THE QUESTION about an eventual American attack on Iraq is no longer whether, but when. US President George W. Bush has indicated that his government intends to remove Saddam Hussein, and is even prepared to go it alone if need be.
In the meantime, he is trying to build an international coalition and obtain United Nations approval for military action, though to date these efforts have met with only limited success.
However, the fact is - as the White House intimated in its recently-released national security document - nobody can stop the US. Moreover, the Bush administration seems to think nobody should. Realpolitik, possibly tinged with a bit of democracy-promoting idealism, appears to be the order of the day in Washington, DC.
The legal argument for an American-led attack on Iraq remains weak. The US has not convincingly demonstrated a connection between the Iraqi regime and al Qaida. As for the argument that Saddam is a threat to regional and possibly world stability, this may be so. But the basis in international law for a pre-emptive strike is, in the circumstances, not strong.
It would also create a dangerous precedent if the US were able to pick and choose those countries it considered a threat to global stability, and single them out for discipline.
Given the relative power imbalance at present between the US and the rest of the world, there may not be much that can now be done. But what can be done, should be done, and the world community should speak through the United Nations to register its disapproval of unilateral action.
THE OPINIONS ON THIS PAGE, EXCEPT FOR THE ABOVE, DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE GLEANER.
