|
07.01.2004
Don: Leading the world in
war requires honesty
Byline: SHAHANAAZ HABIB
KUALA LUMPUR: Any country which is about to lead the world into a war
needs to be really clear about what it is about to do and also honest
about its intention, said Swedish academic Prof Peter Wallensteen.
Touching on the recent war on Iraq, he said, a country had to “really
reflect what it thinks” as it “can’t manipulate the world in the easy way
it thinks.”
He questioned whether weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was the key
factor the United States went to war on Iraq or did they just say that to
try and get the United Nations to support the intervention that was to
take place.
“It is a serious thing if you have a leading country say something but
that it is not really what it meant,” he said, adding this could lead to
an erosion of faith in the world order and be “absolutely devastating”
for credibility.
Prof Wallensteen who is an expert in peace studies and conflict resolution pointed out that US deputy
defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz “strangely enough” said a couple months
ago that WMDs was not really a serious issue and that the United States
had used this to get support from the United Nations to remove Saddam
Hussein.
“What is striking here is that he has not been reprimanded for that
comment. He is still sitting there and exerting power.
“This expresses a lot of what the administration actually thinks,” he said
in a talk yesterday jointly organised by Star Publications (M) Bhd and
the Asian Center for Media Studies.
The topic was “What Has the Iraq War of 2003 Meant For the World
Order.”
Prof Wallensteen said the question of legitimacy over the war on Iraq
continues to haunt the world and affect humanitarian efforts in Iraq.
He compared the 2003 war on Iraq with that the one fought in 1991
following the Aug 2, 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
In 1990, he said there was global agreement it is not acceptable for a
country to invade another sovereign nation and there was “fairly strong
agreement” in the use of military force to intervene and the issue was
dealt with in the UN framework.
In contrast, he said, the United States in 2003 decide to act outside
the UN framework on Iraq and this created a disruption in the world order
and a problem for the United Nations.
“The fact that the war was started without complete agreement of the
international community meant that many countries would not regard it as
a legitimate form of intervention.
“This continues to be a problem. It is difficult for many countries
today to support humanitarian efforts in Iraq and give Iraq a chance to
recover and develop into a democracy,” he said.
With such a scenario, he said there were two challenges for the
present world order – to either bring the focus back to the UN or to let
a stronger power rule and bend the rules when it liked.
Prof Wallensteen said the former was preferable.
This was because conflicts dealt through the world body had a good
chance of being solved as seen in Congo and Sierra Leone and that the
United Nations tries to handle things in a more equal way out of
humanitarian concerns as opposed to strategic significance.
Also, the reform of the Security Council was an absolute necessity, he
said.
The world now, he believes, is in a “very unhappy state of affair”
over the recent US-led war on Iraq which made it important for reforms.
“There is a challenge here. It is the argument for strengthening or in
favour of reforming the UN system rather than abandoning it altogether,”
he said.
Prof Wallensteen however acknowledged the difficulty in reforming,
adding that the world was “constantly blocking itself” from such a move.
He pointed out how East Asia and South-east Asia generated much wealth
in the world but its impact on international bodies like the United
Nations was minimal.
China, he said, was not using its position as it could and Malaysia
too with its “very able diplomats” was not wielding its position as it
could.
|
