LONDON: We have argued repeatedly that if any military action is to be taken against Iraq, with all the awesome consequences that might entail, it is of paramount importance that such action has international legitimacy. It must also have national legitimacy.

In a robust democracy we should welcome, not regret, the fact that such debates often divide not just political parties, but families and workplaces too. Last week, we saw one of the most remarkable and incisive debates held in the UK’s House of Commons for decades. It was arguably a more gripping, and less predictable, event than the debate following the Suez incursion.

Reports from Washington suggest that even President Bush is now mindful of the Commons vote, and is making every effort to secure a majority on the Security Council for such a resolution.

This is proving a dirty business. American security service agents are being deployed to spy on key countries to ‘give US policy-makers an edge in obtaining results favourable to US goals or head off surprises’. And not just this. Countries are also being nakedly bribed for their votes. The aim is to isolate France and its opposition to military action.

Some will regard this as so ignoble that it devalues the whole process. However, President Chirac’s indication to EU applicant countries that their attitude to the war might affect their chances of successfully joining the EU was only the same process — but to serve the opposing cause. The truth is that there will always be power games and dirty tricks in world affairs.

However, the UN, for all its faults, remains the best framework for international co-operation. As the world struggles to evaluate whether and when action might be taken against Iraq, the Security Council’s responsibility is to enforce its settled will that Iraq disarm. If a majority votes for a resolution which authorizes military action, it must be accepted that assent is given.—Dawn/The Guardian News Service.