The imminent U.S.-Iraq war, the UN and international politics

J. Soedjati Djiwandono, Political Analyst, Jakarta

An ultimatum has finally been given to President Saddam Hussein by President George W. Bush to leave his country within 48 hours or risk U.S. attack at a time of its own choosing. The second U.S.-Iraq war is thus likely to break out in a matter of hours as of the appearance of this writing.

In the face of worldwide protests against the possibility of war, questions have been raised on the legitimacy of U.S. action. Some have accused the U.S. of violating international law. The Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, through its spokesman, has accused the U.S. of showing no respect for the role of the UN by disregarding UN Security Council resolutions, be it Resolution 1441 or the withdrawn resolution under the shadow of a threat of veto by France and Russia. The U.S. has thus abandoned multilateralism based on democratic principles.

Indeed, such criticism may be praiseworthy and well intended. However, without in the least defending the U.S. position and policy, the criticism may reflect apparent misunderstanding of the true nature of the United Nations and of international politics.

For one thing, international law is at best a "misnomer". In contrast to municipal or state law, so-called international law has no power of enforcement. It is, rather, an agreement between states based on the principle of reciprocity. Thus a state refrains from violating "international law", and often conscientiously tries to abide by it basically for fear of reprisal.

Interestingly, it often happens that a state starts a war with another on behalf of international law, although its action may by definition be a violation of international law. This is just as contradictory as it is ironical as starting a war on behalf of peace.

Indeed, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has just lost the support of three of his Cabinet ministers led by former foreign secretary Robin Cook and a good number of other members of parliament from his own party, the Labour Party, now have to count as well on the support of the opposition party in the House of Commons, the Conservative Party, the good pal of the Republican Party in the U.S. And yet he has had the nerve to call the imminent war against Iraq a "moral mission".

For another, like it or not, international politics is all about power, however defined, and aggrandizement of power. It is often said, therefore, that power politics or balance of power is the essence of international politics.

That is, one might say, the classical or traditional approach to international politics! Unfortunately, however, followers and critics alike of that school of thought often tend to exaggerate its significance, and hence the so-called "billiards ball model" of international politics.

As regards the United Nations, it is a mirror of international politics par excellence. To criticize the UN for its lack of democracy, therefore, is wide off the mark. Indeed, a democratic mechanism is applied to debates and deliberations of the UN General Assembly. Its resulting resolutions, however, are no binding force for its members.

While many of the member countries, especially of the developing world, are strong advocates for democratization of the UN, at the national level, the regime tends to stand in the way of democratization, if not suppressing it one way or another.

Interestingly, while a democratic mechanism in the form of voting may be applied to deliberations in the Security Council, any consensus reached may be negated by the veto of any one of the permanent members. The Council seems to be based on the assumption that it is each of these major powers with the right of veto that is in a position to determine war or peace of the world.

Therefore, because of their responsibility for international peace -- if limited to the absence of war -- each of these major powers deserve a privilege as well. Their right to a veto reflects this privilege.

What it means, in effect, is that the UN was the creation of the major powers. It belongs to them. One might well say that it is good and well that the rest of the nations of the world are welcome to join as members of the organization!

Thus the most that one can say about the U.S. attack on Iraq, if and when realized, is that the U.S. is against the gentleman's agreement with its partners or colleagues of major powers, all of which are permanent members with the right to veto on the UN Security Council. It would not be violating international law nor the principle of multilateralism or of democracy. The UN is no longer what it was at its creation. This would be its undoing.

What can the rest of the world do then? An alternative to an imminent war in the form of diplomatic means by the UN is no longer possible in the short time available. The countdown continues. Statements cursing and condemning the U.S. or Bush would not likely have any effect on the paranoid president or his principal supporters, Tony Blair and the Spanish prime minister.

A boycott on U.S. trade, particularly on the import of goods from the U.S., would likely be ineffective. It probably would be counterproductive, and perhaps it would even backfire on many countries, particularly developing countries.

Surely, moral voices need to be continued to the end. The pope, for instance, stated in no uncertain terms following the ultimatum given by President Bush to President Saddam Hussein, that he, Bush and his supporters would be responsible before God the Almighty, to history, and to their own personal conscience.

Most important, however, would be the role to be played in the wake of the war by the rest of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, Russia and China on the one hand, and France on the other, along with other countries, while not permanent members of the Council but members of NATO, principally Germany.

It is not in the least inconceivable that the second Gulf War may lead to a change in the nature of relations among members of NATO. This, in turn, may likely affect the nature of relations among the major powers, leading to a new, better world order, a multipolar world without a single major power occupying a predominant position. In such a world order, the major powers would keep an eye on one another's behavior in the international scene, and thus in which no single power would act unilaterally, especially in military terms, without in the end jeopardizing its own interests.