14.12.2003 | Inna Sukhorukova.

The world and the war in Iraq


My friend phoned to me from Israel. She is a former Kharkov dweller, who moved to Israel in 1994. For half an hour this woman, who is not very rich by the European standards, discussed with me the Iraq war.

– This war will have the catastrophic consequences for Israel, – she declared, – And for the world as a whole.

I agree with her words that even if America wins in this war, it would be the loser. Defeat will cause the loss of the authority, and victory – the loss of the image of moral and democratic state… This war will consolidate the Islam world, believes my friend understanding how this consolidation will influence the events in Israel. „The authority of Bush as a leader is very low now in our country, since it is impossible to solve modern problems by force“. Here, in Ukraine, we discuss now the same problems, although, unlike Israel, we are rather far from the battle-ground. By the way, Hussein undertook a very clever step having refused from the attack at Israel, when everybody was expecting this. Here he has the moral advantage. Besides, moral advantage is always on the attacked side, in spite of how plausible pretexts the attacker has.

The world is stricken with absurd. We got accustomed to the term „humane bombardment“, like it was in Serbia. Now the humane bombs fall on the heads of unfortunate Iraq citizens already exhausted by their criminal leader and teacher.

During tens of years, since the WW2, it was assumed that the moral Western democracies opposed the immoral communist evil – the USSR. Really, the Western (and also traditional Eastern) countries were more moral than the totalitarian Soviet block.

So, what happened with the world now? Who protests against the war in Iraq? Russia, France, the Federal Republic of Germany?

Well, Russia always maintained friendly relations with Iraq and supported Hussein. France and Germany took part in the bombardments of Serbia without the permission of the UNO Security Council. Thus, their position may not be called moral. Being protesting against the military action of the USA, the governments of these countries have their own interests. This, we see today the decline of morality, which is substituted by the struggle of egoistic interests and ambitions. It is shameful… And it is fearful, since all world catastrophes (WWs 1 and 2, socialist revolution in Russia, etc.) were preceded by the decrease of morality of the world community.

Yet, let us consider, whether it is moral to protect Saddam Hussein, who cruelly destroys his own people. Surely, no.

Is it safe for the world to conduct the calm and unhurried negotiations with the dictator, who rapidly approaches to the possession of the weapons of mass destruction? Also no. The problem is that those, who protested against the intentions of the USA to begin this war, did not propose any alternative way of influencing the dictator. The UNO Security Council displayed its complete incompetence, the council appeared unable to deal with Hussein peacefully. Was it possible to avoid the war? Now the USA and other Western countries blocked the bank accounts of Iraq and, in fact, laid siege to the country. For how long time the government of any country would be able to keep the power, if the entire world wanted to overthrow the regime? The answer to this question is the lot of the USSR that lost the cold war. Yet, except some rather ephemeral sanctions against Baghdad, the world community did not impede Hussein to live, to murder his people and to create the weapons of mass destruction. So the military action of the USA is quite predictable.

The world cannot afford to leave the nuclear weapons in the hands of the maniac, who has already fanned military conflicts at the frontiers of his country. Yet, the world also has not the moral right to conduct the „humanitarian bombardments“, since this situation is absurd. The world community must found the alternative methods of exerting influence on the dictatorial regimes.

These methods must be fixed in the international legislation. International court, but not the UNO Security Council, must determine whether a country is guilty of violating human rights and abusing the international agreements. If the Law, and not somebody’s interests, acts, nobody would dare to denounce those, who fulfill this Law. We have already written about the necessity to reform the UNO. The war in Iraq visually demonstrated that this necessity exists for about 10 years, from the time of the disintegration of the USSR.

As to the USA, the transformation of this country into the world gendarme is very undesirable, and such tendencies are observed today.

The world is not monopolar, as some politologists think. The tragedy of 11 September 2001 confirmed this. To respond with the weapons to the challenges of history is an anachronism dangerous for the humanity.

We hope that the politicians of Europe and Asia, and especially of the USA, will understand this soon. The USA, being the most powerful state in the world bears the especial moral responsibility by each its step. In any case, it cannot afford itself to destabilize the situation in the world, so it has not the right for the diplomatic failures like those accompanying the war in Iraq.

Without the urgent and radical reforming of the world security system we will

Recommend this post

forgot the password




send me a new password

on top