Use of Force May Go Awry

Home>>Opinion

Last updated at: (Beijing Time) Wednesday, February 26, 2003

Use of Force May Go Awry

War clouds over Iraq are becoming heavier despite worldwide massive protests as the United States presses ahead to disarm Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein's administration by force.

DISCUSSION

CHINESE

SEND TO FRIEND

War clouds over Iraq are becoming heavier despite worldwide massive protests as the United States presses ahead to disarm Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein's administration by force.

However, a war against Iraq without legitimate authorization could bring about huge negative impacts well beyond the trigger-pullers' anticipation, Chinese experts warned.

Fu Mengzi, a research fellow with the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, said: "(US President George W.) Bush vowed to bring peace and security to the people of the US and the world, but the impending war against Iraq would possibly run counter to his original wishes."

On the surface, the warmongers have so far claimed, a war against Iraq is necessary to counter terrorism and stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

However, terrorism cannot be so easily eliminated through mere war, especially without getting rid of its root causes, Fu said.

A bigger concern for Chinese experts, and the international community as a whole, is the lack of substantiated proof of Iraq's alleged links with international terrorist outfits. The so-called evidence Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair had tirelessly trumpeted turned out to be flimsy at the very best.

The US-British warmongering has already drawn worldwide suspicion to their motives and hidden agenda.

Wang Yizhou, a research fellow with the Institute of World Economics and Politics under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, noted, the international community, including some major allies of the United States, have already become sceptical about Washington's anti-terrorism pretext.

Uncle Sam's stubborn unilateralist stance has already reduced the level of sympathy the international community has shown to it in the wake of the September 11 incident of 2001.

There has already been signs that the hard-won international anti-terrorism alliance is in danger of splitting due to the differences inside the coalition in respective interests, he wrote in the People's Daily. Even within the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), there have emerged different voices on the Iraqi issue.

Opposition from France, Germany and Russia to the US-British eagerness to resort to force reveals their concern about Washington's rising unilateralist inclination and its threat to world order.

An unjustified war could only deepen the suspicion and brew hatred against the United States in victim countries. Such an aggression itself may provide soil for terrorism.

Ye Zicheng, a professor with Peking University's School of International Studies, said "the fundamental cause of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the US is largely related to its biased policy towards the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian conflicts."

"Fearing similar military attacks by the United States, the weaker would be more eager to scramble for advanced weapons, thus leading to further proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," Ye said.

This will inevitably stimulate other countries to pursue weapons development for self-defence. Ironically, this is surely not in the interests of the United States itself.

Much worse, according to Ye, the war may be regarded as a challenge to the Muslim civilization.

An unjustified war would whip up the already strong anti-US sentiments among the Muslim world, which could possibly make true the "clash of civilizations," predicted by American scholar Samuel P. Huntington earlier in the 1990s in the wake of the Cold War, said Ye.

French President Jacques Chirac had appropriately admonished that an illegitimate war against Iraq might produce more "little bin Ladens."

"The Iraqi war, which is of no relevance to the security of US homeland, would stimulate the rise of terrorism rather than weakening the international terrorist forces, thus threatening its homeland security," said Li Guofu, a researcher with the China Institute of International Studies.

A new war will also yield negative impacts upon the already volatile Middle East situation.

Wang Yizhou said: "The connection between the Iraqi issue and the long-standing Middle East issue should not be neglected."

Escalation of the US-Iraqi stand-off could push the United States to the opposite side of the whole Arab world, which will seriously affect the fragile Middle East peace process, said Wang.

It may be easy for the United States to defeat Iraq militarily. But it is by no means an easy job to rebuild a post-Saddam Iraq into a stable country considering complicated factors inside and outside the country.

In fact, the White House has already realized that it is difficult to find a new political force capable of replacing Saddam. An unstable regime in a post-Saddam Iraq may bring more chaos than stability to the region.

In the absence of any confirmed "substantial breach" of UN Resolution 1441 by Iraq as well as subsequent UN authorization, waging war against Iraq will not only damage the international rule of law, but also undermine the political framework of the current international security arrangement.

Tao Wenzhao, deputy director of the Institute of American Studies under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, believes unilateralism will undoubtedly increase in the United States, driven by an overwhelming military triumph in Iraq.

A swift victory in Iraq might encourage Washington's inclination to apply its "pre-emptive attack" strategy in disregard of international decency.

Moreover, as Fu Mengzi warned, some countries would follow the precedent set by the United States, thus bringing about an anarchical international society.

Yan Xuetong, director of Tsinghua University's Institute of International Studies, said: " A possible US war against Iraq without legitimate authorization and backing of other major powers would damage the co-ordinative mechanism established in the post-Cold War era."

The present disagreement over Iraq has been the first significant conflict between the United States and other major Western countries on important international issues.

There is little doubt about Washington's ability to win a war against Baghdad. But military might is not the only yardstick for measuring the result of a war.

A war might mean a multiple win for the Bush administration - the leadership change it covets, depriving Iraq of the alleged weapons of mass destruction, and control of its petroleum resources.

The corresponding losses and risks, on the other hand, might outweigh all those gains.

Analysts said the moral loophole alone may seriously cripple US leadership in the world community.

Questions?Comments? Click here

America's Initiative and Passivity: Analysis

>> Full Coverage

Which Country, China or Japan, Does Russian Oil Pipeline Lead to? ( 3 Messages)

Chinese Fast Food Chains Battle Foreign Competitors ( 4 Messages)

Chinese Commemorate Dead Soviet Pilots ( 3 Messages)

China-ASEAN Economic Cooperation Upgraded ( 2 Messages)

Japan Strives to be Major World Power: Analysis ( 7 Messages)