Iraq war should not come through muscle-flexing 

The New Year has seen no ebb in the turbulence of the state of affairs in the Middle East. The war drums appear to be sounding louder for a war against Iraq and stock market analysts predict that a quick war would boost oil stocks. However absent from their evaluation is the health of the Iraqi people, already in disastrous shape as a result of the 1991 bombardment and over a decade of sanctions, which have claimed more than 1 million Iraqi lives. 

A report issued last year by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985, predicts that as many as 260,000 Iraqis would be killed in the first three months of any such war and occupation. They predict post-war health effects could claim at least another 200,000 lives. The Iraqis would also face famine in some parts of the country and an escalation to full-blown war will prevent food supplies from getting to those who need it most.

The domestic cost of a U.S. war and occupation of Iraq is projected as high as $100 billion. Monies spent on such a war are funds that are not being spent on desperately needed affordable housing, child care, environmental cleanup and other social services. One hopes that anyone hoping to make a fast buck from stock market opportunities do not put moral issues aside and reflect on the tragic human cost that is always war's "dividend."  

Here in Canada it was interesting to see the results of two polls, one an American one of 38,000 people by the Washington based Pew centre in 44 nations and another Canadian one by the Toronto Star newspaper, both showing that the world does not resent American values but are uncomfortable with a foreign policy that is increasingly becoming unilateralist and interventionist.  

The initial outpouring of sympathy for America following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks appears to be dissipating and though there may be support from traditional allies, they too are becoming increasingly critical of the planned war on Iraq. They agree that changes are required in Iraq but want rules to prevail. The polls show that more than a third of Canadians consider this muscle-flexing interventionist approach a greater danger to the world than Saddam or Iraq. 

Majorities in France, Germany and Russia, plus a near majority in Britain, according to a follow-up Pew poll in six friendly nations, do not believe that even America believes that Saddam poses a threat. They think the war is about getting at Iraqi oil. The French, Germans and Russians see the Israeli-Palestinian dispute as a bigger threat to stability in the Middle East than Saddam.  

The U.N. weapons inspection system has so far not come up with any evidence that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction and has invited evidence from any country that proves the contrary such as satellite photographs and/or testimony of defectors purportedly showing Iraq in breach of the U.N. resolution. One expects increasing pressure on the inspectors to take Iraqi scientists out of the country to testify against Saddam though Hans Blix, the chief inspector and his colleagues have let it be known that they work for only the U.N saying, "We are in nobody's pocket."  

Similarly Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said: "When the U.N. decides to act it must do so on indisputable grounds. Otherwise, it will lose support."  The war drums may be sounding but public opinion is clearly against pre-matured assumptions and even the Pope in his New Year message has called for peaceful solutions to worldly problems. This request, in the name of God, has been promulgated by religious leaders around the world. 

To give credibility to the war on terrorism, there has to be a rational and humanitarian approach and diplomacy needs to prevail as is the case with North Korea. Ironically the more muscle-flexing there is, the more will be the death toll of innocent civilians and the more will there be destruction of the earth’s resources. This would breed further hatred and encourage even more terrorism because terrorists would have more reasons to support their hate campaign.