UN will be the first victim of the Iraq war

Mikhail Gorbachev Former President The Soviet Union RIA Novosti Moscow

Most people believe that the war on Iraq is as good as an accomplished matter. The only question is when and how. On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of observers, analysts and heads of state think Iraq does not present a genuine danger to the U.S. (at least now) and the terrorist threat does not come from Iraq.

The U.S. administration thinks differently but has not provided proof of its point to the UN Security Council or its own Congress. Alarmed by the U.S. disregard for the inspectors' mission and the pressure it is putting on the Security Council members in a bid to make them adopt a resolution that would give the U.S. freedom to launch a military operation, many people think that there is no proof at all.

The White House has hinted that it is prepared to act single- handed, without anyone's assistance, but this would amount to the neglect of international law and the UN Security Council.

If the U.S. does it, it will have to shoulder grave responsibility for the consequences. President Bush is fully aware of this and hence is pressurizing the UN Security Council into adopting a new resolution that would provide the political cover to his "preemptive war."

Today we need to take a firm stand to prevent any actions against Iraq without the UN Security Council mandate and to ensure the return of inspectors to Iraq in order to investigate accusations against it. France and Russia are adamant: We must first of all try all possible variants of political and diplomatic solutions and give the inspectors a chance to see for themselves if Iraq's proclaimed readiness for cooperation holds water. That is, they must be allowed to carry out their inspection without preliminary conditions or limitations. In fact, one more permanent Security Council member, China upholds this point, too.

Refusal to dispatch the inspectors appears unjustified in this situation. It seems that the U.S. administration fears that the results of the inspectors' work will not confirm U.S. accusations. A military operation would be unacceptable in this situation. Consequently, Washington is pressing for a new resolution, applying all possible and impossible methods of persuasion to Security Council members.

If a resolution were adopted in this situation which every side would interpret differently -- the U.S. to justify its attack and the other Security Council members to get rid of U.S. pressure and blackmail, this would have dangerous consequences. The war would begin in a situation of fierce debates and a split world.

As for the victims of the opening combat operations, the UN will be the first to suffer.

Many commentators say that the U.S. has driven itself into a corner and can no longer back out because this would damage its prestige. I disagree. A superpower that is responsible for the world and for cooperation in the interests of stability and security can use its special position and accept the concern of others, acting within the framework of the UN Security Council and on the basis of international law to the end. Otherwise everyone will shy away from it and this would damage its prestige and influence in the world.

However, like many other analysts I have been asking myself:

Maybe this plan of a lightning and resolute strike at Iraq was hatched not because of any threat allegedly coming from Iraq to the U.S. and the rest of the world (as President Bush said again in his Oct. 7 statement)? Maybe there is some other reason for it? And this prompts the idea that the desire of the U.S. leadership to start the war and the haste with which this decision is being forced on the U.S. and the world can be explained by serious problems in the U.S. economy.

It is rumored that the goal of the war against Iraq is to establish direct control over the 115 billion barrels of Iraqi oil. And Saddam Hussein stands in the way. This is why the U.S. has openly proclaimed a desire to topple his regime. The regime that would replace it in the war-ravaged Iraq would allow the U.S. to establish control over one of the world's largest oil fields and use the price policy to influence the global economy as it pleases.

If this supposition is correct, I would like to ask the authors of this strategy: Would it not be more reasonable to elaborate a new development model that would help improve the abnormal situation? These complications have occurred at a time when the U.S. consumed roughly 40 percent of the world's energy.

Is this the root cause of the recent U.S. military doctrines, which divided U.S. allies into two camps? Do the Americans sincerely hope to gain from sowing discord among their allies?

Russia, which has opted for broad and multifaceted cooperation with the West, including the U.S., is facing difficult questions, too. A war at Iraq does not promise benefits to it. On the contrary, it would deal a heavy blow at its economic, political and strategic interests. It is dangerous to play a game by forcing one's allies to sustain losses and by breeding alarm and suspicion among them.

In fact, this situation will face Russia and Europe with a difficult choice. They want to carry on fruitful cooperation with the U.S. but cannot give up the cause of peace and international law, which, among other things, fits in with their national interests and the interests of the international community.

Facing Russia and Europe with this choice would be the mistake that the U.S. cannot afford to make.