Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Ghulam Khan: Bush's Dilemma

Expand Messages
  • World View
    Bush s Dilemma By Ghulam Asghar Khan The Frontier Post - Pakistan 10-2-5 http://www.frontierpost.com.pk/ In a highly significant decision German Federal
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 5, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Bush's Dilemma
      By Ghulam Asghar Khan
      The Frontier Post - Pakistan

      In a highly significant decision "German Federal Court" ruled that
      the assault launched by the US and its allies against Iraq, was a
      clear war of aggression that violated the International Law.
      The Judges scrupulously demonstrated that the German government, in
      contrast to its public protestations, had lend a hand in the
      aggression against Iraq without having any legal right to do so.
      Although the decision was made 3-months back but was barely
      mentioned in the German media. The judgement and its legal arguments
      have only just been made public. The court in particular referred to
      Article 4, Paragraph 4 of the UN Charter, which classifies "every"
      threat and use of military force against another nation as an act of
      aggression. It specifies only two exceptions: a formal resolution of
      the UN Security Council and for self-defence purposes. Neither of
      these was the case with Iraq. In particular, the US had no legal
      basis for attacking Iraq based on previous UN resolutions that it
      itself had introduced. UN Resolution 678 of 1990 had only authorised
      the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait and the ceasefire Resolution 687
      in 1991 certified that this aim was achieved.

      As per this Resolution, Iraq was forbidden to use poisonous gases or
      other biological weapons and renewed the demand for Iraq to maintain
      a clear distance from 'international terrorism'. This Resolution was
      formally accepted by Iraq, and all the conditions laid down were not
      violated by Baghdad during the following 10-years when Iraq was
      ravaged by continual Anglo US bombings.

      The court observed that the Security Council did threaten 'serious
      consequences', but it did not make explicit what form they would
      take. On the contrary, Resolution 1441 (which was made the basis for
      the unilateral attack) expressed unmistakably that the matter was
      yet to be determined by the Security Council. The court argued that
      the resolution did not give a free hand for military action, but
      rather left the decision about any consequences to the UN. It did
      not consider the objection valid that the resolution text was
      interpreted differently by the US and UK. It stated, "For the
      determination of what the UN Security Council had decided in one of
      its resolutions, what is decisive is not what government
      representatives 'thought' about the proceedings and resolutions
      themselves. It is far more dependent on what was actually laid down
      in the text of the agreed resolution and mental reservations of
      governments or their representatives were not valid insofar as
      international law was concerned.

      As against that, President Bush embarked upon his latest campaign to
      convince the US citizens that the illegal and unwarranted
      invasion/occupation of Iraq was worth the sacrifice paid by other
      people's children. His first pro-war pep rally was in Utah at the
      convention of Veterans of foreign wars, where he explained that the
      only way to honour about 2,000 US troops killed in Iraq was to stay
      there and finish the task. In other words, the only way to ensure
      those soldiers who died in Iraq did not die in vain was to send more
      to their deaths. The logic of needless death honoured through more
      needless deaths was just appalling.

      No matter how bad things might be in Iraq, and no matter how dim the
      prospects are for Iraq's future, Bush & Co. still manage to look the
      public straight in the eye, smirk and insist that the decision to
      invade was a good one. Not realising that by invading Iraq, they had
      opened up "Pandora's Box" with global consequences. Bush and his
      vindicators still insist that that the occupation of Iraq would
      spread democracy and stability in the Middle East. That naïve
      declaration couldn't be farther from the truth. Not only is Iraq in
      the clutches of a civil war, the US-led invasion threatens to
      destabilise the whole of the Middle East, if not possibly the world.
      It might have irrevocably done so already.

      By most definitions and standards, Iraq is already facing the pangs
      of civil war. Whether defined as an internal conflict; or as an
      organised violence designed to change the government; or as a
      systematic and coordinated sectarian-based conflict; the
      requirements of civil war have long since been satisfied. People of
      Iraq aren't merely growing increasingly alienated from each other,
      as well as progressively opposed to US-led forces. Iraq's
      estrangement from rest of the Middle East and the Arab world is
      widening as well. Seen more and more as a proxy of the Iranian
      government, the Shiite/Kurd dominated Iraq finds itself at odds with
      the Sunni-dominated Middle East.

      Strangely enough, not a single Middle East nation has sent an
      ambassador to Baghdad since after the US invasion. And despite
      promises to do so, the Arab League (of which Iraq was a founder) has
      yet to open its office in Baghdad, for which Iraqi diplomacy, or
      lack thereof, is also to blame. There are many reasons other than
      sectarianism for Iraq's alienation from the Middle East and Arab
      nations, security being the foremost. From chiding Qatar for sending
      aid to Katrina victims but not to Iraq, to arguing with Kuwait over
      border issues, to blaming Syria for the insurgency, Iraq's fledgling
      government seems to have taken diplomatic lessons from the Bush

      Iraq's varied relationships with Middle Eastern nations will be
      immensely significant should Iraq descend further into civil war.
      For instance, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Jordan would most likely come
      to the support of Iraqi Sunnis. There are already signs that the US-
      led invasion has vexed Saudi Arabia's Sunni population. According to
      a recent study, the invasion of Iraq has radicalised previously non-
      militant Saudis, sickened by the occupation of an Arab nation by non-
      Arabs. Iran would in turn increase its already staunch support for
      the Shiites. While, Turkey would also likely be drawn in, hoping to
      prevent any Kurdish move to spill across the border in quest of
      establishing a Kurdish autonomous state.

      Moreover, Iraq's violent Shiite-Sunni discord, which was non-
      existent before the occupation, could easily spark similar strife in
      Middle East countries like Bahrain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. In such
      a worst scenario, Bush's illegal, ill conceived, myopic and naïve
      venture in Iraq would result in total chaos not just in Iraq and the
      Middle East, but the world over.

      At any rate, while Bush tries to sell the US public on more death
      and destruction in Iraq, another, older war continues in
      Afghanistan. It is a war that has, to date, claimed the lives of 230
      US soldiers and innumerable civilians. It is a so-called legal war,
      fought in a country actually tied to the attacks against the US on
      September 11, 2001. It is America's forgotten war, which again is
      gaining momentum. While the Taliban are no longer officially in
      charge of Afghanistan, they are not yet defeated either.
      Instead, a neo-Taliban insurgency has emerged that instead of
      fighting the US troops head-on has developed guerrilla tactics such
      as operating in small units, staging hit-and-run ambushes and mixing
      with the local population. More and more it appears that, as is the
      case in Iraq, the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan is content to
      slowly bleed the US. Thus, rather than having been destroyed as
      touted by the US administration, the Talibans have merely been

      The evidence suggests that Taliban's bleeding strategy is becoming
      increasingly successful. Over the year, attacks with mines and
      improvised explosive devices increased 40% and picking up from their
      brethren in Iraq, the 'suicidal bomb attacks' is another lethal
      addition to unnerve the ISAF and Afghan government forces.
      Preoccupied with the carnage being wrought in Iraq, the US warlords
      became complacent over their Afghan policy and allowed the Taliban
      to regroup. As a consequence, the US now must fight ruthless
      insurgencies on two fronts. But on a grim landscape, a single
      reality stands out clearly: not only is the US presence the main
      source of civilian casualties both in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is
      also the primary contributor to the threat of civil war in Iraq. The
      longer they wait to withdraw, the worse the situation would become
      for the occupation. There still is time for the US to change its
      state of war strategy on Iraq and Afghanistan to avoid lurking
      catastrophe. That, of course, would require real leadership, which
      the Americans are sorely lacking. "A leader who doesn't hesitate
      before he sends his nation to war is not fit to be a leader", said
      none other than Golda Meir, Israeli Prime Minister from 1969 to 1974.

      Copyright 2004-5 The Frontierpost, All rights reserved



      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.