The imminent U.S.-Iraq war, the UN and international politics
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1441 or the withdrawn resolution under the shadow of a threat of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.