War is really failure of good governance

Bantarto Bandoro, Editor, 'The Indonesian Quarterly', Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Jakarta, bandoro@csis.or.id

Danny Glover, actor and U.S. activist, once said that war brings us to a place where it denies us the possibility of dialog, and that the threat of war is real, even though the rest of the world has said no. Wise leaders such as Pope John Paul II, Archbishop Rowan Williams, the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela and Jimmy Carter all have spoken with one voice: War is never good. It is easy to start a war, but the horrendous consequences of it are such that in the nuclear age, war can never be justified.

As the prospect of war in Iraq approaches, with its almost inevitable consequences of death, destruction of ravaged communities, the world community must consider whether they have to follow this course.

War places in the hands of the mighty, from bread to knowledge, dominating thought and movement and playing upon lines of division which stir up racist ideology and awaken memories of enmity. Instead of respect for particularity, the war divides the world only into "for" and "against".

Millions across the world have expressed their fear of war and are still witnessing endless efforts by the United Nations and several states to save the possibility of the U.S. from attacking Iraq. They are also part of the world movement to safeguard the growth of democracy.

Democracy does not come via injustice, military occupation or bombardment, but through the development of global awareness of the significance of the good governance as the very fabric of international peace and stability.

War against the Iraqi government would underwrite the failure of the current democratic system. Sometimes, in the name of democracy, endless errors, faults and crimes are perpetrated. Hence one tends to see the U.S. becoming manipulative and violent, because it is no longer able to sustain the argument that war is for the sake of democracy.

Though the U.S. encountered problems in convincing the Western allies for its war policy, the U.S. continued to mobilize troops along the Iraqi frontiers. It is almost certain that the U.S. government has decided to solve the Iraqi case by military action, disregarding the results of the UN inspections and serious objections of many people, institutions and governments.

Since the Iraqi government was seen by the U.S. as breaching the UN resolution, the U.S. conducted more intensive war maneuvers. It is persuading allies and friends to unconditionally support its war policy. The first shot has not been fired, but war, from the U.S. stand point, is already a holy necessity. What the U.S. is attempting to show now is to lead mankind to accept war as the only way to solve the Iraqi case. Its war plans strengthen the assumptions that governments have always used times of peace to prepare for the next war. But war has always been declared in the name of lasting peace and humanity.

It is this part of the process that has been bluntly rejected by the world community. The sense of peace and humanity must not be misused and left to the hands of those countries who mobilized people more for war than for peace. What will give the people a full sense of humanity and peace is a scientific and technological development directed not to aggression, but to peace.

Peace is often used as moral blackmail for those countries who want war. No countries would dare to confess that they make war for war; they would rather argue that they make war for peace. This is perhaps the message conveyed by the U.S. war policy.

If American troops go into Iraq, it will be the U.S.'s first "pre-emptive" war. The preparation of a "pre-emptive strike" is strictly forbidden under international law, unless an immediately impending enemy attack has to be averted.

Paradoxically, only Iraq would have the unquestionable right of attacking the U.S. military. But the question is about the consequences of the politics of war itself. The world would continue to be divided, thus weakening, if not losing, the very basic fundamentals needed for a more peaceful, democratic and freer and safer world.

A report said that war against Iraq would take place sometime after mid March when the UN Security Council convenes for the deliberation of its second resolution. Another report said it was too late for Iraq to yield to the demands of the UN inspections team. Almost certainly, the point of no return would be reached by the time the Security Council issues its resolution either for or against war. We will witness an interplay of the voting behavior of the SC members.

A huge effort will be made by all sides to lobby the undecided. It is expected that it is getting rough in the Council and it could get rougher as they approach the final day of the deliberations. Even if the vote is in favor of the resolution, which states that Iraq has missed its final opportunity to disarm and must face serious consequences, the authority of the UN and its credibility would still be undermined; and to unleash a war would certainly cause even more death, more suffering, torture and inhuman behavior.

But president Bush is indicating that he has made his mind up, however the Council votes and whatever the Iraqi government does now. For Bush, a positive vote would be useful, but it would not be necessary, meaning that whatever the end results of the deliberations, it will make no difference as to the way the Iraq issue is to be solved.

War is almost a certainty. It is not only a failure of foreign policy, diplomacy and the negotiating skills of the world leaders, but it also a failure of the United Nations and failure of the national and international institutions whose responsibility it is to spot the early signs of conflict and resolve it before it reaches a massive proportion. War totally denies and undermines systematically the fundamentals needed for international good governance.

What we must admit now is the failure of the United Nations, and we must begin to think how the world body can be made into an effective institution with real integrity, thus guarantee a sustained and perpetuated good governance.