The Cold War was any day better. It gave us peace for 60 years. Communist and non-communist blocs growled at each other. They barked but never bit. They did not stray beyond the line they had drawn between themselves. What kept the two sides within their pen was their healthy respect for the opponent’s capability to retaliate.The end of the Cold War or, for that matter, the break-up of the Soviet Union not only ended the delicately poised international balance, it also left USA all powerful and without any challenge. A multi-polar world became unipolar.The situation provided Washington the best of opportunities to cast off dictatorships for which it had worked and to build up democracies in favour of which it had preached. It could have meant an era where the big and the small, the strong and the weak, could have felt the glow of freedom and fraternity.The passage of time has, however, shown that America’s sights were limited to demolishing the communist world, not so much for ideological reasons as for personal aggrandisement. Washington has not risen to the standards it was expected to attain. The talk of democracy has turned out to be only the means to remove the opposition, not to achieve the end of having a completely free world. One is the God that failed. The other has become the God itself.It is wrong to assume that the attack by terrorists in New York and Washington in September 2001 hardened America’s tone and tenor. It was already acting as a tough and self-righteous country. The attack gave it a justification to suppress dissent, opposition or what it did not like in any part of the world. Increasingly, the US was seen trying to cure the symptom—terrorism—and not the disease— the grievance. Through economic, political and social ties it could have made nations more independent and more viable. But it was no do-gooder. It wanted the different countries to realise that America — and America alone — counted in the world.Never did one suspect that in its battle for supremacy, the US would one day supplant the United Nations itself. Whether other nations, including ‘his master’s voice’ Britain, would allow Washington to ‘reform’ the body is in the realm of conjecture. But America has struck the first blow, going to war without the backing of the international community. Sensing an opposition in the Security Council, not expecting to get even the majority of non-veto members on its side, America took law into its own hands. It became the ‘arbiter’ and, without any UN sanction, decided to attack Iraq.One does not have to go back to the example of the League of Nations, which collapsed after Japan’s aggression. The UN can go the same way. In the full gaze of publicity, America positioned troops long before the UN inspectors gave even their preliminary report on the possession of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussain. It is apparent that President Bush had decided to intervene whatever the reports. For him, the Security Council was meant only to endorse what he or, for that matter, USA had demanded: the disarming of Iraq. If people are not too optimistic about the future of the UN it is understandable. Bush wants the US to be synonymous with the UN.Still one grey lining in the dark clouds is the transparency with regard to America’s move. Nothing is hidden from the public. There is no hedging. There is no apology. The UN has been pushed into the background in broad daylight. Both the Congress and the Senate of America and the British parliament have endorsed the war. It is not only unfortunate but revolting. The two leading democracies have laid down the rules for settling international disputes in the future: if the UN does not toe the US line, ignore the UN.There has never been any illusion about Saddam. He is a ruthless dictator who does not bother about human rights and democracy. That he has been able to bring Bush and Tony Blair to his level is not a mean achievement. Like them, he too will go down in history as a person who created confusion among his accusers and made them equally irresponsible. Could they not wait even for a month for the UN inspectors’ categorical report? Why were Bush and Blair in such a hurry? Heavens would not have fallen if they had waited for the procedure of obtaining the UN sanctions to come to an end.It is surmised that the Islamic world will be infuriated. Some Muslim leaders have the knack of giving a religious tinge to every problem concerning Muslims. The problem of war and peace affects the entire human community. The credibility as well as the durability of the UN concerns everybody, not the Muslims alone. The world has to have an order which reflects consensus, not conflict. America and Britain have thrown this dictum to the winds. They have done worse: they have thrown down the gauntlet to all the democracies in the world. It is for them to pick it up.New Delhi has done well in describing the war as ‘un-justifiable’. This is in line with what Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee has said in Parliament that any unilateral action by America would be suspect. India cannot afford to stop at that. It should mobilise countries within the NAM to throw their weight on the side of peace, along with Russia, Germany, France and China.In fact, it is difficult to discern the reasons for the lack of public protest in India. A few, small meetings have taken place to criticise America but those, too, at the prodding of activists. The fervour and passion shown by ordinary citizens in the West — they came on to the streets in hundreds of thousands —is missing. Not raising one’s voice against injustice is not the ethos of our nation.Probably, this sums up the achievement of the BJP-led government that has just completed five years in the saddle.
