EDITORIAL

Lessons Of War

The mind-picture of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe seated in front of his wide-screen television at Temple Trees, chewing his fingernails to the bone at the news of war breaking out in Iraq last Thursday morning, is a touching one. His worries transcend mere oil prices, returning housemaids and the global business uncertainty that a major war brings: they centre on what comes after war - massive doses of foreign aid. Wickremesinghe no doubt hopes for a long war: one that would keep bullets and bombs in the air well after June, when he is due to meet Sri Lanka's aid benefactors in Japan at a crucial pledging conference.

From being the donors' darling right now, the prospect of Sri Lanka being relegated to runner-up to Iraq in the begging-bowl relay in June, must give the Prime Minister very cold feet indeed. There's only so much money that the planet's better heeled nations dole out to their impoverished cousins each year. It now seems we will have to share our cake with Iraq: the race to be seen offering bags of largesse will be far sexier to the anti-war citizens of Europe and Japan, than to send some cash in our direction. After all, as far as the world is concerned, the Sri Lankan problem has been solved, hasn't it? No bombs, massacres or assassinations for the whole 15 months.

The skill of Sri Lanka's government and its diplomatic service will be measured by their ability to keep the donors from shifting their focus, which - let's face it - they do at the drop of a hat. Last year, Afghanistan was the donors' darling: people were falling over each other to shove money in Afghan hands (indeed, there was a similar pledging conference in Japan for them, too). The Afghans however, proved that they had no ability whatsoever to spend money wisely, and as inefficiency, waste and corruption took root, the donors' attention quickly wandered to Sri Lanka. Now we risk that attention wandering once more to Iraq, closing a unique window of opportunity. There can be no doubt that Wickremesinghe is thinking dark thoughts about George Bush for going to war now and not in July.

Apart from these sorry implications, there are lessons to be learned from the events that led to the outbreak of war last week. Iraq has traditionally been one of Sri Lanka's most valued trading partners. Iraqis love Ceylon tea, and we love cheap Iraqi oil and fertiliser. Saddam has been a friend to sunny Sri Lanka in good times and bad. However, Saddam is a tyrant and a monster, and he must go.

It often happens that we in the Third World cheer the underdog even when he is wrong. Remember Sepala Ekanayake, who hijacked an Alitalia plane? He was welcomed to Sri Lanka by cheering crowds and drove in triumph to Colombo on decorated streets. Likewise, the prospect of big-brother US bullying poor Saddam into submission is irksome to many of us. Nevertheless, it was Saddam who invaded Kuwait, set the oil wells on fire and has in the decade that has passed, never thought it fit to apologise. He has not paid for this crime: the Iraqi people have.

Saddam Hussein has consistently violated United Nations resolutions: 17 of them, to be precise, and all 17 are supposed to be mandatory. The first was Resolution 687, which specified the conditions for the ceasefire that concluded the Gulf War of 1991. Now we are at Resolution 1441, which alone is sufficient to show what a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since his defiance of world order began in earnest in 1991. And it was the defiance of a loser, not a winner. What 1441 did was to give him one last chance to comply with the conditions of the preceding 16 resolutions: he deliberately and purposefully did not. It is not relevant therefore, whether weapons of mass destruction (WMDs, as they are coming to be known) exist in Iraq or not. What is relevant is that Saddam Hussein is a murderous tyrant who has committed genocide against his own people and is a danger to the world: he must go.

One hears the argument that by removing Saddam the West will aggravate the Arabs. In doing so however, it isn't any more likely that the Arabs will be aggravated than Tamils (including those of Tamil Nadu) would have been annoyed had the West taken out Prabhakaran. Neither is it likely that the Muslim world as a whole will be upset: after all, where was the Muslim world when Saddam slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Kurds, who were themselves Muslims? Or were those harmless goatherds the children of another god - not Allah's? The UN's own conservative estimate of the number of people killed by Saddam is 700,000 - more than 10 times the estimated number who died from violence in Sri Lanka between 1983 and 2001.

The fact is that every Arab government secretly welcomes the ouster of Saddam, who is a threat to them all. They can't say so too loudly however, because that will turn Islamic fundamentalists against them: that is the one thing they all fear. In stating that they aim to bring democracy to Iraq however, Tony Blair and George Bush are shooting themselves in the foot. There is nothing more frightening to the governments of the Arab world than that dreaded idea: democracy. There isn't a single democracy anywhere in the Arab world. They are autocratic dictatorships, every one of them, and the only representative parliamentary democracy in the Middle East remains Israel.

Sadly then, the Arab governments, guilty to a man of human rights abuse, are themselves mute, happy to stand idly by and let the Americans and the British do their dirty work for them. Amongst all the conscientious objectors to the US attack on Iraq is not a single Arab nation, not even the usually outspoken Gadaffi of Libya and Asad of Syria - themselves military dictators akin to Saddam.

We have also to face up to the fact that all three major dissenting countries have their own agendas. Russia and China naturally do not want to see the US  take on a role as the world's policeman, underlining the fact that it is now the sole superpower. France has traditionally shown that it is the one friend the Arabs have in the West, and its dissent is to be expected. It must be remembered that when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991, the whole world was agreed that the aggressor should withdraw unconditionally or be evicted by force. Only France demurred: the French held out for a phased withdrawal, which they claimed would save face for Saddam. Such delicacy in dealing with bloody tyrants should have no place in an enlightened world order.

Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that Blair and Bush's handling of the diplomatic processes leading up to the war was far from ideal. They should have done much more to carry NATO and the EU with them, even if not Russia and China (both of whom, while voicing token dissent, did not go as far as France did, by threatening a veto). Having given leadership to popular defiance of the British and the Americans, Jacques Chirac has been compared in the French media to Charles de Gaulle, playing no end on his ego. Chirac is now the hero of the developing world, which sees the British-American axis as a bunch of bullies. The diplomatic cost of Saddam's ouster is extremely high, and it is the innocents who will suffer most: not least Turkey, whose chances of joining the EU next year are now gravely imperilled.

American credibility can come only from its pushing Israel into a just, negotiated settlement with the Palestinians, installing a UN peacekeeping force in the region if need be. Bludgeoning Saddam into submission while giving Israel a free hand to settle on Palestinian lands and deprive Palestinians of the right of nationhood is an act of supreme hypocrisy. And for a meaningful settlement of the 'Middle-East Question,' both France and the UN are indispensable. Fences need to be mended, and right quickly, too.

Even as the war progresses then, the world would do well to start thinking seriously about how relevant the permanent membership of the UN Security Council is in the world order that has emerged since 1945. It may be time to give the EU and Japan seats as permanent members, and with it the right of veto, recognising the change the world has undergone since the Big Five were decided after World War II. Only new attitudes and more democracy at the highest level of world governance will give rise to a truly enlightened new international order: if ever there was a millennium challenge, then this  challenge is that challenge.