Khomeini's influence, it is now
Saddam's turn to be destroyed. Iraq had thus first been weakened
before finally it was subjected to a massive attack, which has
led to grave doubts as to how Iraq could possibly win the war.

The end of Saddam's power -- if this comes about -- would have
a great impact on the Middle Eastern region. First of all, the
impact would be favorable if the U.S. and the UK, plus the UN,
are able to encourage the establishment of a new, democratic-
inclined regime in Iraq.

This would be in line with the earlier commitment of the big
powers to "liberate" the Iraqi people and restore their rights
over their oil wealth potential.

Secondly, if and when Saddam loses the war, the U.S. must
immediately fulfill is pledge to establish a free Palestinian
state. The root cause of acute conflicts in the Middle East is
the Palestinian question, in the sense that the Palestinians may
enjoy their legitimate rights to establish and own a free and
sovereign state that is recognized and protected by international
institutions.

U.S. support for the establishment of a Palestinian state will
minimize the anti-U.S. sentiment prevailing among the Arab
nations. As a consequence, terrorist acts will also be reduced.

Thirdly, after a democratic government is installed in Iraq
and a free Palestinian state is established, the U.S. must also
encourage democratization in those Arab countries that have
become its main allies. The emergence of new "monsters" in the
Arab world would thus be prevented. This condition may also usher
in a new era for the Middle East, if it can serve as a zone of
peace and democracy.

However, if the U.S. fails to realize these three aims after
the end of Saddam's power in Iraq, political instability will
intensify in the region, especially if the U.S. is only concerned
with controlling the oil of Iraq and other Middle Eastern
countries and eliminating a military threat to Israel. The impact
that the end of Saddam's rule might would be highly unfavorable.

The invasion of Iraq will likely be followed by an invasion of
Iran on the same pretext: The destruction of weapons of mass
destruction. Even Libya and Saudi Arabia could be next, as the
main objective of the U.S. is to control 80 percent of the
world's oil deposits.

That Iran will be another target is obvious from the U.S.'s
attempt to raise an issue on Iran's nuclear capability. The
Palestinian question will soon be forgotten, as George W. Bush
needs support from Jewish-American lobbyists to ensure his re-
election in 2004. If that is the case, then violence would almost
certainly escalate in the Middle East.

We can only hope that Bush will rely on his common sense more
than has up until now, and refrain from going against the wishes
of the international community for the second time.

The writer also chairs the Indonesian Society for Middle East
Studies (ISMES).