PRESIDENT Bush’s 48-hour ultimatum to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to go into exile or face war has expired and the juggernaut of a most formidable military force is already on the move. The US president had his mind set on starting the war against Iraq for the past several months, on the pretext of disarming it and toppling its regime.

It was evident from his persistent refusal to get an endorsement of his plans by the United Nations that he would unleash his war whether the world community went along with it or not. The demand by the other world leaders that before embarking on a war against Iraq the US should secure specific sanction from the UN Security Council was dismissed by Washington almost with contempt.

French President Jacques Chirac was blunt in saying that if the US went ahead with its war plans, “it’s the stability of the world that President Bush was endangering” placing in jeopardy the norms of international relations.

Following a summit meeting of the US president with British and Spanish leaders in Azores last Sunday, the US secretary of state made the chilling announcement that the window of diplomacy had been closed shut. President Bush then held out his ultimatum to the Iraqi president in an address to the world community. If he had any knowledge and understanding of the mental make-up of Middle Eastern leaders, he would have certainly known that the ultimatum would go unheeded.

The juggernaut of the US-sponsored military force is already on the move with full-scale invasion starting any time. Mr Bush would have his war, no matter what happens. No matter if practically the entire world community does not want the US to unleash a war without UN sanction. No matter if by his ill-advised, unilaterist move President Bush has already struck a body blow to the very foundation of the United Nations and the unity of the European nations, once his close allies. No matter that (if the American journal Newsweek is accurate in its assessment) the US president has brought almost everyone in the world round to hating America. Now that the war machine is in full steam, there is hardly anything that can halt it or make it slow down, regardless of how much death and destruction it causes.

It is obvious that the world will not be the same again after President Bush has launched his war. It has been truly said that if the architects of the post-World War II order exulted in the thought, as the American statesman Dean Acheson put it, that they were “present at the creation”, the present generation of Americans and countless others elsewhere in the world will for ever be haunted by the nightmare that they were present at the destruction of the same post-World War Ii order.

Defeating Iraq will be easy, but the isolation, mistrust and hatred worldwide that America will incur through its wholly unjustified military offensive against Iraq is bound to prove a daunting problem to overcome.

The force assembled by President Bush for the assault on Iraq is most formidable by all standards: at least 300,000 ground troops supported by an armada of aircraft carriers, deadliest of bombers, weapons with inestimable potential. As against this, Iraq is weaker by far in all respects than it was in 1991 when the US took on it militarily for its invasion of Kuwait.

Originally, it appears, the US planned to fight the war on two fronts; from its bases in Kuwait in the south and from the Turkish bases in the north. However, Turkish parliament recently turned down a proposal for allowing the use of the country’s bases for stationing American forces (prompting Washington to withdraw its offer about $ 26 billion in aid and loans).

Commentators appearing on the western TV channels the other day said that with this in view Iraq has massed its three divisions, including an armoured division, in the south-eastern sector of the country. They will face the initial thrust of the ground assault. However, American intelligence believes that Saddam Hussein’s army consists of some 300,000 “demoralized, frightened conscripts” who cannot be expected to put up much of a resistance. The Iraqis may first attempt to take the fight into Kuwait, but perhaps without much success, or try to slow down the progress of the US-led forces as long as they can.

The American forces and their allies will doubtless preface the war with intense bombing of Iraq by some 3,000 of their high-precision bombers. This will cause incalculable loss of life and destruction of property and installations.

The Newsweek has expressed the view that American warplanes and cruise missiles will try to kill Saddam Hussein on “the first night (of attack) and every day and night thereafter.” However, “moving from bunker to bunker and using doubles, he may escape.” According to the journal, this could go on for weeks and, if Saddam Hussein can slip out of Baghdad, and go underground, the hunt (for him) could then go on for months.

When the dust of the war finally settles, the prospect that President Bush is likely to face would be daunting. He would have, conceivably, deposed a despotic ruler and also destroyed some of his stocks of weapons of mass destruction, if there are any, even though the UN inspectors have not been able to discover any such ‘prohibited’ weapons or material after several weeks of inspection of every suspected site, including presidential palaces and bottling plants. But, if the American strategy in Iraq is similar to what it has been in Afghanistan so far, the Americans would have inflicted irreparable damage on some of the oldest surviving treasures of human civilization. Iraq possesses some magnificant remains of a succession of great civilizations.

Iraq is home to some of the holiest shrines of the Muslims. Their likely destruction would almost certainly leave a scar on the psyche of the Muslim people everywhere in the world. This may never heal. President Bush’s mindless adventure will also create an unbridgeable gulf between the Muslims and the West, particularly if Israel, taking advantage of the opportunity, annexes the Palestinian territories, in a bid to settle Palestinian problem in its own way. It will also create an extremely difficult environment for the survival of many of the Muslim regimes which have otherwise maintained close economic and strategic ties with Washington.

It is chilling to visualize how the tremors set off by the impending war will rock the whole region, both politically and emotionally, with regimes after regimes being thrown out for their pusillanimity or covert partisan role in support of America and a state of lawlessness, anarchy and violence speeding all across the Arab and Muslim countries. This is hardly the scenario that is compatible with George Bush’s promise of transforming the Middle East through democracy and liberalism.

THERE is no use bemoaning the aggregate failures or half-successes of Pakistan’s external policies in retrospect. But it has always been quite a struggle for this country to survive whenever it has been caught up in a critical swirl of events in world politics.

Now once again we find ourselves faced with an Iraq situation which of course, is not one of our making, but it is pregnant with all sorts of dangers and repercussions for us. The Middle East is not only of historical interest to Pakistan. We are contemporaneously very much affected by any developments in that region with which we have affinities of religion, culture and history. By virtue of our geopolitical location, we find ourselves simultaneously in the Middle East and South Asia.

Not being a big or prosperous country in international economic terms, it makes it all the more difficult for us to fend for ourselves in a merciless world. The fact of the matter is that Iraq is not very far away from us in terms of time or physical distance. No matter whose turn comes first, right now the people of this country are very seriously agitated over the real possibilities of the fallout of the Iraq crisis coming in our direction. There is an old saying in our culture that the voice of the people always proves right because it is the voice of Allah. In our country even though the vast majority of our people are uneducated, their instincts are far better than those of the elite classes.

In the 1940s when we had all sorts of British government servants and an equally large number of religious scholars with Indian National Congress propensities, it was the Muslim masses voted en masse for the All-India Muslim League taking it to the centre of power in New Delhi. With that sort of historical background what have our elite classes to be proud of.

All that we have done since independence is to be on retreat in one form or the other. We have never really trusted our people. We have invariably treated them with all sorts of disdain. Quislings and foreign agents have abounded in one form or the other in our midst. Gimmicks and trickery have been the order of the day. Side issues have been glorified and substantive ones have been swept under the carpet or pushed into the background.

Instead of effectively pushing for an egalitarian society there has been all this noisy talk about Islamicizing a society which is already more than 90 per cent Muslim. The whole process of conducting the business of the nation has been reduced to something of a cruel joke. Now after more than 50 years of life as an independent nation, we are being asked to be more appropriate in the direction of secularism which was a ready-made option available to each one of us in 1947 in the British dispensation in what was then undivided India.

But now coming back to Iraq, what do we expect from this crisis? We have indeed been on this ‘joy ride’ once before too. In the 1990s Bush Sr decided to preserve the Middle East status quo ante designed by the infamous Lawrence of Arabia by going to the rescue of the city-state called Kuwait. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was in a sense consequential to the then US ambassador in Baghdad having initially encouraged Saddam Hussein to march into Kuwait and annex it and make it a part of Iraq.

So every time today’s sole superpower is in need of a crisis for its longer-term objectives, we are in the habit of lining up behind the US without even batting an eye-lid or seriously considering the implications and consequences. Tony Blair is being criticized for his ‘more Bush than Bush’ posturing by his own people and his New Labour Party but we are expecting toffees and cakes of financial rewards to fall to our share for being the camp follower yet again.

There is no consultation with parliament in an open debate on issues at stake. Our universities are hardly ever asked to provide any inputs for them to offer in the making of important policies. There are no independent think-tanks in place in the country. All that are there are some hyperactive television channels that are either state-owned or state-orchestrated. But they too have only the old agency hacks offering cliched advice and guidance in the nature of pre-set programmes.

Ever since the 1950s when we got into Cento and Seato we in effect have handed over our defence forces to the US Central Command. Gaining freedom from the British was indeed a short process of striving. Those of us who were born during the times of the British Empire found in the mid-fifties that we were back to square one. From an old fading empire we moved into the hegemony of a new and rising empire casting its long shadows over the emerging New World.

In time we gained a new experience in that some of our people became external surrogates. The white man was no longer around but his presence was nevertheless unmistakable though somewhat disguised in the form of the multinationals, the Bretton Woods institutions which had all but replaced the British Empire. The substance was the same but the window-dressings were different and bewitching. Our key officials now had to be nominees of someone or some institution but who at the same time had to be masterful pretenders of upholding the national interest and the nation’s integrity.

That is why there is this discordance and confusion in our country because we are unable to break loose of past memories and reconcile ourselves to the stark realities of today. The British taught us their values for nearly a hundred years but then left us in the lurch when the crunch came in the post World War II period when decolonization could no longer be resisted. In the Third World a new breed of functionaries had came up to take charge and set the pace. Many of them do not have the experience and orientation needed to cope with the complexities of the momentum of the economic globalisation process or of a unipolar world order.

So while we are approaching the enormity which is symptomatic of the Iraq crisis, we find ourselves quite ill-prepared to face the consequences that may follow. The worst aspect is that there is no serious public debate going on as to the burning issues that we are confronted with both internally and externally.

In the absence of any enlightening debate, we are being treated to naive and superficial ideas such as: 1) since we are Muslims we must necessarily side with every Muslim country in its hour of peril; 2) since we are always in need of aid and soft loans for making strides towards economic progress and for poverty alleviation in the rural areas, we have no option but to toe the Anglo-American line whatever the other implications and consequences.

So where do we end up as a consequence of the sum total of our naivete coupled with our compulsions? In effect we end up concluding that there is only one way to tide the current crisis, which is that one crisis should be handled at a time. When that crisis has passed we will be ready for the next one. What is really called for is positive leadership and not tentative shots which in cricket terms means playing half-cock shots and getting bowled out or getting caught in the process.

PRIME Minister Zafarullah Jamali’s speech on radio and television the other day on the impending war in Iraq was regarded by some as disappointing because of its lack of clarity. But that seemed to be the best option under the circumstances.

However, with America and Britain deciding on Monday to go ahead with their war plans without the UN authorization, the need for ambiguity about which way to vote is no longer there. In the new context, Pakistan should strictly adhere to its support for a peaceful resolution of the crisis. That would keep in the mainstream of world opinion which sees no reason or justification for war, especially in view of the positive results being obtained in disarming Iraq of lethal weapons through a combination of pressure and diplomacy.

It is no secret any more that the real motive behind Iraq war is not the destruction of weapons of mass destruction, or a regime change or the liberation of the Iraqis from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein as America claims, but the control and domination of the region. This is made amply clear by the shifting of demands and conditions by the US-UK coalition from Iraq on the one hand and the UN inspectors on the spot reporting compliance by the Iraqi regime on the other.

There is no doubt that the other permanent members of the Security Council have seen through the hidden agenda behind the war threats and hence their stout resistance to the idea of invasion of Iraq. It also explains their threat to use their veto power to block any such action under the UN authority. Perhaps the time has now come when the dominance of the so-called sole superpower can be challenged and contained.

It is not a misdirected optimism but a distinct possibility that may materialize. Mammoth public rallies in over six hundred cities across the globe have spoken loud and clear and articulated what the people the world Over want. To meet the common aspiration of the people for peace and sanity, the combined might of Russia, China, France and Germany can be a source of strength and sustenance. The early signs of the emergence of this combined power can be seen on the horizon. A coalition of forces such as this can alone hold the trio of arrogance — the US, the UK and Israel — in check and prevent it from playing havoc with international law, morality, balance and norms of responsible conduct.

In view of the emerging new scenario, it would be a pity if Pakistan were to lose its rightful place in the comity of nations; when the emerging world order takes shape. It can and should play a significant role as an important member of the Euro-Asian coalition. Pakistan’s importance in that context flows from: a) its status as a nuclear power; b) it is a moderate modern Muslim country, which can have a sobering influence on the Muslim world; and c) its geostrategic position is of enormous importance to a broader Euro-Asian alliance.

To find its rightful place in a new Euro-Asian coalition it would be good to be an active partner right from the beginning. Pakistan is lucky in holding a key position in the Security Council when its voice on crucial regional and international issues can be heard.

Hence, Pakistan should now more actively seek the friendship of Russia, France and Germany, as part of the formation of a broader kind of informal alliance on the basis of common interests and shared values. The suspense and speculation about voting on the controversial second resolution may have abated for the present but such moments of decision may arise at any time as the Iraq crisis simmers on. In any case, Pakistan must remain unwaveringly opposed to war against Iraq, especially whom diplomacy has not yet exhausted its potential for bringing a peaceful end to the crisis.

However, should the need arise once again in the Security Council to choose between war and peace in the context of Iraq, it is important for Pakistan to be discreet. It must not show its hand until the votes are actually cast, and if there is no voting, it should stick to its stand of supporting a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

It may be argued that openly opposing American position war will bring the wrath of that country on us. It is partly true but can be dealt with vision and wisdom. It will need intensive diplomacy to explain that we are still working for the American cause in fighting terrorism, but siding the Iraq war is not in our national interest.

America will definitely be annoyed by a negative vote from Pakistan and would no doubt make no secret about it. But our friendship and favour is vital to it when seen in the context of world terrorism, especially in respect of Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The war in Afghanistan is not yet over. America badly needs Pakistan’s help in Afghanistan to round up the terrorists, and for a long time.

We should also not disregard altogether the possibility of a prolonged war in Iraq — say, spreading over weeks and months and not days as Americans would want it. In such an eventuality there are strong chances of overthrow of present governments in the Muslim countries, which enjoy support and blessings of America. Any government formed in a Muslim country with popular support will never be friendly with a country that has sided with the aggressor.

Now that we have an elected government in place, the sentiments and aspirations of our people must not be ignored. There cannot be two opinions about a very strong backlash from the people all over the country should we be seen to be supporting, covertly or overtly, the war against Iraq. We need to ponder whether our social and economic systems, already in such bad shape, would be able to stand any further disruption.